Cover not available
Part of
Differential Object Marking in Romance: Towards microvariation
Edited by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Alexandru Mardale
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 280] 2023
► pp. 232–252

The dative/accusative alternations in Old Romanian

| University of New Brunswick
| INaLCO Paris & SeDyL UMR 8202 CNRS
This paper contrasts the dative/accusative alternations in Romance languages with Romanian: In Romance, this alternation mediates the emergence of a DOM particle for direct objects, in addition to the preservation of the same particle with the indirect object (morphological extension). The case assigning property of this particle is paramount in both contexts. On the other hand, in Romanian, the dative/accusative alternation ends up with the complete substitution of one syntactic pattern by the other in the same position; e.g., dative inflected direct objects of Old Romanian (theme/patient theta-role) are substituted by accusatives with or without DOM in Modern Romanian. The change concerns the general option for analytical versus synthetic case in the grammar, irrespective of DOM. This contrast confirms the conclusions of previous studies that the development of DOM in Romanian involves different morpho-syntactic patterns than those proposed for Romance languages (e.g., Spanish), especially with respect to the origin and function of the DOM particle and the pairing of case marking on DP and the theta-roles they spell out.
Keywords: dative inflection, accusative case, DOM particle, Romanian DOM
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methodology
  • 3.The verbs
  • 4.Indirect objects
    • 4.1Implementation
    • 4.2Structure
  • 5.Adjuncts
  • 6.Direct objects
  • 7.Summary and conclusions
  • Notes
  • List of texts
  • References
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.280.09hil
References (40)
List of texts
CEv Puşcariu, Sextil & Procopovici, Alexie (eds). 1914. Carte cu învăţătură (1581). Bucureşti: Atelierele Grafice Socec & Co.Google Scholar
CL Coresi, Liturghier. Ed. Al. Mareş, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1969, 127–148. (Brașov, Wallachian subdialect).Google Scholar
CLRV Alexandru Mareş, Crestomaţia limbii române vechi, I (1521–1639), Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1994.Google Scholar
CLu Bianu, Ion (ed). 1930. Coresi, Lucrul apostolesc. Apostolul (1563). Bucureşti: Cultura Naţională.Google Scholar
CPsl Toma, Stela (ed). 1976. Coresi. Psaltirea slavo-română. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar
CS Codex Sturdzanus. Ed. Gh. Chivu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1993, 237–300.Google Scholar
CTev Dimitrescu, Florica (ed). 1963. Tetraevangelul tipărit de Coresi. Braşov 1560–1561. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei.Google Scholar
CV Costinescu, Mariana (ed). 1981. Codicele voroneţean. Bucureşti: Editura Minerva.Google Scholar
DÎ Chivu, Gheorghe et al. (eds). 1979. Documente şi însemnări româneşti din secolul al XVI-lea. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar
DPar Ungureanu, Mădălina (ed.) 2012. Dosoftei. Parimiile preste an (1683). Iaşi: Editura Universităţii „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”.Google Scholar
Ev. 1642 Evanghelie învăţătoare. 1642. Ed. A.-M. Gherman, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 2011, 153–480. (Oltenia, Govora Monastery).Google Scholar
FD Floarea darurilor. 1592–604. Ed. Alexandra Roman Moraru, Bucharest: Minerva, 1996 (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, 1), 119–82. (Moldova, Putna Monastery).Google Scholar
MI Manuscrisul de la Ieud. ~1630. Ed. M. Teodorescu, I. Gheţie, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1977, 153–170. (North Transylvania, Maramureş)Google Scholar
NT Iorgu Iordan (ed.). 1988. Ştefan, Simion, Noul Testament (1648). Alba Iulia: Editura Episcopiei Ortodoxe Române.Google Scholar
PO Pamfil, Viorica (ed). 1968. Palia de la Orăştie (1581–1582). Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar
SVI Varlaam şi Ioasaf. ~1670. Ed.: M. Stanciu Istrate, Reflexe ale medievalităţii europene în cultura română veche: Varlaam şi Ioasaf în cea mai veche versiune a traducerii lui Udrişte Năsturel, Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Național al Literaturii Române, 2013, 82–325. (Wallachia)Google Scholar
VRC Varlaam, Răspunsul împotriva catihismusului calvinesc. 1645. Ed.: Varlaam, Opere, Răspunsul împotriva catihismusului calvinesc, ed. M. Teodorescu, Bucharest: Minerva, 1984, 143–230. (Wallachia, Târgovişte, Dealu Monastery)Google Scholar
References
Antonov, A., & Mardale, A. (2014). From perlative to differential object marking. The curious case of the Romanian PE. Paper presented at the international workshop The Diachronic Typology of Differential Argument Marking, 5–6 April, University of Konstanz.
