References
Anagnostopoulou, Elena
2007Clitic doubling. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdjik (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 519–581. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Bárány, András
2018 dom and datives. Glossa. 3(1). 97.1–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana
2005Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus 17 (1): 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017(Past) participle agreement. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1991Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel
2009The nanosyntax of case. Tromsø, Norway: University of Tromsø dissertation. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/000956
Cornilescu, Alexandra
2000Notes on the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 1(2). 91–106.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Ian Roberts
2010Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: Split-auxiliary selection and the null subject parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28(1). 41–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen
1994The syntax of Romanian. Comparative studies in Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29 (3). 399–437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harðarson, Gísli Rúnar
2016A case for a Weak Case contiguity hypothesis: A reply to Caha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34. 1329–1343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio
2011Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. Pavia, Italy: University of Pavia dissertation.
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina
2020Types of structural objects. Some remarks on differential object marking in Romanian. In András Bárány & Laura Kalin (eds.), Case, agreement, and their interactions: New perspectives on Differential Object Marking. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina & Anna Pineda
2019Differential objects and datives: A homogeneous class? In Monica Alexandrina Irimia & Anna Pineda (eds.), Lingvisticae Investigationes – Special issues on Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class? 42 (1), 1–6. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo
1982Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jones, Michael Allan
1993Sardinian syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kalin, Laura
2018Licensing and differential object marking: The view from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax 21(2). 112–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keine, Stefan
2010Case and agreement from fringe to core: A minimalist approach. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keine, Stefan & Gereon Müller
2008Differential argument encoding by impoverishment. In Marc Richards & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds.), Scales 83–136. Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86. Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo & Etsuko Kaburaki
1977Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8(4). 627–672. https://​www​.jstor​.org​/stable​/4178011​?seq​=1#page​_scan​_tab​_contents
Ledgway, Adam
2000A comparative syntax of the dialects of southern Italy: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
López, Luis
2012Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele
2010The logic of past participle agreement. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), Syntactic variation: the dialects of Italy, 225–243. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Ludovico Franco
2016Goal and dom datives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34(1). 197–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019‘Agreement of structural obliques’ parameter. In Monica Alexandrina Irimia & Anna Pineda (eds.), Lingvisticae Investigationes, Special issues on Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class 42(1), 82–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia
2005I dialetti italiani e romanci: Morfosintassi generativa. 3 volumes. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Mardale, Alexandru
2008Microvariation within Differential Object Marking. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 53(4). 448–467.Google Scholar
Martín, Juan
2005Aspectual quantization and [±] accusative case checking in Romance. In Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken & Haike Jacobs (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003, 177–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier and Juan Romero
2013Differential object marking: case and agreement. Borealis: an International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2.2:221–239. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pancheva, Roumyana & María Luisa Zubizarreta
2018The Person Case Constraint. The syntactic encoding of perspective. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36(4). 1291–1337. https://​link​.springer​.com​/article​/10​.1007%2Fs11049​-017​-9395​-7
Rodrîguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel
2007The syntax of objects. Agree and differential object marking. Mansfield, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Săvescu Ciucivara, Oana
2009A syntactic analysis of pronominal clitic clusters in Romance: The view from Romanian. New York City, NY: New York University dissertation.
Starke, Michal
2017Resolving dat=acc (≠ gen). Glossa 2(1). 104. 1–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tigău, Alina M.
2011Syntax and interpretation of the direct object in Romance and Germanic languages with an emphasis on Romanian, German, Dutch and English. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii Bucureşti.Google Scholar