Chapter published in:
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 31, Bucharest
Edited by Alexandru Nicolae and Adina Dragomirescu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 355] 2021
► pp. 335356
References
Aissen, Judith
2003Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21. 435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, Joseph & Audrey Yen-Hui Li
1989Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 141–172.Google Scholar
Avram, Larisa
2014Differential object marking in Romanian: The view from acquisition. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the English Department (ACED 16), Bucharest, June 6–8.
Baker, Mark
1988Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6. 353–389. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996On the structural position of themes and goals. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 7–34. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barss, Andrew & Howard Lasnik
1986A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistics Inquiry 17. 347–335.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
2014lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version, 1(7). 1–23.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin
2001QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2). 233–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2). 287–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ciucivara, Oana
2009A syntactic analysis of pronominal clitic clusters in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra
2000Notes on the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 2(1). 91–106.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra & Alina Tigău
Manuscript. Landscaping datives. University of Bucharest.
Cornilescu, Alexandra, Anca Dinu & Alina Tigău
2017aExperimental data on Romanian double object constructions. Revue roumaine de linguistique 62(2). 157–177.Google Scholar
2017bRomanian dative configurations: Ditransitive verbs. A tentative analysis. Revue roumaine de linguistique 62(2). 179–206.Google Scholar
Cuervo, Maria Cristina
2003Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta
1995Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7(1). 5–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diaconescu, Constanţa Rodica & María Luisa Rivero
2007An applicative analysis of double object constructions in Romanian. Probus 19(2). 209–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
1995Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen
1994The syntax of Romanian. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew
1987On primary objects, secondary objects & antidative. Language 62. 808–845. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka
1987Direct and indirect object reduplication in Romanian. Chicago Linguistics Society 14. 88–97.Google Scholar
Georgala, Effi
2012Applicatives in their structural and thematic function: A minimalist account of multitransitivity. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Georgala, Effi, Waltraud Paul & John Whitman
2008Expletive and thematic applicatives. In Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 181–189. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2002Possession and the double object construction. In Pierre Pica (ed.), Linguistic variation yearbook 2002, 29–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus & Alina Tigău
2019Clitic doubling and differential object marking in non-specific contexts in Romanian. Revue roumaine de linguistique 66(4). 409–430.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1975French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2004Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4. 1–32.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K.
1988On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 335–391.Google Scholar
1990Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 589–632.Google Scholar
2010On Pylkkänen’s semantics for low applicatives. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 701–704. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
López, Luis
2012Indefinite objects. Scrambling, choice functions, and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1993Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Sam A. Mchombo (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, 113–150. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mondoñedo, Miguel Rodriguez
2007The syntax of objects: Agree and differential object marking. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Oehrle, Richard
1976The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero
. Manuscript. Agreement restrictions. University of the Basque Country & University of Alcalá de Henares 2002.Google Scholar
2007The object agreement constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(2). 315–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010The derivation of dative alternations. In Maia Duguine, Susana Huidobro & Nerea Madariaga (eds.), Argument structure and syntactic relations: A cross-linguistic perspective, 203–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012PPs without disguises: Reply to Bruening. Linguistic Inquiry 43(2). 455–474. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David
1995Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego
2007The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina
2002Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
2008Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin
2008The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44(1). 129–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Marc
2008Defective Agree, case alternations, and the prominence of person. In Marc Richards & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Scales. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, Volume 86, 137–161. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1986Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Pieter Muysken & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Features and projections, 163–232. Dordrecht: Foris Publications Holland. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tigău, Alina
2011Syntax and interpretation of the direct object in Romance and Germanic languages with an emphasis on Romanian, German, Dutch and English. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Tigău, Alina
2014The two-object construction in Romanian and German. In Ruxandra Cosma, Stefan Engelberg, Susan Schlotthauer, Speranța Stănescu & Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Komplexe Argumentstrukturen. Kontrastive Untersuchungen zum Deutschen, Rumänischen und Englischen (Konvergenz und Divergenz Series), 85–141. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tigău, Alina
2020Experimental insights into the syntax of Romanian ditransitives. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tigău, Alina & Klaus von Heusinger
Manuscript. Binding properties of ditransitive constructions in Romanian.