Differentially Object Marked and Clitic Doubled Indefinite Direct Objects in Discourse. The case of Romanian

Differentially Object Marked and Clitic Doubled Indefinite Direct Objects in Discourse. The case of Romanian¹
Alina-Mihaela Tigău²

University of Geneva & University of Bucharest

1. Introduction
► Work at the syntax-semantics interface: the interpretation of the pe marked and clitic doubled indefinite³ direct objects in Romanian

►We compare the behavior and interpretation of both unmarked and pe marked + CD-ed direct objects in Romanian (a Differential Object Marking (DOM⁴) language) with their counterparts in non-DOM languages (German, Dutch, English, Hungarian)

Sneak preview of the results results:
► CD-ed and pe marked indefinites usually acquire wide scope readings in the presence of another operator just like moved constituents in configurational languages. The result is interesting in view of the fact that Romanian seems to rely on the internal structure of the DP (CD + pe) to solve matters that other (configurational) languages solve by resorting to word order and movement.
► the contribution of CD+pe amounts to specificity as anchoring (Farkas (1995), von Heusinger 2002, Lopez 2009)
►the division of labor between the clitic and the differential marker
>> the clitic enables an anchoring relation with a discourse referent previously introduced in the discourse in the sense of von Heusinger (2002), Lopez (2009 ); in case such a discourse referent is not explicitly mentioned, tests prove that it is presupposed.

>> pe may indirectly trigger a specific reading through its effect it has on the DPs: it marks eliminating the property reading and actualizing the entity or the generalized quantifier reading on the DPs it marks.

>> the syntax of CD+DOM: the clitic as the licenser of the DP double >> the clitic imposes some restrictions on the DP it doubles: a certain semantic type ( or <t>).

► DRT account of pe + CD: the clitic introduces a discourse marker to which the discourse referent introduced by the doubled DP is anchored. The discourse referent of the clitic itself is determined by the context (either related to a discourse old referent or presupposed)

• 
  DP=an indefinite> the discourse referent introduced by the DP is subsumed under the discourse referent introduced by the clitic (> covert partitive reading).
  
• 
  DP = a definite DP> the relation between the discourse referent introduced by the clitic and the one introduced by the DP is one of equality.
  

The Structure of the paper
Section 2: the effect of pe + CD with respect to scope

Section 3: the semantic import of pe + CD

Section 4: the division of labour

Section 5: DRT account
2. Scope Data
2.1. Beghelli & Stowell (1996) → different quantifiers scope differently:
► indefinite DPs: a capacity for wide scope and for narrow scope → the two readings correspond to two positions: a high RefP position above CP (widest scope) and a lower position, ShareP (narrow scope).

► Distributive-Universal QPs headed by ‘every’, ‘each’: SpecDistP.

(1) RefP

eo

Spec CP

g eo

GQP Spec AgrSP

g eo

WhQP Spec DistP

g eo

CQP Spec ShareP

g eo

DQP Spec NegP

g eo

GQP Spec AgrOP

g v

NQP Spec VP

g

CQP

► When a DQP and an indefinite DP co-occur in the same sentence, two readings may obtain:
• if the indefinite DP occupies SpecShareP it will acquire a narrow scope interpretation because this position is in the scope of the DQP occupying SpecDistP.
• if the GQP fills SpecRefP, it will outscope the DQP in the SpecDistP.
(2) Every student in this class read a book on linguistics.
> Romanian unmarked direct objects behave in a similar way to English ones:
(3) Toţi studenţii de la engleză au citit o carte de lingvistică.

All student.the from English have read a book of linguistics.

‘All the students learning English have read a book on linguistics.’
2.2. Configuration Overrides Lexical Factors
• Languages such as German, Hungarian, Dutch: a way to override these lexical factors:

► word order and movement: out of two potential scoping DPs, the leftmost one outscopes the other.

(4) a. Sok ember mindenkit felhívott.

Many man everyone.ACC up-called

‘Many men phone everyone’
b. Mindenkit sok ember felhívott.

Everyone.ACC many man up-called

‘Many men phone everyone’ Hungarian (Szabolcsi 1996)
(5) Mindestens ein Student hat jeden Roman gelesen.

At.least one student has every novel read

‘At least one student read every novel.’ German (Krifka 1998)
(6) Een kabouter heeft iedere appel opgegeten.

‘A dwarf has eaten each apple’ Dutch (Philip 2005)

2.3. Non-configurational Scope in Romanian
► Romanian does not rely on word order to differentiate between the wide scope and the narrow scope readings of indefinite DPs.

▼

(7) a. Două cărţi de lingvistică a citit fiecare student al acestei facultăţi.

