Chapter published in:
The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking
Edited by Alexandru Mardale and Silvina Montrul
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 26] 2020
► pp. 120
References

References

Aissen, J.
(2003) Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Avram, L.
(Ed.) (2015) The L1 acquisition of Differential Object Marking. Special issue of Revue Roumaine de Linguistique , 60(4).Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U., & Mohammadi, S.
(2013) Acquiring Persian object marking: Balochi learners of L2 Persian. Orientalia Suecana, 61, 59–89.Google Scholar
Bossong, G.
(1985) Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(1998) Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In J. Feuillet (Ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe (pp. 258–293). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cabrelli Amaro, J., Iverson, M., Giancaspro, D., & Halloran, B.
(2020) Implications of L1 versus L2 transfer in L3 rate of morphosyntactic acquisition. In K. Molsing, C. Becker Lopes Perna, & A. M. Tramunt Ibaños (Eds.), pp. 11-33 Linguistic approaches to Portuguese as an additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chamorro, G., Sturt, P., & Sorace, A.
(2016) Selectivity in L1 attrition: Differential Object Marking in Spanish near-native speakers of English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(3): 697–715. Crossref
Ciovârnache, C., & Avram, L.
(2013) Specificity and animacy in the acquisition of Differential Object Marking in L2 Persian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 58(4), 417–436.Google Scholar
Comrie, B.
(1975) Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Lingüística Silesiona, 3, 13–21.Google Scholar
(1989) Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, A.
(2000) Observaţii privind interpretarea acuzativului prepoziţional în limba română. In G. Pană Dindelegan (Ed.), Actele Colocviului Catedrei de limba română (pp. 25–40). Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(1994) Voice: Beyond control and affectedness. In P. J. Hopper & B. Fox (Eds.), Voice: Form and function (pp.89–117). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I.
(2011) Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, M., & Khurshudian, V.
(2015) Valency classes in Eastern Armenian. In B. Comrie & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Valency in the world’s languages, Vol. 1: Introducing the framework, and case studies from Africa and Eurasia (pp. 483–540). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danon, G.
(2002) The Hebrew object marker and semantic type. In Y. Falk (Ed.), Proceedings of IATL17 (19pp). Jerusalem: The Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Py, B.
(1991) La restructuration d’une première langue: L’intégration de variantes de contact dans la compétence de migrants bilingues. La Linguistique, 27, 35–60.Google Scholar
Guijarro Fuentes, P.
(2012) The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 15, 701–720. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoop, H., de & Swart, P. de
(2007) Semantic aspects of Differential Object Marking. In E. Puig- Waldmüller (Ed.), Proceedings of SuB11 (pp. 568–581). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A.
(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, K. von, & Kaiser, G. A.
(2005) The evolution of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. In Proceedings of the Workshop: Specificity and the Evolution / Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance (pp. 33–69). Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
(2007) Differential Object Marking and the lexical semantics of verbs in Spanish. In Workshop on DOM in Romance, Stuttgart, University of Stuttgart 14–15 June.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, G.
(2010) Topicality and Differential Object Marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language, 34, 239–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Floricic, F.
(2003) Notes sur l’accusatif prépositionnel en Sarde. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 98(1), 247–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, V., & Mardale, A.
(2017) On the interaction of DOM and clitic doubling. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 62(4), 393–411.Google Scholar
Jones, M.
(1993) Sardinian syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Laca, B.
(1995) Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en español. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional (pp. 61–91). Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
(2002) Gramaticalización y variabilidad – propriedades inherentes y factores contextuales en la evolución del acusativo preposiciónal en español. In A. Wesch (Ed.), Sprachgeschichte als Varietätengeschichte romanicher Sprachen. Festschrift für Jens Lüdtke zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 195–303). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2006) El objeto directo. In C. Company (Ed.), Sintaxis historica del español, Vol 1: La frase verbal. México, DF: Universidad Nacional de México.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D.
(2009) Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, G.
(1994) L’actance. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M.
(2003) Specificity and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Specificity in clitic doubling and in DOM. Probus, 20(1), 33–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2001) The CHILDES system. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 5(1), 5–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) The emergence of linguistic form in time. Connection Science, 17, 191–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mardale, A.
(2008) Microvariation within Differential Object Marking: Data from Romance, Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 53(4), 448–467.Google Scholar
(2009) Les prépositions fonctionnelles du roumain: Études comparatives sur le marquage casuel. Paris: l’Harmattan.Google Scholar
(2010) Éléments d’analyse du marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues romanes. Faits de Langues. Les Cahiers, 2, 161–197. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mardale, A., & Karatsareas, P.
in press). Introduction to the special issue Differential Object Marking and Language Contact . Journal of Language Contact.
Mišeska-Tomić, O.
(2006) Balkan Sprachbund morpho-syntactic features. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S.
(2004) Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 7, 125–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Special issue on Interfaces in language acquisition . Lingua, 212(4), 591–604. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Searching for the roots of structural changes in the Spanish of the United States. Lingua, 151, 177–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Bhatia, A.
(2012) Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage Speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 141–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N.
(2013) Differential Object Marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20, 109–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R.
(2015) Differential Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Naess, A.
(2004) What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua, 114, 1186–1212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Niculescu, A.
(1965) Obiectul direct prepoziţional în limbile romanice. Individualitatea limbii române între limbile romanice. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., Varlokosta, S., Spyropoulos, V., Kaili, H., Prokou, S., & Revithiadou, A.
(2011) Case morphology and word order in second language Turkish: Evidence from Greek learners. Second Language Research, 27(2), 173–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, M., & Sánchez, L.
(2013) What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? A prolegomenon to modeling heritage language grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(4), 476–506. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Riaño Rufilanchas, D.
(2014) Differential Object Marking in Ancient Greek. Linguistics, 52(2), 513–541.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M.
(2008) The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus, 20(1), 111–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A.
(2011) Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1): 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ticio, E.
(2015) Differential Object Marking in Spanish-English early bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(1), 62–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tigău, A.
(2010) Towards an account of DOM in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 12(1), 137–158.Google Scholar
(2014) Argument licensing and Differential Object Marking. The Annual Conference of the English Department, University of Bucharest.Google Scholar
Torrego, E.
(1998) The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1999) El complemento directo preposicional. In I. Bosque Muñoz & V. Demonte Barreto (Eds.), Gramatica descriptiva de la lengua española (pp 1779–1907). Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, A., & Seržant, I.
(2018) Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In I. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (Eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking (pp. 1–40). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar