First, the primary morphological means is not clitic doubling (as in non-Romance Balkan, see the example in (3) above from Albanian), but a preposition-like element, namely
pe, homophonous with the locative ‘on’ in modern Romanian, as shown in (4)
7. Secondly, notions related to topicality, definiteness, or specificity that are at work in non-Romance Balkan languages are not the regulating factors for Romanian DOM; humanness/animacy instead plays an important role (
Farkas 1978;
Dobrovie-Sorin 1994;
Cornilescu 2000;
von Heusinger and Onea 2008;
Tigău 2010,
2011;
Irimia 2020a,
2020b,
2021,
2023b,
2023c;
Hill and Mardale 2021; a.o.), as evidenced by the contrast between (5)(a) and (b), (6)(a) and (b), and (7)(a) and (b). The inanimate object in (5)(b), (6)(b), and (7)(b) does not permit differential marking, regardless of whether it has a specific or a non-specific interpretation and regardless of whether it is [+given].
(4) | Ai | lăsat | cărţile | pe | masă. | |
| have.2sg | left | book.f.pl.def.f.pl | on | table | |
| ‘You left the books on the table.’ | | (Romanian) |
(5) | a. | Au | invitat | *(pe) | cineva | (foarte important) | la | nuntă. |
| | have.3pl | invited | dom | somebody | (very important) | at | wedding |
| | ‘They have invited somebody very important to the wedding.’ |
| b. | Vor | (*pe) | ceva | anume, | mai | precis | diamantul |
| | want.3pl | dom | something | certain | more | precise | diamond.def.n.sg |
| | din | vitrină | (de care | ţi-am | zis | deja). |
| | from | window | (of which | cl.dat.2sg-have.1 | told | already) |
| | ‘The want something precisely, more specifically the diamond in the shop window (which I already told you about).’ | (Romanian) |
A non-trivial challenge is that, despite the prominence of animacy, Romanian DOM configurations cannot be unified under this trait. There are numerous contexts where animacy is overridden; moreover, as we will see, there are also many cases where another cross-linguistic correlate of DOM, namely specificity, does not seem to play a role either. What Romanian illustrates instead are patterns that are typical of so-called ‘conjunctive DOM’ systems (
Aissen 2003); at a purely descriptive level, the presence of more than one feature appears to be necessary for the special objects to receive dedicated marking. Traditionally, it is assumed that both the animacy and the definiteness/specificity scales are necessary:
(8) | Conjunctive DOM in Romanian: |
(i) | Animacy/person: 1/2 > 3 > proper name > human > animate > inanimate (Aissen 2003) |
(ii) | Specificity/definiteness: pronoun > name > definite > specific indefinite > non-specific (see also (2); Aissen 2003; Comrie 1989; a.o.) |
3.1. Obligatory Prepositional DOM
The class of obligatory DOM groups together not only contexts where humanness/animacy is relevant, but also various direct objects where animacy is overridden. As such, in this group, one can find both lexical DPs and various types of quantifiers. For example, tonic personal pronouns are ungrammatical without DOM, regardless of person specification. Moreover, clitic doubling is obligatory too in these contexts, as shown in 9(a). Proper names and kinship nouns with possessors are another category that requires the obligatory presence of the differential marker, and for many speakers, also clitic doubling; some examples are in (9)(b) and (c). DPs that contain highly referential nominals or honorifics, especially if accompanied by demonstratives, are equally ungrammatical without the differential marker (and clitic doubling); an example is in 9(d). Another important category groups together the animate direct objects of various pain and psych predicates, such as
hurt,
interest, etc., as in (9)(e) and (f).
