Cover not available

In: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. 91–110

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Is there a dative alternation in Romanian?

Remarks on the cross-categorial variation of datives in ditransitive constructions

 | University of Bucharest
 | University of Bucharest
Published online: 1 December 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.355.05cor
Abstract
Against recent claims that Romance languages lack a genuine dative alternation since they lack a genuine Prepositional Dative Construction (e.g., Pineda 2012), we bring evidence that, in Romanian, even in Recipient ditransitive constructions, datives manifest either DP or PP properties. In order to establish this result, we examine both the (internal) structure of the Romanian inflectional dative, and the prepositional dative, marked by the preposition la “at”/“to” and show that both forms require a ‘dual categorial analysis’, in order to allow licensing of their case and person features. While the default interpretation of datives in Recipient ditransitive constructions is that of DPs (whence the possibility of clitic doubling (CD)), there is a class of contexts (e.g., double datives, featuring a possessive dative and a Goal/Recipient dative), where the Recipient must be projected as a PP, since otherwise it cannot be licensed. The dual categorization of the Recipient as a DP/PP proves the existence of a genuine dative alternation in Romanian.
Article outline
  • 1.Background and aim
    • 1.1The aim of the chapter
    • 1.2Background, properties of Romanian ditransitives
  • 2.The structure of Romanian dative phrases
    • 2.1Inflectional and prepositional marking
    • 2.2Sensitivity to the animacy hierarchy
      • Conclusion
    • 2.3The thematic range of datives in ditransitive constructions
    • 2.4The internal structure of dative vs accusative la
      • Why is the clitic possible and sometimes required?
      • Conclusions
    • 2.4The internal structure of the inflectional dative phrase
      • Conclusions
  • 3.On the dual categorial status of datives in ditransitive constructions
    • 3.1Aim of the section, framework of the analysis
    • 3.2Multiple datives
    • 3.3Narrow (asymmetric) scope
    • 3.4The interference with Differential Object Marking (DOM)
    • 3.5Non-configurational semantic effects of the Romanian dative alternation
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (20)
References
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2005. Cross-linguistic and cross-categorial variation of datives. In Melita Stavrou & Arhonto Terzi (eds.), Advances in Greek generative syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou, 61–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2011. On affectedness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(2). 335–370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, John & Chiyo Nishida. 2010. The Spanish dative alternation revisited. In Sonia Colina (ed.), Romance linguistics 2009: Selected papers from the 39th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 217–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2005. Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus 17(1). 1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2020. Ditransitive constructions with DOM-ed direct objects in Romanian. In Anna Pineda & Jaume Mateu (eds.), Dative constructions in Romance and beyond, 117–142. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra, Anca Dinu & Alina Tigău. 2017. Romanian dative configurations: Ditransitive verbs, a tentative analysis. Revue roumaine de linguistique 62(2). 157–178.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuervo, Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deal Amy Rose. 2013. Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry 44(3). 391–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diaconescu, Constanţa Rodica & María Luisa Rivero. 2007. An applicative analysis of double object constructions in Romanian. Probus 19(2). 209–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dogget, Teal. 2004. All things being unequal: Locality in movement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the DOC. In Pierre Pica & Johan Rooryck (eds.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook, Volume 2. 31–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iorga, Ana. 2013. O tipologie a dativului românesc. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bucharest.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2008. Reference to the individuals, person and the variety of mapping parameters. In Henrik Høeg Müller & Alex Klinge (eds.), Essays on nominal determination, 189–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2017. Historical changes in Basque dative alternations: Evidence for a P-based (neo)derivational analysis. Glossa 2(1). 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pineda, Anna. 2012. Double object constructions and dative/accusative alternations in Spanish and Catalan: A unified account. Borealis 2(1). 57–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, Mark. 2008. Defective agree, case alternation, and the prominence of person. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86. 137–161.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Tigău, Alina
2023. Subject-Object binding dependencies in Romanian. Linguistics Beyond and Within (LingBaW) 9 ► pp. 208 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue