The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish by Romanian speakers

References

1. Aissen, J.
   (2003) Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–448. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
   https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
2. Alfaraz, G.
   (2011) Accusative object marking. A change in progress in Cuban Spanish?Spanish in Context, 8(2), 213–234. 10.1075/sic.8.2.02alf
   https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.8.2.02alf [Google Scholar]
3. Arechabaleta, B.
   (2014) The L2 Acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish by English Speakers. Unpublished MA paper, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
4. Bardel, C. & Falk, Y.
   (2007) The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic Syntax. Second Language Research, 23(4), 459–484. 10.1177/0267658307080557
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307080557 [Google Scholar]
5. Bautista Maldonado, S. & Montrul, S.
   (2019). An experimental investigation of Differential Object Marking in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context, 16, 1, 22–50. 10.1075/sic.00025.bau
   https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.00025.bau [Google Scholar]
6. Belloro, V.
   (2007) Spanish clitic doubling: A study of the syntax semantics interface. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
7. Birdsong, D. & Molis, M.
   (2001) On the evidence of maturational constraints in second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 235–49. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2750
   https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2750 [Google Scholar]
8. Bley-Vroman, R.
   (1990) The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Borgonovo, C. & Prévost, P.
   (2003) Knowledge of polarity subjunctive in L2 Spanish. InProceedings of the 27th Boston University Conference on Language Development, (150–161). Somerville, MA, Cascadilla Press.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Bossong, G.
    (1991) Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Wanner & D. Kibbee (Eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, (pp.143–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Bowles, M. & Montrul, S.
    (2009) Instructed L2 acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. In R. Leow , H. Campos & D. Lardiere (Eds.), Little words. Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and acquisition, (pp.199–210). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Bruhn de Garavito, J.
    (1997) Verb complementation, coreference and Tense in the acquisition of Spanish as a second language. In A. T. Perez-Leroux and W. Glass (Eds), Contemporary Perspectives in the Acquisition of Spanish, (pp.167–180). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Company, C.
    (2002) El avance diacrónico de la marcación prepositiva en objetos directos inanimados. In A. Bernabé (Eds.), Presente y futuro de la lingüística en España, Vol.II, (pp.146–154). Madrid: SEL.
    [Google Scholar]
14. David, O.
    (2015) Clitic doubling and differential object marking. A study in diachronic construction grammar. Constructions and Frames, 7(1), 103–135. 10.1075/cf.7.1.04dav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.1.04dav [Google Scholar]
15. Dobrovie-Sorin, C.
    (1994) The Syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110886597
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110886597 [Google Scholar]
16. Dumitrescu, D.
    (1997) El parámetro discursivo en la expresión del objeto directo lexical: español madrileño vs. español porteño. Signo y Seña, 7, 305–354.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Fábregas, A.
    (2013) Differential Object Marking in Spanish: State of the Art. Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2, 1–80. 10.7557/1.2.2.2603
    https://doi.org/10.7557/1.2.2.2603 [Google Scholar]
18. Farkas, D.
    (1978) Direct and indirect object reduplication in Romanian. In D. Farkas , W. M. Jacobsen & K. W. Todrys (Eds.), Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS 14), (pp.88–97). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Farkas, D. , & von Heusinger, K.
    (2003) Stability of reference and object marking in Romanian. Paper presented atWorkshop on Direct Reference and Specificity, ESSLLI, Vienna, August 2003.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Farley, A. & McCollam, K.
    (2004) Learner readiness and L2 production in Spanish: Processability theory on trial. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 22, 47–69.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Franceschina, F.
    (2001) Morphological or syntactic deficits in near-native speakers? An assessment of some current proposals. Second Language Research, 17, 213–247. 10.1177/026765830101700301
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026765830101700301 [Google Scholar]
22. Geeslin, K.
    (Ed.) (2014) The acquisition of the copula contrast in second language Spanish. Handbook of Spanish as a Second Language. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Guijarro Fuentes, P. & Geeslin, K.
    (2003) Age related factors in copula choice in steady state L2 Spanish grammars. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 16, 83–110.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Guijarro Fuentes, P.
    (2011) Feature composition in Differential Object Marking. In L. Roberts , G. Pallotti & C. Bettoni (Eds), EUROSLA Yearbook11, (pp.138–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Guijarro Fuentes, P.
    (2012) The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a . Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 15, 701–720. 10.1017/S1366728912000144
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000144 [Google Scholar]
26. Guijarro Fuentes, P. & Marinis, T.
    (2007) Acquiring the syntax/semantic interface in L2 Spanish: the personal preposition ‘a’. In L. Roberts , A. Gürel , S. Tatar & L. Martı (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook7, (pp.67–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Granena, G. & Long, M.
    (2013) Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–343. 10.1177/0267658312461497
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312461497 [Google Scholar]
28. Grüter, T. , Lew-Williams, C. & Fernald, A.
    (2012) Grammatical gender in L2A: A production or a real-time processing problem?Second Language Research, 28, 191–216. 10.1177/0267658312437990
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312437990 [Google Scholar]
29. von Heusinger, K.