8 The differential objects of pain predicates also need obligatory clitic doubling.
(9) | a. | *(M)-au | ajutat | *(pe) mine | şi | *(le)-au |
| | cl.acc.1sg-have.3pl | helped | dom me.acc | and | cl.acc.3f.pl-have.3pl |
| | ajutat | şi | *(pe) | ele. |
| | helped | and | dom | they.f |
| | ‘They helped me and they helped them too.’ | |
| b. | (O) | apreciez | foarte | mult | *(pe) | Adriana. |
| | cl.acc.3f.sg | appreciate | very | much | cl.acc.3f.sg | Adriana |
| | ‘I appreciate Adriana very much.’ |
| c. | (O) | ador | *(pe) | mama/sora/ |
| | cl.acc.3f.sg | adore | dom | mother.def.f.sg/sister.def.f.sg/ |
| | bunica | mea. | | | |
| | grandmother.def.f.sg | my.f.sg | | | |
| | ‘I adore my mother/sister/grandmother.’ |
| d. | Preşedintele | (ȋl) | va | invita | *(pe) |
| | president.def.m.sg | cl.acc.3m.sg | fut.3sg | invite.inf | dom |
| | domnul | acela | la | recepţie. |
| | gentleman.def.m.sg | that.def.m.sg.aug9 | at | reception |
| | ‘The president will invite that gentleman to the reception.’ |
| e. | *(O) | doare | mâna | *(pe) | fată. | |
| | cl.acc.3f.sg | hurt.3sg | hand.def.f.sg | dom | girl | |
| | ‘The girl’s hand hurts.’ (Lit. ‘The hand hurts the girl.’) |
| f. | Aceste | rezultate | (ȋi) | interesează | pe | politiceni. |
| | this.n.pl | result.n.pl | cl.acc.3m.pl | interest.3 | dom | politician.pl |
| | ‘These results interest politicians.’ | (Romanian) |
Let us turn now to the quantifiers. On the one hand, there are quantificational elements with a humanness/animacy restriction, for example
wh-words, such as
cine ‘who’, illustrated in (10), the negative [+human]
nimeni ‘nobody’ in (10)(b), or
cineva (‘somebody’) with its variants, as in (10)(c) or (5)(a). These quantifiers, even if requiring obligatory differential marking, are not possible with clitic doubling.
(10) | a. | *(Pe) | cine | (*l-)ai | auzit? |
| | dom | who | cl.acc.3m.sg-have.2sg | heard |
| | ‘Who have you heard?’ | |
| b. | Nu | (*l-)au | salutat | pe | nimeni. |
| | neg | cl.acc.3m.sg-have.3pl | greeted | dom | nobody |
| | ‘They haven’t greeted anybody.’ |
| c. | Trebuie să | (*ȋl) | angajăm | pe | altcineva. |
| | must | sbjv cl.acc.3m.sg | hire.1pl | dom | other somebody |
| | ‘We must hire somebody else.’ | (Romanian) |
The other subclass encompasses the quantifiers that require obligatory DOM,
irrespective of animacy. The D-linked element
care (‘which’) fits here, together with various nominal ellipsis contexts headed by demonstratives, possessors, the universal quantifier, etc. Some relevant examples are in (11)(a)–(e). The relative pronoun, when tracking direct objects, also falls into this group; it is considered obligatory in descriptive grammars, and dropping the differential marker is strongly frowned upon. As opposed to the quantifiers in (10), DOM categories that are insensitive to animacy normally need clitic doubling or are definitely better with clitic doubling for most speakers.
(11) | a. | *(Pe) | care | (bărbat/autobuz) | *(l)-ai | văzut? |
| | dom | which | man/bus | cl.acc.3m/n.sg-have.2sg | seen |
| | ‘Which man/bus did you see?’ | |
| b. | (L)-au | examinat | pe | acela. |
| | cl.acc.3m.sg-have.3pl | examined | dom | that.m/n.sg.aug |
| | ‘They examined that one.’ | [animate or inanimate] | |
| c. | (Le) | acceptăm | pe | toate. |
| | cl.acc.3f/n.pl | accept.1pl | dom | all.f/n.pl |
| | ‘We accept them all.’ | [animate or inanimate] | |
| d. | (L-)au | furat | (pe) | al meu. | |
| | cl.acc.m/n.sg-have.3pl | stolen | dom | lk.def.m/n.sg | |
| | ‘They have stolen mine.’ | [animate or inanimate] | |
| e. | (L)-aş | prefera | (pe) | cel10 | ȋnalt. |
| | cl.acc.m/n.sg-cond.1sg | prefer.inf | dom | cel.m/n.sg | tall.m/n.sg |
| | ‘I’d prefer the tall one.’ | [animate or inanimate] |
| f. | Fata | *(pe) | care | ai | ajutat-*(o). |
| | girl.def.f.sg | dom | which | have.2sg | helped-cl.acc.3f.sg |
| | ‘the girl that/whom you helped.’ | (Romanian) |
When it comes to DPs with overt lexical material (as opposed to elliptical DPs), the prepositional marker is, if not obligatory, at least strongly preferred in certain types of comparative constructions (generally equatives) or when numerals and other categories need to be individuated under citation. More recently, the use of the differential marker has been extended to sports teams in object position. Some examples are in (12).
