References
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential
Object Marking: Iconicity vs.
economy. Natural Language and
Linguistic
Theory, 21, 435–483. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Arechabaleta Regulez, B. (2016). Online-sensitivity
to DOM violations by Spanish heritage
speakers. Paper presented at the
workshop “The Acquisition of Differential Object
Marking”, Paris, 10 December.
Argus, R. (2015). On
the acquisition of Differential Object Marking in
Estonian. Revue Roumaine de
Linguistique, 60(4), 403–420.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Avram, L. (2001). Early
omission of articles in child Romanian and the emergence of
DP. Revue Roumaine de
Linguistique, 46(1–4), 105–123.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Avram, L., & Ciovârnache, C. (2017). Selective
transfer in the learning of Differential Object Marking in L2
Persian. In L. Bălan & M. Zlotea (Eds.), A
festschrift for Florentina
Vişan (pp. 69–83). Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Avram, L., Ciovârnache, C., & Sevcenco, A. (2016). Semantic
features and L1 transfer in the L2 learning of Differential Object
Marking: The view from Romanian and
Persian. In P. Guijarro-Fuentes, M. Juan-Garau, & P. Larranaga (Eds.), Acquisition
of Romance languages. Old acquisition challenges and new
explanations from a generative
perspective (pp. 91–120). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Avram, L., & Zafiu, R. (2017a). Semantic
hierarchies in the diachronic evolution of DOM in
Romanian. In A. Dragomirescu, A. Nicolae, R. Zafiu, & C. Stan (Eds.), Sintaxa
ca mod de a fi. Omagiu Gabrielei Pană Dindelegan, la
aniversare (pp. 29–43). Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Avram, L., & Zafiu, R. (2017b). DOM
in Romanian: What factors determined the pathway of
change? Paper presented at the
workshop “The Diachrony of
DOM”, Paris, 16–17 November.
Bárány, A. (2012). Hungarian
conjugations and Differential Object
Marking. In B. Surányi & D. Varga (Eds.), Proceedings
of the First Central European Conference in Linguistics for
Post-graduate
Students (pp. 3–25). Piliscsaba: Pázmány Péter Catholic University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating
events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental
study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bossong, G. (1998). Le
marquage de l’expérient dans les langues
d’Europe. In J. Feuillet (Ed.), Actance
et valence dans les langues de
l’Europe (pp. 259–294). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Buja, E. (2008). Relating
events in narrative: A case study of
Romanian. Brașov: Editura Universității Transilvania.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chiriacescu, S. (2009). DOM
in Romanian and the referential form-mental accessibility
interplay. Bulletin of Transilvania
University of
Braşov, 2, 149–154.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chiriacescu, S., & Heusinger, K. von. (2009).
Pe-marking
and referential persistence in
Romanian. In SinSpeC –
Working Papers of the SBF
732 (pp. 1–17). Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chiriacescu, S., & Heusinger, K. von. (2010). Discourse
prominence and pe-marking in
Romanian. International Review of
Pragmatics, 2, 298–332. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Coppock, E., & Wechsler, S. (2010). Less-travelled
paths from pronoun to agreement: The case of the Uralic objective
conjugations. In M. Butt & T. Holloway King (Eds.), Proceedings
of the LFG10
Conference (pp. 166–185). Stanford, CA: CSLI. <[URL]>
Dabašinskienė, I. (2015). Growing
knowledge in Differential Object Marking: A case study of
Lithuanian. Revue Roumaine de
Linguistique, 60(4): 369–382.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1990). Clitic
doubling, wh-movement and quantification in
Romanian. Linguistic
Inquiry, 21, 351–397.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1994). The
syntax of
Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
É. Kiss, K. (2004). The
syntax of
Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
É. Kiss, K. (2013). The
inverse agreement constraint in Uralic
languages. Finno-Ugric Languages and
Linguistics, 1, 2–21.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
É. Kiss, K. (2014). The
evolution of functional left peripheries in the Hungarian
sentence. In K. É. Kiss (Ed.), The
evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian
syntax (pp. 9–55). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Farkas, D. (1978). Direct
and indirect object reduplication in
Rumanian. In D. Farkas, W. M. Jacobsen, & K. W. Todrys (Eds.), Papers
from the Fourteenth Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic
Society (pp. 88–97). Chicago, IL: CLS.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Farkas, D. & Heusinger, K. von. (2003). Stability
of reference and object marking in
Romanian. Paper presented at the
Workshop on “Direct Reference and
Specificity”, ESSLLI,
Vienna, August.
Gheorghe, M. (2011). Relative
non-standard. In L. Dascălu-Jinga (Ed.), Româna
vorbită actuală (ROVA). Corpus şi
studii (pp. 191–201). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2012). The
acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal
a
. Bilingualism:
Language and
Cognition, 15, 701–720. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., & Marinis, T. (2009). The
acquisition of the personal preposition a by
Catalan-Spanish and English-Spanish
bilinguals. In J. Collentine, M. García, B. Lafford, & F. M. Marín (Eds.), Selected
proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics
Symposium (pp. 81–92). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Guţu Romalo, V. (2000). Corectitudine
şi greşeală. Limba română de
azi. Bucharest: Humanitas Educaţional.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hill, V., & Mardale, A. (2017). On the interaction of Differential Object Marking and clitic doubling in Romanian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 62(4), 393–409.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haspelmath, M. (2008). Object
marking, definiteness and
animacy. Leipzig Spring
School on Linguistic
Diversity, March.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heusinger, K. von, Klein, U. & Swart, P. de. (2008). Variation
in Differential Object
Marking. Paper presented at the
Workshop on Case Variation, University
of
Stuttgart, June.
De Houwer, A. (1990). The
acquisition of two languages from birth: A case
study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hržica, G., Palmovič, M., Kovačevič, M., Voeikova, M. D., Ivanova, K., & Galkina, E. (2015). Animacy
and case in the acquisition of Differential Object Marking in
Russian and Croatian. Revue Roumaine
de
Linguistique, 60(4): 351–368.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ketrez, F. N. (1999). Early
verbs and the acquisition of Turkish argument
structure (Unpublished MA
thesis). Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ketrez, F. N. (2015). Incomplete
acquisition of the Turkish Differential Object
Marker. Revue Roumaine de
Linguistique, 60(4), 421–430.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Killam, J. (2011). An
interlanguage analysis of Differential Object Marking in L2
Spanish (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Indiana University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Klimkowski, T. (2017). Anticiparea
pronominală ȋn română – originea şi evoluţia
fenomenului. Philologica
Jassyensia, 1, 65–76.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
MacWhinney, B. (1976). Hungarian
research on the acquisition of morphology and
syntax. Journal of Child
Language, 3, 397–410. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The
CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing
talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mardale, A. (2007). Les
prépositions fonctionnelles du roumain: Étude
comparative (Doctoral dissertation published by l’Harmattan in 2009). University Paris 7 Denis Diderot and University of Bucharest.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mardale, A. (2008). Un
regard diachronique sur le marquage differentiel de l’objet en
roumain. Paper presented at the
workshop Grammaticalization and
Pragmaticalization
, Bucharest, 3–4 October.
Martoccio, A. M. (2012). Acquisition
of Differential Object Marking in L2 Spanish
learners (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meisel, J. (1989). Early
differentiation of languages in bilingual
children. In K. Hyltenstam & L. K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism
across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity and
loss (pp. 13–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Miros, L. (2016). Null
and overt subjects in child Romanian in two 2L1 contexts:
Romanian-Russian and
Romanian-Ukrainian. Paper
presented at 4th Bucharest Colloquium of Language Acquisition,
University of
Bucharest, 18–19 November.
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject
and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of
morpho-syntactic
convergence. Bilingualism: Language
and
Cognition, 7(2), 125–142. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Montrul, S. (2011). Interfaces
and incomplete
acquisition. Lingua, 121(4), 591–604. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Montrul, S. (2016). The
acquisition of object
marking. Paper presented at the
workshop “The Acquisition of Differential Object
Marking”, Paris, 10 December.
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Gîrju, R. 2015. Differential
Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage
languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. 2009. Back
to basics: Differential Object Marking under incomplete acquisition
in Spanish heritage
speakers. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 12(4), 363–383. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Montrul, S., & Sanchez-Walker, N. (2013). Differential
Object Marking in child and adult Spanish heritage
speakers. Language
Acquisition, 20(2), 109–132. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Müller, N., & Hulk, A. (2000). Cross-linguistic
influence in bilingual children: Object omissions and root
infinitives. In S. C. Howell, S. A. Fish, & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language
Development (pp. 546–557). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Müller, N., & Hulk, A. (2001). Cross-linguistic
influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as
recipient languages. Bilingualism:
Language and
Cognition, 4(1), 1–21. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nediger, W., Pires, A., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. 2016a. An
experimental study of the L2 acquisition of Spanish Differential
Object
marking. In D. Stringer, J. Garrett, B. Halloran, & S. Mossman (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 13th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition
Conference (GASLA
2015) (pp. 151–160). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nediger, W., Pires, A., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2016b). Variable
L2 acquisition of Spanish Differential Object Marking by L1 English
speakers. In J. Scott & D. Waughtal (Eds.), BUCLD
40 online proceedings supplement. <[URL]>
Ortiz Vergara, M. (2013). The
development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish-English
bilingual children (Unpublished MA
thesis). Purdue University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pană Dindelegan, G. (2013). The
direct
object. In G. Pană Dindelegan (Ed.), The
grammar of
Romanian (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Paradis, J., & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic
acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or
interdependent? Studies in Second
Language
Acquisition, 18, 1–25. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Parodi, T., & Avram, L. (2018). DOM
in acquisition and in contact varieties: An
overview. In T. Parodi (Ed.), Proceedings
of the VIII NEREUS International Workshop: “Referential Properties
of the Romance DP in the Context of
Multilingualism” (Arbeitspapier
129, pp. 63–86). Konstanz: University of Konstanz.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ponnet, A., Baten, K., & Verbeke, S. (2016). The
acquisition of Differential Object Marking in L2 Hindi: From
emergence to mastery. Paper
presented at the workshop “The Acquisition of Differential Object
Marking”, Paris, 10 December.
Rocquet, A. (2013). Splitting
objects: A nanosyntactic account of Direct Object
Marking (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Ghent University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M. (2007). The
syntax of objects: Agree and Differential Object
Marking (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Connecticut.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M. (2008). The
acquisition of Differential Object Marking in
Spanish. Probus, 20, 111–145. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sevcenco, A., Avram, L., & Stoicescu, I. (2011). Subject
and direct object relative clause production in child
Romanian. In L. Avram & A. Sevcenco (Eds.), Topics
in language acquisition and language learning in a Romanian
context (pp. 51–85). Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sorace, A. (2004). Native
language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax
discourse interface: Data, interpretations and
methods. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 7, 143–145. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora
resolution in near-native speakers of
Italian. Second Language
Research, 3, 339–368. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stoicescu, I. (2013). The
acquisition of tense and aspect in
Romanian. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Teodorescu, O. (2017). The
acquisition of the subject in Romanian at the syntax-discourse
interface (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Bucharest.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ticio, E., & Avram, L. (2015). The
acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish and Romanian:
Semantic scales or semantic
features? Revue Roumaine de
Linguistique, 4, 383–402.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tigău, A. (2011). Syntax
and semantics of the direct object in Romance and Germanic
languages. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tomescu, V. (2013). The
syntax and acquisition of particles in English, Hungarian and
Romanian. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tomescu, V. (2017).
Acquisition
in a Romanian-Hungarian bilingual
context
. A case
study. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Torrego, E. (1998). The
dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tsimpli, I. M., & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating
interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse
phenomena. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, & C. Zaller (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language
Development (pp. 653–664). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Uziel-Karl, S. (2015). The
development of Differential Object Marking in child
Hebrew. Revue Roumaine de
Linguistique, 60(4), 339–350.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wéber, K. (2011). “Rejtelmes
kétféleség.” A kétféle igeragozás elkülönülése a magyar nyelvben.
Megkülönböztetésük a magyar nyelvészeti hagyományban és
gyermeknyelvi megnyilatkozások longitudinális korpuszvizsgálata
alapján (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Pécs.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)