Cover not available
Part of
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. 335–356

Dative clitics in Romanian ditransitives

| University of Bucharest
| University of Cologne
This chapter presents a novel analysis for Romanian ditransitives. Based on empirical findings, we develop a derivational account building on the internal make-up of the two internal arguments. The account departs from the observation that clitic doubling (CD) of indirect objects (IO) and Differential Object Marking (DOM) of direct objects (DO) interact in an interesting and unexpected way: while unmarked DOs bind IOs irrespective of Clitic Doubling of IOs, counterparts where DOM-ed DOs bind CD-ed IOs are degraded; however, CD-ed+DOM-ed DOs fare much better. These facts seem to arise as a consequence of the interaction between DOM-ed DOs and CD-ed IOs which have similar internal make-up (they both carry a [Person] feature) and compete for the same probe, with the closer blocking agreement of the other. When DO cliticizes, these intervention effects no longer arise.
Keywords: ditransitives, differential object marking, clitic doubling
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.One problematic configuration
  • 3.The featural make-up of IOs and DOM-ed DOs
    • 3.1A [iPerson] for DOM-ed DOs
    • 3.2A [Person] feature for Goal DPs
  • 4.A syntactic account of the experimental data
    • 4.1Unmarked DOs and CD-ed IOs
    • 4.2DOM-ed DOs and CD-ed IOs
    • 4.3CD-ed + DOM-ed DOs and CD-ed IOs
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.355.17tig
References (49)
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21. 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aoun, Joseph & Audrey Yen-Hui Li. 1989. Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 141–172.Google Scholar
Avram, Larisa. 2014. Differential 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. 1988. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6. 353–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. On the structural position of themes and goals. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 7–34. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barss, Andrew & Howard Lasnik. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistics Inquiry 17. 347–335.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2014. lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version, 1(7). 1–23.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2). 233–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2). 287–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ciucivara, Oana. 2009. A syntactic analysis of pronominal clitic clusters in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2000. Notes 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. 2017a. Experimental data on Romanian double object constructions. Revue roumaine de linguistique 62(2). 157–177.Google Scholar
. 2017b. Romanian dative configurations: Ditransitive verbs. A tentative analysis. Revue roumaine de linguistique 62(2). 179–206.Google Scholar
Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7(1). 5–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diaconescu, Constanţa Rodica & María Luisa Rivero. 2007. An applicative analysis of double object constructions in Romanian. Probus 19(2). 209–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The syntax of Romanian. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1987. On primary objects, secondary objects & antidative. Language 62. 808–845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1987. Direct and indirect object reduplication in Romanian. Chicago Linguistics Society 14. 88–97.Google Scholar
Georgala, Effi. 2012. Applicatives in their structural and thematic function: A minimalist account of multitransitivity. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Georgala, Effi, Waltraud Paul & John Whitman. 2008. Expletive 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. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. In Pierre Pica (ed.), Linguistic variation yearbook 2002, 29–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus & Alina Tigău. 2019. Clitic doubling and differential object marking in non-specific contexts in Romanian. Revue roumaine de linguistique 66(4). 409–430.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4. 1–32.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 335–391.Google Scholar
1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 589–632.Google Scholar
2010. On Pylkkänen’s semantics for low applicatives. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 701–704. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects. Scrambling, choice functions, and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications 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. 2007. The syntax of objects: Agree and differential object marking. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Oehrle, Richard. 1976. The 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
. 2007. The object agreement constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(2). 315–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. PPs without disguises: Reply to Bruening. Linguistic Inquiry 43(2). 455–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2007. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44(1). 129–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2008. Defective 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. 1986. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Pieter Muysken & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Features and projections, 163–232. Dordrecht: Foris Publications Holland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tigău, Alina. 2011. Syntax 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. 2014. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tigău, Alina. 2020. Experimental insights into the syntax of Romanian ditransitives. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tigău, Alina & Klaus von Heusinger. Manuscript. Binding properties of ditransitive constructions in Romanian.