(12) | a. | Îşi | preţuieşte | prietenul | ca *(pe) | un | dar. | |
| | cl.dat.poss.3sg | value.3sg | friend.def.m.sg | as dom | a.n.sg | gift | |
| | ‘She/he values his/her friend as a (she/he values a gift).’ | |
| b. | O | găină ȋngrijeşte | trei | pisoi | abandonaţi | |
| | a.f.sg | hen | care for.3sg | three | kitten.m.pl | abandoned.m.pl | ca *(pe) | proprii | pui. |
| | as | dom | own.m.pl | chick.m.pl | | | | |
| | ‘A hen takes care of three abandoned kittens as of her own chicks.’11 |
| b. | L-ai | | | | uitat | | *(pe) | trei/a. | | |
| | cl.acc.3m.sg-have.2sg | forgotten | dom | three/a | | |
| | ‘You forgot the three/the a.’ (for example, in a text) |
| c. | Au | reuşit | să | o | | bată | *(pe) | Lazio Roma. |
| | have.3pl | succeeded | sbjv | cl.acc.3sg.f | beat.sbjv3 | dom | Lazio Roma |
| | ‘They managed to beat Lazio.’ | (Romanian) |
3.2. Optional Prepositional DOM
There are also various contexts in which differential marking has been traditionally described as optional. Animate definites are found in this class; in Romanian, both the sentence in (13)(a) containing an unmarked definite, and the sentence in (13)(b) with a differentially marked object interpreted as a definite, are grammatical. It is moreover not clear whether the two sentences differ in terms of specificity or whether there are (deep) interpretive distinctions between them.
(13) | a. | Am | văzut | fetele. |
| | have.1 | seen | girl.f.pl.def.f.pl |
| | ‘I saw the girls.’ |
| b. | (Le)-am | văzut | pe | fete(*le). |
| | cl.acc.f.pl-have.1 | seen | dom | girl.f.pl |
| | ‘I saw the girls.’ | (Romanian) |
Note that in modern Romanian, there is a co-occurrence restriction between the differential marker and the overt definite suffix on unmodified objects (see the extensive bibliography in
Irimia 2023a or
Hill and Mardale 2021). As a result of this restriction, the overt definite suffix is not possible in (13)(b); however, the object
must be interpreted as a definite and cannot obtain the reading of a bare nominal. In fact, as can be seen in (19)(a), bare nominals, which in Romanian are restricted to existential interpretations, are not grammatical under differential marking.
Another context of optionality comes from the quantifier domain, and it appears to signal the more precise distinction between weak and strong quantifiers. When the differential marker is present, a specific interpretation is obtained; in turn, the unmarked quantified object gets an existential reading. This is seen in the contrast in (14). Other quantifiers in this class are
niciun/niciuna ‘no.
m/f.sg’,
vreun/vreuna (‘any.
m/f.sg’, polarity sensitive)
12,
puţini/puţine (‘few.
m/f.pl’).
(14) | a. | Cunosc | mulţi | scriitori. | | |
| | know.1sg | many.m.pl | writer.m.pl | | |
| | ‘I know many writers.’ |
| b. | Îi | cunosc | pe | mulţi | scriitori. |
| | cl.acc.3m.pl | many.m.pl | dom | many.m.pl | writer.m.pl |
| | ‘I know many specific writers.’ | | (Romanian) |
The alternation seen with the numerals is related to partitivity. In 0, when the differential marker is present, the two books are interpreted as specific, and the set is presupposed to be known. The unmarked numeral is interpreted as an existential.
(15) | Nu | (le)-am | citit | decât | (pe) | două | dintre | aceste | lucrări. |
| neg | cl.acc.3f.pl-have.1 | read | only | dom | two | from | this.f.pl | work.f.pl |
| ‘I have read only two of these works.’ | (Romanian) |
The contrast in specificity is also salient with indefinites. As such, an interpretive difference is clear between (16)(a) and (16)(b); the latter, which contains a differentially marked object, can refer to a specific woman.
(16) | a. | Ion | iubeşte | o | femeie. | |
| | Ion | love.3sg | a.f.sg | woman | |
| | ‘Ion loves a woman.’ | |
| b. | Ion o | iubeşte | pe | o | femeie | anume |
| | Ion cl.acc.3f.sg | love.3sg | dom | a.f.sg | woman | certain |
| | ‘Ion loves a certain woman.’ | (Romanian) |
However, despite this contrast, there are contexts in which a differentially marked indefinite can be associated to a non-specific reading. This is, in fact, not surprising, given the numerous exceptions seen with marked objects in Romanian and cross-linguistically. A relevant example is given in (17).
(17) | Poţi | să | îl | rogi | pe | un | om | oarecare |
| can.2sg | sbjv | cl.acc.3m.sg | ask.2sg | dom | a.m.sg | man | no-matter-who |
| de pe stradă. |
| of on street |
| ‘You can ask any random man/person on the street.’ | (Romanian) |
This indicates not only that a better understanding of the composition of specificity is necessary but also that differential marking is regulated by more abstract constraints, going beyond specificity, referentiality, and animacy. Also, it has been noticed in a variety of languages that DOM cannot be unified under purely semantic features (see especially
López 2012). Romanian DOM is, thus, no exception.
3.3. Ungrammatical Prepositional DOM
Turning to the contexts in which differential marking results in ungrammaticality, these comprise at least four types. First, there are the inanimate objects that have overt lexical material, as in (7)(b). Then, there are the non-elliptical quantifiers that are restricted to inanimates, such as
nimic (‘nothing’) or
ceva (‘something’) in (18); these are to be contrasted with
nimeni (‘nobody’) or (
alt)cineva (‘somebody else’), shown above in (10).
(18) | a. | Nu | am | văzut | (*pe) nimic |
| | neg | have.1 | seen | dom nothing |
| | ‘I have seen nothing.’ | | |
| b. | Am | văzut | (*pe) ceva/altceva |
| | have.1 | seen | dom something/other something |
| | ‘I saw something/something else.’ | (Romanian) |
Thirdly, bare nominals are excluded from differential marking, regardless of animacy. As such, the existential predicate
have in 19(a) that prefers bare nouns is not grammatical with marked objects. If differential marking is added to this context, the existential interpretation is removed, and what is entailed is a momentaneous eventuality of possessing, confined to a certain temporal duration. Moreover, the presupposition of a set of girls known in the discourse is introduced, as in (19)(b).
(19) | a. | Maria are | (*pe) | fete, | iar | Ion (*pe) | băieţi. |
| | Maria have.3sg | dom | girl.f.pl | and | Ion dom | boy.m.pl |
| | ‘Maria has girls and Ion boys.’ |
| b. | Maria le | are | pe | fete. | |
| | Maria cl.acc.3f.pl | have.3sg | dom | girl.f.pl | |
| | ‘Maria has the specific girls.’ (with her, at her place) | (Romanian) |
Fourthly, certain types of (cognitive and stative) predicates with inanimate subjects are not grammatical with differential marking. We give here two examples modeled after
Torrego (
1998) and
Cornilescu (
2000).
(20) | a. | Opera | (*ȋi) | cunoaşte | (*pe) | mulţi | fani. |
| | opera.f.sg | cl.acc.3m.pl | know.3sg | dom | many.m.pl | fan.m.pl |
| | ‘The opera knows many fans.’ |
| b. | Situaţia | dificilă | (*ȋl) | cerea | (*pe) |
| | situation.def.f.sg | difficult.f.sg | cl.acc.3m.pl | demand.impf.3sg | dom |
| | un | lider | foarte | puternic. | |
| | a.m.sg | leader | very | strong.m.sg | |
| | ‘The difficult situation demanded a very strong leader.’ | (Romanian) |
Lastly, the differential marker is ungrammatical in some types of non-finite predicates; the so-called supine, constructed from a nominalization and preceded by the prepositional marker
de, is a case at hand. For many speakers, the differential marker (and thus clitic doubling) are not easily possible in examples such as (21)(a) or (21)(b).
(21) | a. | (*Îi) | am | de | spălat | (*pe) copii. |
| | cl.acc.3m.pl | have.1sg | sup | wash.nomz | dom | child.m.pl |
| | ‘I have to wash the children.’ |
| b. | (*Îi) | am | de | vizitat | (*pe) | părinţi. |
| | cl.acc.3m.pl | have.1sg | sup | visit.nomz | dom | parent.m.pl |
| | ‘I have to visit the parents.’ | (Romanian) |
3.4. Romanian DOM: Unifying Traits
As is clear from these examples, using a description of the Romanian differential marker in terms of scales is not the right direction to take. Violations of both the animacy and the referentiality scales are common; in certain contexts, special marking applies regardless of animacy (the nominal ellipsis contexts in (11)), while in others, specificity does not play a role (for example, the animate quantifiers in (10)). This raises the question of how differential marking can be unified; an explanation according to which marked objects are associated with a higher,
overt position, as seen in Turkish (and in many other languages of this type,
Baker 2015), does not seem to be the answer either, as Romanian differentially marked objects do not raise overtly and, in normal conditions, cannot precede V (see also
Hill and Mardale 2021 for other remarks against raising when it comes to Romanian DOM).
