Chapter published in:
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2018: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 32, Utrecht
Edited by Sergio Baauw, Frank Drijkoningen and Luisa Meroni
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 357] 2021
► pp. 117130
Aissen, Judith L.
2003Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Avram, Larisa & Rodica Zafiu
2017Semantic hierarchies in the evolution of differential object marking in Romanian. In Adina Dragomirescu, Alexandru Nicolae, Camelia Stan & Rodica Zafiu (eds.), Sintaxa ca mod de a fi. Omagiu Gabrielei Pană-Dindelegan, la aniversare, 29–42. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Bárány, András
2018DOM and dative case. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1). 97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1991Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, Andrew
2005Some remarks on markedness hierarchies. A reply to Aissen (2003). Coyote Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 37–50.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra
2000Notes on the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics II (1). 91–106., file://​​/E:​/DOM​/Romanian​/236627088​-Cornilescu​-00​-Notes​-on​-Th​.pdf
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva
2011Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus & Georg Kaiser
2005The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. In Klaus von Heusinger, Georg Kaiser & Elisabeth Stark (eds), Specificity and the evolution /emergence of nominal determination systems in Romance, 33–69. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz, Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus, Udo Klein & Peter de Swart
2008Variation in differential object marking. Paper presented at Workshop on Case variation, Stuttgart, Germany, June 19–20.
von Heusinger, Klaus & Edgar Onea Gáspár
2008Triggering and blocking effects in the development of DOM in Romanian. Probus 20. 67–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia & Alexandru Mardale
2019Patterns of differential object marking in the history of Romanian. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3. 5.Google Scholar
2021. The diachrony of differential object marking in Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Irimia, Monica & Anna Pineda
2019Differential object marking and Scales: Insights from Romance diachrony. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 4. 57. 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
2008Universals constrain change: Change results in typological generalizations. In Jeff Good (ed.), Language universals and language change, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel
2003Specificity and object marking: The case of a . In Klaus von Heusinger & Georg A. Kaiser (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages. Arbeitspapier 113, 67–101. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
2008Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus 20. 33–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
López, Luis
2012Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mardale, Alexandru
2015Differential object marking in the first Romanian texts. In Virginia Hill (ed.), Formal approaches to DPs in Old Romanian, 200–246. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Næss, Ashild
2004What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 114. 1186–1212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nicula Parashiv, Irina
2016The direct object. In Gabriela Pană-Dindelegan (ed.), The syntax of Old Romanian, 123–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero
2013Differential object marking, case and agreement. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2(2). 221–239. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pană-Dindelegan, Gabriela
2016Preface. In Gabriela Pană-Dindelegan (ed.), The syntax of Old Romanian, xxiii-xxvi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Puşcariu, Sextil
1921/1922Despre pre la acuzativ. Dacoromania 2. 565–581.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc
2008Defective agree: Case Alternations, and the prominence of Person. In Marc Richards & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds.), Linguistische Arbeitsberichte ( Volume on Scales ), Volume 86, 137–161. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel
2007The syntax of objects. Agree and differential object marking. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Connecticut Storrs.Google Scholar
Roegiest, Eugeen
1979À propos de l’accusatif prépositionnel dans quelques langues romanes. Vox romanica 38. 312–334.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerard
1971Autour de l’accusatif prépositionnel dans les langues romanes. Revue de Linguistique Romaine 35. 312–327.Google Scholar
1973Panorama de l’accusatif prépositionnel en Italie. Studii și Cercetari Lingvistice 24. 617–621.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna
1997L’oggetto preposizionale in siciliano antico e in napoletano antico. Italienische Studien 18. 66–80.Google Scholar
1998Processi di convergenza nella formazione di un tipo sintattico: la genesi ibrida dell’oggetto preposizionale. ACILPR XXII 2, 419–427.Google Scholar
Stan, Camelia
2013O sintaxă diacronică a limbii române vechi. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar