Cover not available
Part of
The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking
Edited by Alexandru Mardale and Silvina Montrul
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 26] 2020
► pp. 285–311

Chapter 11
Differential Object Marking in Romanian as a heritage language

| University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
| California State University San Marcos

This cross-generational study investigated the potential vulnerability of DOM in the oral production of Romanian heritage speakers as a function of age of onset of bilingualism (simultaneous vs. sequential bilinguals). In Romanian DOM marking generally co-exists with accusative clitic doubling (CD). Fifty-two Romanian speakers in Romania, 32 Romanian immigrants who arrived to the US after age 18, and 29 heritage speakers of Romanian completed a written proficiency test and an oral narrative task. The results showed that DOM is vulnerable to erosion in heritage speakers of Romanian, and those speakers who omit DOM also omit CD. Age of onset of bilingualism modulated DOM and CD omission in heritage speakers: simultaneous bilinguals made more errors with DOM and CD than sequential bilinguals. The Romanian immigrants did not show attrition of DOM.

Keywords: Romanian, heritage speakers, Differential Object Marking, accusative, clitic doubling, oral production
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.DOM in Romanian
  • 3.The acquisition of DOM in Romanian
  • 4.The study
    • Participants
    • Task
    • Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.26.11mon
References
Ahn, S., Chang, C., DeKeyser, R., & Lee-Ellis, S.
(2017) Age effects in first language attrition: Speech perception by Korean-English bilinguals. Language Learning, 67(3), 694–733.
https://doi.org/
Aissen, J.
(2003) Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alarcón, I.
(2011) Spanish gender agreement under complete and incomplete acquisition: Early and late bilinguals’ linguistic behavior within the noun phrase. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 332–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Argus, R.
(2015) On the acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Estonian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4), 403–419.Google Scholar
Avram, L.
(2015) Editorial: The L1 acquisition of Differential Object Marking. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4): 331–338.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analysing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayram, F., Rothman, J., Iverson, M., Miller, D., Puig Mayenco, E., Kupisch, T., & Westergaard, M.
(2019) Differences in use without deficiencies in competence: Passives in the Turkish and German of Turkish heritage speakers in Germany. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(8), 919–939. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bleam, T.
(1999) Leísta Spanish and the syntax of clitic doubling (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Bowles, M.
(2011) Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge: What can heritage language learners contribute? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bylund, E.
(2009) Maturational constraints and first language attrition. Language Learning, 59, 687–715. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carnie, A.
(2005) Some remarks on markedness hierarchies: A reply to Aissen 1999 and 2003. Coyote Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 37–50.Google Scholar
Chiriacescu, S., & von Heusinger, K.
2010 Discourse prominence and Pe -marking in Romanian. International Review of Pragmatics, 2, 298–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornilescu, A.
(2000) On the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 2, 91–106.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(1988) Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In M. Barlow & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Agreement in natural languages. Approaches, theories, descriptions (pp. 159–179). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Dabašinskienė, I.
(2015) Growing knowledge in Differential Object Marking: The view from L1 Lithuanian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4), 369–382.Google Scholar
David, O.
(2015) Clitic doubling and Differential Object Marking. A study in diachronic construction grammar. Constructions and Frames, 7(1), 103–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C.
(1990) Clitic doubling, wh-movement and quantification in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 351–397.Google Scholar
(2007) Existential bare plurals: From properties back to entities. Lingua 119, 2, 296-313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., & Giurgea, I.
(2003 A reference grammar of Romanian, Vol. 1: The noun phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, D.
1978 Direct and indirect object reduplication in Romanian. In D. Farkas, W. M. Jacobsen, & K. Todrys (Eds.), Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 88–97). Chicago, IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Farkas, D., & Heusinger, K. von
(2003) Stability of reference and object marking in Romanian. Paper presented at Workshop on Direct Reference and Specificity, ESSLLI, Vienna, August.
Flores, C.
(2010) The effect of age on language attrition: Evidence from bilingual returnees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 533–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
GALR
(2005) = Gramatica Limbii Române (2005) Vol I, Cuvântul. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei.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
Hill, V.
(2013) The direct object marker in Romanian: A historical perspective. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 140–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Hržica, G., Palmovič, M., Kovačević, M., Voeikova, M., Ivanova, K., & Galkina, E.
(2015) Animacy and case in the acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Croatian and Russian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4), 351–368.Google Scholar
Kayne, R.
(1975) French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ketrez, N.
(2015) Incomplete acquisition of the Turkish Differential Object Marking. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4), 421–430.Google Scholar
Kim, K., O’Grady, W., & Schwartz, B.
2018 Case in heritage Korean. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(2), 252–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J.
(2016) Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(5).
https://doi.org/
Lightfoot, D.
(1991) How to set parameters. Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
López, L.
(2012) Indefinite objects. Diferential Object Marking, scrambling and choice function. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mardale, A.
(2007) Les prépositions fonctionnelles du roumain: Étude comparative (Doctoral dissertation). University Paris 7 Denis Diderot and University of Bucharest. (Published by L’Harmattan in (2009)Google Scholar
(2002) Note despre construcţia obiectului direct prepoziţional în română şi în spaniolă, in Studii şi Cercetări Lingvistice. 53(1–2), 77–94.Google Scholar
(2008) Prépositions et article défini en roumain, in de Saint-Pierre, A. & M. Thibeault (Eds.), Actes des 21èmes Journées de Linguistique, (pp. 78-93), Québec, Centre interdisciplinaire de recherche sur les activités langagières, Universitaire de Laval.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Searching for the roots of structural changes in the Spanish of the United States. Lingua, 151, 177–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M.
(2009) Back to basics: Differential Object Marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 363–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N.
(2013) Differential object marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20, 109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Bhatia, A.
(2012) Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage Speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 141–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R.
(2015) Differential Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Foote, R., & Perpiñán, S.
(2008) Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: The effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning, 58(3), 503–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, R., & Zentella, A. C.
(2012) Spanish in New York. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pană-Dindelegan, G.
(1997) Din nou despre statutul prepoziţiei. Cu referire specialǎ la prepoziţia PE. Limba română 46(1-3), 27–55.Google Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D.
(2013) Agreement reflexes of emerging optionality in heritage speaker Spanish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida.Google Scholar
Pires, A., & Rothman, J.
(2009) Disentangling contributing variables to incomplete acquisition competence outcomes: What differences across Brazilian and European Portuguese heritage speakers tell us. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 211–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M.
(2018) Heritage Languages and their Speakers. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M.
(2008) The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus, 20(1), 111–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J.
(2007) Heritage speaker competence differences, language change, and input type: Inflected infinitives in heritage Brazilian Portuguese. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 11, 359–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rădulescu Sala, M.
(2008a)  Complementul indirect . In V. Guţu-Romalo (Ed.), Gramatica limbii române. II. Enunţul (pp. 418–437). Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar
(2008b)  Complementul prepoziţional . In V. Guţu-Romalo (Ed.), Gramatica limbii române, II: Enunţul (pp. 438–453). Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M.
(1976) Hierarchy of features sand ergativity. In R. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 121–171). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Suñer, M.
(1988) The role of agreement in dative doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 391–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ticio, E.
(2015) Differential Object Marking in Spanish-English early bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(1), 62–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ticio, E., & Avram, L.
(2015) The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish and Romanian: Semantic scales or semantic features? Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4), 383–402.Google Scholar
Tigău, A.
(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
Torrego, E.
(1998) The dependency of objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Torres, J.
(2013) Heritage and second language learners of Spanish: The roles of task complexity and inhibitory control (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, K., & Onea Gáspar, E.
(2008) Triggering and blocking effects in the diachronic development of DOM in Romanian. Probus, 20, 67–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, K., & Chiriacescu, S.
(2009) Definite „bare” nouns and pe-marking in Romanian. In M. T. Espinal, M. Leonetti, & L. McNally (Eds.), Proceedings of the IV Nereus International Workshop on Definiteness and DP Structure in Romance Languages (Arbeitspapier 124) (pp. 63–82). Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Uziel-Karl, S.
(2015) The development of Differential Object Marking in Child Hebrew. Revue Roumaine Linguistique, 60(4), 339–350.Google Scholar
Yeni-Komshian, G., Flege, J., & Liu, S.
(2000) Pronunciation proficiency in the first and second languages of Korean-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 131–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Bhatia, Archna & Silvina Montrul
2020. Chapter 10. Comprehension of Differential Object Marking by Hindi heritage speakers. In The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 26], ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo
D'Alessandro, Roberta, David Natvig & Michael T. Putnam
2021. Addressing Challenges in Formal Research on Moribund Heritage Languages: A Path Forward. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
López Otero, Julio César
2022. Bidirectional cross-linguistic influence on DOM in Romanian-Spanish bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism 26:6 ► pp. 710 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.