Another traditional analysis for differential object marking in Romanian is the one in terms of Kayne’s Generalization (
Jaeggli 1982;
Dobrovie-Sorin 1994), which links the prepositional marker to the presence of the clitic double.
13 In these accounts, the differential marker acts as a last resort Case-assigning mechanism to avoid a violation of the Case Filter (
Chomsky 1981)
14—as the clitic double ‘absorbs’ Case from V, the lexical nominal would be left caseless. Given that in Romanian there are numerous instances in which clitic doubling is, in fact, ungrammatical with various types of differentially marked objects (for example, differentially marked quantifiers with an animacy restriction as in (10), this analysis does not give the right results.
The objects that form a complex with the main predicate are predicates of type <e,t> and as a result cannot saturate the predicate with which they merge. They are rather interpreted as modifiers and are subject to the operation Restrict (
Diesing 1992;
Chung and Ladusaw 2004; a.o.) or Predicate Modification (
Heim and Kratzer 1998), as schematically illustrated in (22). The result is semantic pseudo-incorporation.
(22) | ![Languages 09 00273 i001]() |
The objects undergoing pseudo-incorporation can stay bare (for example, even in languages that otherwise have overt morphology for (in)definiteness), might not carry case marking (if the language does not allow the licensing of c/Case on predicates), generally tend to be NPs, are not dependent on the discourse setting, and can be interpreted in situ (23)(a). Cross-linguistically, such objects also tend to lack differential marking (
Chung and Ladusaw 2004;
Levin 2015).
(23) | ![Languages 09 00273 i002]() |
On the other hand, there are the direct objects with a more complex internal structure: for example, such objects might contain the D layer or structural Case features in the K layer, as in (23)(b). These categories cannot be correctly licensed and interpreted via the operation Restrict and need special licensing mechanisms. This class contains (among other elements) the differentially marked objects, the reflexes of which can be, on the surface, a higher position than the incorporating objects (as seen in the contrast in (1) from Turkic), the presence of local licensers (e.g., adpositional markers repurposed for DOM, as in Romance), obligatoriness of agreement, clitic doubling (as in non-Romance Balkan languages), or other types of special marking.
For example, in Albanian and Greek, differential object marking in the form of clitic doubling is obligatory in anti-incorporation contexts, such as clause union. This is so because of configurational restrictions—the shared argument is generated either as a subject that cannot incorporate into its predicate (as in (24)(a)) or, if it is a complement, there is no position available for it to compose with the embedded predicate because the latter must also compose with the main predicate, as seen in (24)(b)). (Semantic) incorporation into the main predicate is not possible either because the shared argument is not the complement of the main predicate.
Below, we illustrate two configurations from Albanian and Greek; in these two languages, clitic doubling appears with objects in a variety of clause union contexts (see
Kallulli 2000 for extensive exemplification), among which are embedded small clauses (as in (25) and (26)). It can be easily observed that specificity or definiteness (taken as the flagging trait for clitic doubling in Greek in Anagnostopoulou’s work) can be easily overridden in such environments. Clitic doubling, thus, flags the presence of an anti-incorporation mechanism.
(25) | Consider + SC–Albanian | |
| Jan-i | nuk | e | konsideron | një | vajzë | të | tillë/Mer-in |
| Jan-def | neg | cl.acc.3sg | consider | a | girl | | such/Mary-def.acc |
| inteligjente. | |
| intelligent | |
| ‘John does not consider any such girl/Mary intelligent.’ | |
| (Albanian, Kallulli 2000, ex. 8a, p. 215) | |
(26) | Consider + SC–Greek |
| O | Yannis | dhen | tin | theori | kamja | tetia | kopela |
| def.m.sg | John | neg | cl.acc.3f.sg | consider | no | such | girl |
| /tin | Maria | eksipini. |
| def.acc.f.sg | Maria | intelligent |
| ‘John does not consider any such girl/Mary intelligent.’ |
| (Greek, Kallulli 2000, ex. 8b, p. 215) |
However, even though anti-incorporation is a necessary ingredient for Romanian DOM, it is not sufficient. This is demonstrated by the examples in (27), which show that clause union contexts are possible without DOM. In fact, inanimates must be used without DOM, as in (27)(d); what is not possible in these configurations is the presence of bare nominals, that is nominals without overt definiteness or indefiniteness marking. This restriction holds for both ECM small clauses, as in (27)(c), or embedded subjunctives as in (27)(d). This indicates that,n Romanian, only bare nominals are subject to semantic incorporation. The addition of functional material related to (in)definiteness ensures anti-incorporation; one way to explain this is to assume that the D head contains a Case feature which can only be licensed by functional material at the clausal level and not via complex predicate formation.
(27) | a. | Consideră | studenţii | foarte | inteligenţi. |
| | consider3 | student.m.pl.def.m.pl | very | intelligent.m.pl |
| | ‘They consider the students very intelligent.’ |
| b. | Îi | consideră | pe | studenţi | foarte | inteligenţi. |
| | cl.acc.3m.pl | consider.3 | dom | student.m.pl | very | intelligent.m.pl |
| | ‘They consider the students very intelligent.’ |
| c. | *Consideră | studenţi | foarte | Inteligenţi. |
| | consider.3 | student.m.pl | very | intelligent.m.pl |
| | Intended: ‘They consider the students very intelligent.’ |
| d. | Consideră | (*pe) | produse*(le) | foarte | scumpe | şi | nu |
| | consider.3 | dom | product.n.pl.def.n.pl | very | expensive.m.pl | and | neg |
| | le | vor | cumpăra. |
| | cl.acc.3n.pl | want=fut.3.pl | buy.inf |
| | ‘They consider the products very expensive and won’t buy them.’ |
| e. | Pune | ?studenţi/studenţii | să | îi |
| | put.3sg | student.m.pl/student.m.pl.def.m.pl | sbjv | cl.acc.3m/f.sg |
| | scrie | lucrările. |
| | write.3sg | paper.f.pl.def.f.pl |
| | ‘He makes the students write his papers.’15 | (Romanian) |
Irimia (
2020a) showed that Romanian marked objects can instead be unified structurally. Crucially, the differential marker applies to nominal classes that have a complex internal structure, encompassing two types of features: (i) uninterpretable Case ([uC]), merged in D, and (ii) additional features beyond [uC], for example discourse-related ([ð]) features merged in a functional projection about the D head, for example the K head. As in Romanian the DP acts as a phase (a complete domain for interpretation), the differential marker signals the presence of any additional features beyond the phase boundary. In this line of analysis, a better understanding of the nature of differential marking breaks down to a detailed investigation of various structural realizations in the extended functional structure of nominals and the interpretive correlates they carry.
(28) | ![Languages 09 00273 i004]() |
Another salient property of differentially marked objects is that they cannot easily bind into the external argument. This indicates that they are licensed in a position below VoiceP, the structural domain where external arguments are introduced. Note that this, by itself, does not imply that marked objects are not signaled by raising. They might undergo raising, but
covertly, and to a position lower than
vP (for example, to a position between VP and
v; see
López (
2012), while also keeping in mind problems above with respect to DOM raising in Romanian). Binding into the external argument is made possible when the differentially marked objects are accompanied by clitic doubling. We provide two examples in (29) and (30). Only in (29)(b) and (30)(b) can the direct object be coreferential with the subject; this interpretation is absent in the examples in (29)(a) and (30)(a).
(29) | a. | Muzica | lor*i | plictiseşte | pe | mulţi i. | |
| | music.def.f.sg | their | annoy.3sg | dom | many.m.pl | |
| | ‘Their music annoys many.’ | | | |
| b. | Muzica | lor | îii | | plictiseşte pe | mulţii. |
| | music.def.f.sg | their | cl.acc.3m.pl | | annoy.3sg dom | many.m.pl |
| | ‘Their (own) music annoys many.’ |
| | (Romanian, Cornilescu 2020, ex., 24, 25, p. 164) |
(30) | a. | Părinţii | lor*i | ajută | pe | toţi i | copiii. |
| | parent.def.m.pl | their | help.3pl | dom | all.m.pl | child.m.pl.def.m.pl |
| | ‘Their parents help all the children.’ |
| b. | Părinţii | lor | ȋii | ajută | pe | toţi i |
| | parent.def.m.pl | their | cl.acc.3m.pl | help.3pl | dom | all.m.pl |
| | copiii. | | | | | |
| | child.m.pl.def.m.pl | | | | | |
| | ‘Their (own) parents help all the children.’ | (Romanian) |
These contrasts indicate that differentially marked objects are licensed below VoiceP, the domain where the subject is introduced. Following
López (
2012), we assume a position between VP and VoiceP, as represented in (31). The clitic double has access to licensing above VoiceP, thus opening up the possibility of the object binding the pronominal inside the constituent containing the subject.