Avram, M. (1975). Particularităţi sintactice neromâneşti în diferite momente ale evoluţiei limbii române literare. Studii şi Cercetări Lingvistice, 26(5), 459–466.Google Scholar
Binder, L., & Stark, E. (this volume). Differential object marking in French – Myth or reality?
Cennamo, M., Ciconte, F. M., & Andriani, L. (this volume). Syntactic and semantic constraints on differential object marking in Old Sardinian.
Franco, L., & Manzini, M. R. (2017). Instrumental prepositions and case: Contexts of occurrence and alternations with datives. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giurgea, I. (2015). Agreeing and non-agreeing genitives in Old Romanian and the history of Romanian genitive constructions. In V. Hill (Ed.), Formal approaches to Old Romanian DP (pp. 154–199). Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goosse, A., & Grevisse, M. (2016). Le bon usage (16ème éd.). Deboeck Supérieur.Google Scholar
Goyens, M. (1998). L’alternance entre construction accusative et dative dans l’histoire des verbes français. Leuvense Bijdragen, 87(3–4), 465–489.Google Scholar
Hill, V., & Mardale, A. (2021). The diachrony of differential object marking in Romanian. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huyghe, R., & Corminboeuf, G. (2018). Les alternances objet / oblique en français: Goûter (à) un vin, dévaler (de) la colline, chercher (après) ses clés, etc. In SHS Web of Conferences, 46, Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF 2018. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irimia, M. A. (2020). Types of structural objects. In A. Bárány & L. Kalin (Eds.), Case, agreement, and their interactions: New perspectives on differential argument marking (pp. 77–126). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jordan, M. (2009). Loss of infinitival complementation in Romanian. Diachronic syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida.
Lamiroy, B. (2013). La construction causative en faire et le marquage différentiel de l’objet en français. In O. Kozue (Ed.), Autour des verbes: Constructions et interprétations (pp. 3–17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, R. K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3), 335–391.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R., & Franco, L. (2016). Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 197–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., Savoia, L., & Franco, L. (2020). DOM and dative in (Italo-) Romance. In A. Bárány & L. Kalin (Eds.), Case, agreement, and their Interactions. New perspectives on differential argument marking (pp. 219–269). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mardale, A. (2015). Differential object marking in the first original Romanian texts. In V. Hill (Ed.), Formal approaches to Old Romanian DP (pp. 200–245). Brill.Google Scholar
Nicula Paraschiv, I. (2015). Observații tipologice privind variația structurii sintactice a verbului românesc. Marcarea necanonică a obiectului. Limba Română, LXIV(1), 23–34.Google Scholar
Onea, E., & Mardale, A. (2020). From topic to object: Grammaticalization of differential object marking in Romanian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics / Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 65(3), 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pană Dindelegan, G. (1968). Regimul sintactic al verbelor în limba română veche. Studii şi Cercetări Lingvistice, 19(3), 270–291.Google Scholar
(2014). Variație în construcția verbului în româna veche. In R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, & A. Nicolae (Eds.), Limba română: Diacronie și sincronie în studiul limbii române (pp. 155–175). Editura Universității din București.Google Scholar
SLRV 2019 = Pană Dindelegan, G. (Ed.). (2019). Sintaxa limbii române vechi. Editura Univers Enciclopedic Gold.Google Scholar
Todi, A. (2001). Elemente de sintaxă românească veche. Editura Paralela 45.Google Scholar