@article{662794,
  author         = {Hill, Virginia},
  journal        = {Australian Journal of Linguistics},
  number         = {2},
  pages          = {140–151},
  publisher      = {Taylor & Francis},
  title          = {The Direct Object Marker in Romanian: A Historical Perspective},
  url            = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07268602.2013.814527},
  volume         = {33},
  year           = {2013},
  abstract       = {So far, most analyses assume that DOM and clitic doubling (CD) are two sides of the same mechanism, arising from a structure-dependent condition (i.e. Case for nouns). This assumption concerns Romance languages in general, including Romanian (old or modern). This paper points out that data from Early Modern Romanian (EMR) and data from other Balkan Romance languages contradict this assumption. The analysis I propose disengages DOM from CD and from structure-dependent constraints, and brings evidence for a discourse-based approach to both DOM and CD, separately or in conjunction with each other.},
  citekeys       = {glossa5367:B30},
  doi            = {10.1080/07268602.2013.814527},
  inlg           = {English [eng]},
  isreferencedby = {glossa5367},
  issn           = {0726-8602},
  lgcode         = {Romanian [roma1327]},
  macro_area     = {Eurasia},
  src            = {glossa, haspelmath, langsci}
}