(31) | ![Languages 09 00273 i005]() |
A similar split in binding possibilities is observed in the non-Romance Balkan languages, for example Albanian, which we illustrate here. The sentence in (32)(a) contains a direct object that is not clitic doubled; binding into the external argument is not possible. On the other hand, if the direct object is clitic doubled, it can take scope over the external argument, and thus the sentence in (32)(b) can also get an interpretation in which the pronoun contained in the subject can co-vary with the direct object. This indicates that in Balkan languages, objects that are not clitic doubled cannot raise (covertly) to a position above the external argument. In
Section 5 and
Section 6, we will see that Ragusa is different in this respect, as unmarked objects do not need clitic doubling in order to bind into the external argument.
(32) | Cliticless direct objects—no binding into the external argument |
| a. | Hallet | e | tyre j | dëshpërojnë | shumë *j | njerëz. |
| | problem.nom.def.m.pl | agr | their | despair.3pl | many | people |
| | ‘Their problems despair many people.’ | (Albanian) |
| b. | Hallet | e | tyre j | i | dëshpërojnë |
| | problem.nom.def.m.pl | agr | their | cl.acc.3m.pl | despair.3pl |
| | shumëj | njerëz. |
| | many | people |
| | ‘Their own problems despair many people.’ |
| | ‘Their problems despair many people.’ | (Albanian, Dalina Kallulli, p.c.) |
3.5. Romanian DOM and Clitic Doubling
The fact that the clitic double can facilitate binding into the external argument is important when it comes to its unifying traits. Similarly to what we have seen for prepositional DOM, an attempt to link clitic doubled DOM to purely semantic features does not lead to correct results. For example, postulating that clitic doubled DOM entails specificity was contradicted by the existence of non-specific contexts such as those in (33). These direct objects instead carry interpretations related to various types of genericity. Despite this, they were set aside from the partitive generics discussed in (15), when it come to interpretation; in examples similar to (15), specificity is necessary in order to ensure the presence of the differential marker. This strengthens an observation already made above: a more in-depth understanding is needed of the composition of the various internal configurations of nominal categories and, moreover, how they map to various positions in the clausal spine. What is relevant as a starting point in the analysis of examples such as those in (33) is a general internal DP architecture as in (28), and moreover, the observation that certain types of generics are not correctly licensed inside VoiceP (and thus, they need the presence of the clitic double), regardless of superficial features such as specificity. Additionally, another context with clitic doubled DOM linked to a non-specific interpretation is in (17).
(33) | a. | De | parcă | nu | ȋi | cunosc | eu | pe | politicieni |
| | of | if | neg | cl.acc.3m.pl | know.1sg | 1sg,nom | dom | politician.m.pl |
| | ‘As if I don’t know the politicians.’ (‘As if I do not know what the politicians are like.’) |
| b. | Îi | ştiu | eu | pe | hoţii | ăştia |
| | cl.acc.3m.pl | know.1sg | I | dom | thief.m.pl | this.m.pl |
| | ‘I know these crooks.’ (‘I know what crooks thieves are like.’) |
| c. | Ce | o | | atrage | pe | o | femeie | la un | bărbat? |
| | what | cl.acc.3f.sg | attract.1sg | dom | a.f.sg | woman | at a.m.sg | man |
| | ‘What attracts a woman to a man?’ | (Romanian) |
An important distinction Romanian clitic doubling exhibits as compared to the non-Romance Balkan languages is its insensitivity to information structure; in Romanian, clitic doubling on DOM applies uniformly regardless of topic or focus structures and regardless of the absence or the presence of a [+given] feature. The context in (34) is an out-of-the-blue one and the sentence in (35) contains a contrastively focused direct object; as we can see, both the prepositional differential marker and clitic doubling are present (the differential marker is obligatory for all speakers, while clitic doubling is preferred, according to what descriptive grammars indicate).