    (2002) Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of semantics, 19(3), 245–274. 10.1093/jos/19.3.245
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.245 [Google Scholar]
30. von Heusinger, K.
    (2005) The evolution of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. In K. von Heusinger , G. Kaiser & E. Stark (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop Specificity and the Evolution/Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance, (pp.33–70). Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz, Arbeitspapier Nr. 119.
    [Google Scholar]
31. von Heusinger, K.
    (2008) Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish. Probus, 20, 1–31. 10.1515/PROBUS.2008.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PROBUS.2008.001 [Google Scholar]
32. von Heusinger, K. & Kaiser, G.
    (2011) Affectedness and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Morphology, 21, 593–617. 10.1007/s11525‑010‑9177‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9177-y [Google Scholar]
33. von Heusinger, K. & Onea Gáspar, E.
    (2008) Triggering and blocking effects in the diachronic development of DOM in Romanian. Probus, 20, 67–110. 10.1515/PROBUS.2008.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PROBUS.2008.003 [Google Scholar]
34. Hill, V. & Mardale, A.
    (2017) On the interaction of Differential Object Marking and Clitic Doubling in Romanian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique (RRL), LXII, 4, 393–409. Bucureşti.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Hyltenstam, K. & Abrahamsson, N.
    (2009) Age of onset and native-likeness in second language acquisition: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59, 249–306. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00507.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00507.x [Google Scholar]
36. Ioup, G. , Boustagoui, E. , Tigi, M. , & Moselle, M.
    (1994) Reexamining the critical period hypothesis: a case study of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73–98. 10.1017/S0272263100012596
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012596 [Google Scholar]
37. Laca, B.
    (2006) El objeto directo. In Company, C. (Ed.) Sintaxis histórica del español. VolI: La frase verbal. México: Universidad Autónoma de México.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Lardiere, D.
    (2007) Ultimate Attainment in Second Language Acquisition. A Case Study. Mawhaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Lardiere, D.
    (2009) Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227. 10.1177/0267658308100283
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658308100283 [Google Scholar]
40. Leonetti, M.
    (2004) Specificity and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Catalan. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75–114.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Leonetti, M.
    (2008) Specificity in Clitic Doubling and Differential Object Marking. Probus, 20(1), 33–66. 10.1515/PROBUS.2008.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PROBUS.2008.002 [Google Scholar]
42. Long, M.
    (2003) Stabilization and fossilization in interlanguage development. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.487–536). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch16
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch16 [Google Scholar]
43. López, L.
    (2012) Indefinite objects. Scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 63. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
44. Lyons, C.
    (1999) Definiteness. In K. Brown & J. Miller (Eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories (pp.125–131). Amsterdam, Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Mardale, A.
    (2007) Les prépositions fonctionnelles du roumain: étude comparative. Doctoral dissertation, Diderot Paris (Paris 7) and University of Bucharest.
46. Montrul, S.
    (2014) Searching for the roots of structural changes in the Spanish of the United States. Lingua, 151, 177–196. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.007 [Google Scholar]
47. Montrul, S.
    (2013) Differential Object Marking in Argentine Spanish. An experimental study. In L. Colantoni & C. Rodríguez Louro (Eds.). The Handbook of Argentine Spanish, (pp.207–228). Frankfurt: Vervuert Iberoamericana.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Montrul, S. and Gürel, A.
    (2015) The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish by Turkish speakers. In T. Judy & S. Perpiñán (Eds.), The Acquisition of Spanish by speakers of less commonly studies languages (pp.281–308). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Montrul, S. & Slabakova, R.
    (2003) Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite/imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 351–398. 10.1017/S0272263103000159
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000159 [Google Scholar]
50. Papadopoulou, D. , Varlokosta, S. , Spyropoulos, V. , Kaili, H. , Prokou, S. & Revithiadou, A.
    (2010) Case morphology and word order in second language Turkish: Evidence from Greek learners. Second Language Research, 27(2), 173–205. 10.1177/0267658310376348
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310376348 [Google Scholar]
51. Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M.
    (2008) The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus, 20, 111–145. 10.1515/PROBUS.2008.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PROBUS.2008.004 [Google Scholar]
52. Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R.
    (1996) L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72. 10.1177/026765839601200103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839601200103 [Google Scholar]
53. Selinker, L.
    (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–231. 10.1515/iral.1972.10.1‑4.209
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209 [Google Scholar]
54. Suñer, M.
    (1988) The role of agreement in dative doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 391–434. 10.1007/BF00133904
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133904 [Google Scholar]
55. Ticio, E. & Avram, L.
    (2015) The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish and Romanian: Semantic scales or semantic features?Revue Roumaine Linguistique, LX, 4, 383–402, Bucureşti.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Torrego, E.
    (1998) The dependency of objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/2337.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2337.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
57. Weissenrieder, M.
    (1990) Variable uses of the direct-object marker A. Hispania, 73, 223–31. 10.2307/343010
    https://doi.org/10.2307/343010 [Google Scholar]
58. White, L. & Genesee, F.
    (1996) How native is near native? The issue of age and ultimate attainment in the acquisition of a second language. Second Language Research, 12(2), 238–265.
    [Google Scholar]