Literaturverzeichnis

Quellentexte

Alecsandri, V. (1848). Balta Albă. In Proza. Bucureşti, Albatros, 107–113. Alexandrescu, G. (1842). Memorial de Călătorie (Mănăstirile de peste Olt). Bucureşti,

Edit. Lean Alcalay, 14–18. Butunoiu, A. (1992). Nedumerirea Cumătrului. Bucureşti, Mihai Eminescu, 29–32. Caragiale, I. L. (1900). Amicul X. In Momente. Schițe. Bucureşti, Editura Academiei,

11–15. Filimon, N. (1858). O cantatriţă de uliţă. In Opere I-II. Bucureşti, Editura de Stat, 56–

60. Galaction, G. (1931). Viteazul Jap. In Nuvele. Bucureşti, Editura de Stat pentru litera-

tură si Artă, 27–33. Gârleanu, E. M. (1905). Nadişanca. In Din lumea celor care nu cuvântă, povestiri.

Bucureşti, Polirom, 42–48. Gârleanu, E. (1924). Cea dintîi durere. Bucureşti, Polirom, 9–14. Negruzzi, C. (1823). Idile: Cârjaliul. Bucureşti, Editura de Stat, 34–40. Negruzzi, C. (1824). Idile: Idile. Bucureşti, Editura de Stat, 23–26. Popescu, D.R. (1962): Păpuşa spânzurată. Bucureşti, Editura pentru Literatură, 309–

316. Slavici, Ioan (1881). Scormon. In Novele. Bucureşti, Editura de Stat, 4–9. Velea, N. (1981). În treacăt. In Nuvela si povestea româneasca. Bucureşti, Editura

pentru Literatură, 419–42.

Forschungsliteratur

Aissen, J. (2000). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz.

Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Lan-guage and Linguistic Theory, 21(3): 435–483.

Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24(1): 65–87. Avram, A. (1986). Sandhi phenomena in Romanian. In H. Andersen (Hg.), Sandhi

Phenomena in the Languages of Europe, 551–574. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018S.I. Lindemann, Die diachronische Entwicklung der differentiellen Objektmarkierung im Rumänischen, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19612-7

108 Literaturverzeichnis

Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Hg.), Cognition and the Development of Language, 279–362. New York: Wiley.

Bossong, G. (1982). Historische Sprachwissenschaft und empirische Universalien-forschung. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 33: 17–51.

Bossong, G. (1985). Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmar-kierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.

Bossong, G. (1991). Differential marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Wanner & D. Kibbee (Hgg.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics: Selected papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XVIII, Urbana-Campaign, April 7–9, 1988, 143–170. Amsterdam: Benjamins:

Brocher, A., S. Chiriacescu & K. von Heusinger (2016). Effects of information status and uniqueness status on referent management in discourse comprehension and planning. Discourse Processes, published online: 27 Dec 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1254990.

Chiriacescu, S. (2007). Pe-Markierung und Diskurs-Prominenz im Rumänischen. Magisterarbeit, Universität Stuttgart.

Chiriacescu, S. 2009. Indefinite NPs and pe-marking in Romanian. In N. Saramandu, M. Nevaci & C. I. Radu (Hgg.), Proceedings of the Second International Lin-guistics Colloquium, 401–413. Bucharest: Bucharest UP.

Chiriacescu, S. (2011). Effects of reference form on frequency of mention and rate of pronominalization. In I. Hendrickx, S. Lalitha Devi, A. Branco & R. Mitkov (Hgg.), Anaphora Processing and Applications. 8th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, DAARC 2011, Faro, Portugal, October 6–7, 2011. Revised Selected Papers, 132–143. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.

Chiriacescu, S. (2014). The Discourse Structuring Potential of Indefinite Noun Phrases. Special Markers in English, German and Romanian. Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart. Online Publikationen der Universität Stuttgart: http://dx.doi.org/10.18419/opus-5395.

Chiriacescu, S. & K. von Heusinger (2010). Discourse prominence and pe-marking in Romanian. International Review of Pragmatics, 2(2): 298–332.

Comrie, B. 1979. Definite and animite direct objects. A natural class. Linguistica Si-lensiana, 3: 13–21.

Cornilescu, A. (2001). Romanian nominalizations: Case and aspectual structure. Jour-nal of Linguistics, 37: 467–501.

Cornilescu, A. (2002). Obsevatii privind interpretarea acuzativului prepositional in limba romana. In Actele colocviului catedrei de limba romana, 91–106. Bu-karest: Tipografia univeritatii.

Literaturverzeichnis 109

Dalrymple, M. & I. Nikolaeva (2011). Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dimitrescu, F. (1960). Despre pre la acuzativ in limba textelor traduse din slava in secolul al XVI-lea. Studii si cercetari lingvistice, 9(2): 219–226.

Dindelegan, G. (1976). Sintaxa limbii romane I: Sintaxa grupului verbal. Bukarest: Tipografia univeristatii.

Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1994). The Syntax of Romanian. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (2007). Article-drop and extended heads. In G. Albuin et al. (Hgg.), Pitar Mos: A Building with a View, 99–107. Bukarest: Bukarest University Press.

Draşoveanu (1997). Teze si antiteze in sintaxa limbii romane. Bukarest: Editura Clusi-um.

Enç. M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistics Inquiry, 22(1): 1–25. Escandell-Vidal, V. (2009). Differential object marking and topicality: The case of

Balearic Catalan. Studies in Language, 33(4): 832–885. Farkas, D. 1978. Direct and indirect object reduplication in Romanian. In D. Farkas,

W. M. Jacobsen & K. W. Todrys (Hgg.), Papers from the 14th Regional Mee-ting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 88–97. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Farkas, D. & K. von Heusinger (2003). Stability of reference and object marking in Romanian. Ms., Universität Stuttgart.

Fries, N. (1988). Präpositionen und Präpositionalphrasen im Deutschen und im Neugriechischen: Aspekte einer kontrastiven Analyse Deutsch-Neugriechisch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Garvey, C. & A. Caramazza (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic inquiry, 5(3): 459–464.

Gierling, D. (1997). Clitic doubling, specificity and focus in Romanian. In J. Black, & V. Motapanyane (Hgg.), Clitics, Pronouns and Movement, 63–85. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Givón, T. (2005). Context as Other Minds. The Pragmatics of Sociality, Cognition and Communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in spoken English. In T. Givón (Hg.), Topic Conti-nuity in Discourse. A Quantitative Cross-Language Study, 343–364. Amster-dam: Benjamins.

Guruianu, V. (2005). Sintaxa textelor românesti originale din secolul al XVI-lea, Vol. 1: Sintaxa propozitiei. Bukarest: Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti.

110 Literaturverzeichnis

Guţul Romano, V. (Hg.) (2005). Gramatica Limbii Române I: Cuvantul. Bukarest: Editura Academiei Române.

Hawkins, J. (1978). Definiteness and Indefiniteness. A Study in Reference and Gram-maticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.

Heim, I. (1982). On the Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. Dis-sertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Erschienen: New York, Gar-land Pub., 1988].

von Heusinger, K. (2002). Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse struc-ture. Journal of Semantics, 19: 245–274.

von Heusinger, K. (2011). Specifity, referentiality and discourse prominence: German indefinite demonstratives. In I. Reich (Hg.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, 9–30. Saarbrücken: Universaar, Saarland University Press.

von Heusinger, K. & S. Chiriacescu (2013). The discourse structuring potential of dif-ferential object marking. The case of indefinite and definite direct objects in Romanian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, LVIII(4): 439–356.

von Heusinger, K. & G. Kaiser (2005). The evolution of differentiated object marking in Spanish. In E. Stark, K. von Heusinger & G. Kaiser (Hgg.), Specificity and the Evolution/Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance (Ar-beitspapiere des Fachbereichs Sprachwissenschaft, 119), 33–69. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.

von Heusinger, K. & E. Onea (2008). Triggering and blocking effects in the diachronic development of DOM in Romanian. Probus, 20(1): 67–110.

Hill, V. (2015). From preposition to topic marker: Old Romanian pe. In T. Biberauer & G. Walkden (Hgg.), Syntax over Time. Lexical, Morphological, and Infor-mation-Structure Interactions, 219–236. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hopper, P. & S. Thompson (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2). 251–299.

Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen & M. Stokhof (Hgg.), Truth, Interpretation and Information, 1–41. Dordrecht: Foris.

Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In J. McCawley (Hg.), Syntax and Seman-tics 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, 363–385. New York: Academic Press.

Klein, U. (2007). Encoding of Argument Structure in Romanian and Siswati. Ph.D. Dissertation, King’s College, London.

Klein, U. & P. de Swart (2011). Case and referential properties. Lingua 121(1). 3–19. Laca, B. (1987). Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en espanol. Romanistisches

Jahrbuch, 38: 290–312.

Literaturverzeichnis 111

Lazard, G. (1984). Actance variations and categories of the object. In F. Plank (Hg.), Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, 267–292. New York: Academic Press.

Leonetti, M. (2003). Specificity and object marking: the case of Spanish a. In K. von Heusinger & G. Kaiser (Hgg.), Proceedings of the Workshop Semantic and Syn-tactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance languages (Arbeitspapiere des Fachbereichs Sprachwissenschaft, 113), 67–101. Konstanz: Universität Kon-stanz.

Lindemann, S. (2017). Referenz und Prominenz. In: Germanistische Beiträge. Band 41/2017. Sibiu: Editura Univesitatii din Sibiu.

Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manoliu-Manea, M. (1988). Direct-objects constructions in Rumanian: Verbal com-

plementation and discourse strategies. International Journal of Rumanian Stud-ies, 6(2): 53–67.

Mardale, A. D. (2002). Note despre construirea obiectului direct prepoziţional în Ro-mâna şi Spaniolă. Studii şi Cercetări Lingvistice, 1–2: 77–94.

Mardale, A. D. (2015). Romanian DOM-marker is not a case assigner. Vortrags-manuskript, Societas Linguistica Europaea 2015 – 48th Annual Meeting, Lei-den, September 2015.

Meyer-Lübke, W. (1972). Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen. Teil III: Romanische Syntax. Hildesheim: Olms. [Nachdruck der Ausgabe Leipzig, 1899].

Müller, B. (1971). Das morphemmarkierte Satzobjekt der romanischen Sprachen. Der sogenannte präpositionale Akkusativ. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, 87: 477–519.

Næss, A. (2004). What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct ob-jects. Lingua, 114(9–10): 1186–1212.

Niculescu, A. (1965). Obiectul direct prepozitional in limbile romanice. In Individuali-tatea limbii romane intre limbile romanice, 1–49. Bukarest: Editura Stiintifica.

Nikolaeva, I. (2001). Secondary topics as a relation in information structure. Linguis-tics, 39(1): 1–49.

Onu, L. (1959). L’origine de l’accusatif roumain avec P(R)E. In: Recueil d’Études Romanes, publié à l’occasion du IX Congrès International de Linguistique Romane à Lisbonne du 31 marx au 3 avril 1959, 187–209. Bukarest: Editura Academiei Popuare Române.

Pană Dindelegan, G. (1997). Din nou despre statutul prepoziţiei. Cu referire specialǎ la prepoziţia PE. Limba Română, 156: 165–174.

112 Literaturverzeichnis

Prince, E. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness and information-status. In: W. Mann & S. Thompson (Hgg.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Anal-yses of a Fund-Raising Text, 295–325. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Puşcariu, S. (1922). Despre p(r)e la acuzativ. Dacoromania, 2: 565–581. Reichenkron, G. (1951). Das präpositionale Akkusativ-Objekt im ältesten Spanischen.

Romanische Forschungen, 63: 342–397. Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics. An analysis of sentence topics. Philo-

sophica, 27(1): 53–94. Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Hg.),

Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. New Jersey: Hu-manities Press.

Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1987). Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sportiche, D. (1992). Clitic Constructions. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles. Stark, E. & S. Sora (2008). Why is there differential object marking in Romance?

Vortragsmanuskript, 30. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Spra-chwissenschaft, Bamberg, 27.–29. Februar 2008.

Steriade, D. (1980). Clitic doubling in the Romanian Wh-constructions and the analy-sis of topicalization. In J. Kreiman & A. Ojeda (Hgg.), Papers from the 16th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 282–297. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Thomson, A. (1912). Beiträge zur Kasuslehre. Über die Neubildung des Akkusativs. Indogermanische Forschungen, 30: 65–79.

Tomić, O. (1996). Possessive clitics in Macedonian and Bulgarian. In A. Halpern & A. Zwicky (Hgg.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phe-nomena, 511–536. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.