(34) | a. | Ce | s-a | ȋntâmplat? |
| | what | se-have.3sg | happened |
| | ‘What happened?’ |
| b. | Un | hoţ | l-a | atacat | pe | Ion. | |
| | a.m.sg | thief | cl.acc.3m.sg-have.3sg | attacked | dom | Ion | |
| | ‘A thief attacked Ion.’ | (Romanian) |
(35) | L-am | chemat | PE | ION, nu | PE | Marius. |
| cl.acc.3m.sg-have.1 | called | dom | Ion | neg | dom | Marius |
| ‘I have called Ion, not Marius.’ | (Romanian) |
Another difference with respect to non-Romance Balkan languages is that neither the prepositional differential marker nor clitic doubling are possible with clausal material in Romanian, regardless of factivity. The Romanian sentence in (36) is ungrammatical, with or without clitic doubling on DOM, firstly because the prepositional marker
pe cannot introduce a clause.
(36) | *L-am | crezut | pe | că | Ion | a | plecat. |
| cl.acc.3m/n.sg-have1 | believed | dom | that | Ion | have.3sg | left |
| ‘I believed the fact that Ion left.’ | | (Romanian) |
In some of the non-Romance languages in the Balkans, for example Albanian or Greek, the coreferent of the clitic can also be a full clause, and not only a DP (
Tomić 1996;
Kallulli 2016). As
Kallulli (
2016) show, the presence of the clitic double enforces factivity, even with non-factive predicates. Two examples with predicates in the
believe class are illustrated below for Albanian; similar contexts have been discussed for other non-Romance Balkan languages such as Greek.
(37) | a. | Besova | se | Beni | shkoi | (por në fact ai nuk shkoi). |
| | belive.1pst | that | Beni | left | (but in fact he not left) |
| | ‘I believed that Beni left (but in fact he didn’t).’ |
| b. | E | besova | se | Beni | shkoi | (*por në fact ai nuk shkoi). |
| | cl.acc.3sg | believe.1pst | that | Beni | left | (but in fact he not left) |
| | ‘I believed the fact that Ben left (*but in fact he didn’t).’ |
| | (Albanian, Kallulli 2016, p. 212) |
Factive sentences can be easily assumed to contain an empty D head; when the latter has features that cannot compose with V directly (for example giveness, etc.), anti-incorporation must apply and the D head will be licensed by the clitic above vP. For constituents with a sentential nature, one of the interpretive correlates of giveness is factivity.
Kallulli (
2016) correctly pointed out that the presence of an empty D head in the makeup of clauses (for example, the pleonastic it in English, the
es pronominal marker in German) does correlate with factivity.
However, the restrictions on differential object marking block the clitic doubling of clauses in Romanian. First, given that the clitic double is only possible with differentially marked objects, it is not sensitive just to the presence of a D head (as we saw in (28) where a more complex structure of the co-occurring nominal is needed). As clauses do not have a KP structure, the clitic double will be blocked on them. Second, sensitivity to animacy (for those contexts in which the differential marker is possible only with animates) will similarly filter out clausal projections, as the latter cannot (normally) be specified as animate. And third, full clauses do not have the same internal structure as nominal ellipsis contexts and thus cannot be differentially marked; this, in turn, will prohibit their doubling by a clitic.
As we have already said, another unifying trait of Romanian DOM contexts is that clitic doubling is not possible with objects that do not have the differential marker pronounced overtly. Thus, observe the contrast between (38)(a) and (38)(b):
(38) | a. | Am | văzut-o | pe | fată. |
| | have.1 | seen-cl.acc.3f.sg | dom | girl |
| | ‘I saw the girl.’ |
| b. | Am | văzut(-*o) | fata. | |
| | have.1 | seen-cl.acc.3f.sg | girl.def.f.sg | |
| | Intended: ‘I saw the girl.’ | (Romanian) |
And lastly, clitic doubling in Romanian is not restricted to objects with a [+topic] feature; as we have seen in the examples in (34) and (35), differential marking and thus clitic doubling are possible on foci or objects that are novel in the discourse. In this respect, Romanian is clearly distinguished from non-Romance Balkan languages, in which clitic doubling has been shown to exclude material signaled as [+focus] or objects that are not given (see
Kallulli (
2016), who discusses this restriction for Albanian and Greek or the various contributions in
Kallulli and Tasmowski (
2008a), who mention the same facts for other non-Romance Balkan languages).
16