Two books of linguistics has read every student of this faculty.

‘Every student of this faculty read two books on linguistics.’

b. Acestea sunt ‘Barriers’ şi ‘The Minimalist Program’.

These are ‘Barriers’ and ‘The Minimalist Program’.

c. Nu se ştie, însă care.

Not refl. knows however which

‘One does not know which books on linguistics they read.’

↕

► movement of the indefinite DP to the left of the universal-distributive QP, does not trigger the wide scope reading of this DP.

►The indefinite DP remains ambiguous between a wide scope reading and a narrow scope one in all the possible word orders: SVO, VSO, VOS, OVS, OSV, and SOV.
!!! Nevertheless >> a difference in behavior between unmarked direct objects and PE marked + CD-ed direct objects
► marked DPs seem to favor a wide scope reading irrespective of the position they occupy in the sentence.

► marked inanimate indefinites only acquire a wide scope reading

A. inanimate marked indefinite direct objects⁵
(8) a. Două piese de-ale lui Shakespeare a citit fiecare student

Two plays by Shakespeare has read every student

pentru cursul de literatură.

for course.the of literature

‘Every student read two plays of Shakespeare for the literature course.’
b. Două piese de-ale lui Shakespeare le- a citit fiecare student

Two plays by Shakespeare them.cl has read every student

pentru cursul de literatură.

for course.the of literature

‘Every student read the same two plays by Shakespeare for the literature course.’
→ the test of the distributive ‘cât/ câte’ which only allows a narrow scope reading (Farkas 2002 c)
(9) a. Mulţi studenţi au vorbit cu un profesor.

Many students have talked with a teacher.

‘Many students talked to a teacher’
b. Mulţi studenţi au vorbit cu câte un profesor.

Many students have talked with CÂTE a teacher.

‘Many students talked to a teacher each’

(10) a. Câte două piese de Shakespeare a citit fiecare student

CÂTE two plays by Shakespeare has read every student

pentru cursul de literatură.

for course.the of literature

‘Every student read two plays of Shakespeare for the literature course.’

b. *Câte două piese de Shakespeare le- a citit fiecare student

CÂTE two plays by Shakespeare them.cl has read every student

pentru cursul de literatură.

for course.the of literature

‘Every student read the same two plays by Shakespeare for the literature course.’
► inanimate indefinites acquire an unambiguous wide scope reading when they are left dislocated and resumed by the clitic.
B. animate marked indefinite direct objects
► Animate direct objects which are pe marked and clitic doubled seem to behave in a similar way to their inanimate counterparts.
(11) a. Pe un vorbitor de seamă l- au aplaudat toţi cei prezenţi

pe a speaker famous him.cl have applauded all those present

la acea lansare de carte. (şi nu pe un critic literar mediocru).⁶

at that book release. (and not PE a critic literary obscure)

‘It was a famous speaker that everybody present at the book release applauded and not an obscure literary critic’

b. Pe câţiva moguli români îi vânează toate femeile.⁷

Pe some moguls Romanian them.cl hunt all women.

‘All women are hunting for some Romanian moguls.’


3. Pe marking+CD as a trigger for specificity
► Pe +CD does not necessarily ensure a wide scope reading on the animate indefinite.
(12) a. Pe un copil care nu înţelege în clasă îl ajută orice părinte grijuliu.⁸

PE a child who not understands in class him.cl help any parent attentive

‘A thoughtful parent will always help a child when he does not understand the lesson taught in the classroom’
b. Orice părinte grijuliu îl ajută pe un copil care nu înţelege în clasă.

Any parent attentive him.cl help PE a child who not understands in class.

‘A thoughtful parent will always help a child when he does not understand the lesson taught in the classroom’
(13) Când se va ridica cortina o vor putea admira toţi spectatorii pe o

When refl. will raise curtain.the her.cl. will admire all spectators PE a

celebră interpretă a muzicii româneşti.⁹

famous singer of Romanian music.

‘When the curtains go up, all the spectators will admire a famous Romanian singer.’

▼

what is the contribution of pe + clitic?

► specificity: marked indefinite direct covert partitives (Enç 1991)

Specificity in the presence of another operator:
(14) a. La serbarea din vara asta fiecare profesor i- a lăudat pe mulţi elevi.

At festivity from summer this every teacher them.cl has praised PE many pupils.

‘At this summer’s festivity every teacher praised many pupils.’
b. La serbarea din vara asta fiecare profesor a lăudat mulţi elevi.

At festivity from summer this every teacher has praised many pupils.

→ Example (14a) is a suitable continuation for the context in (15) below, whereas (14b) is not:
(15) When the school year ends every summer our school principal gives prizes to the most diligent pupils who obtained the best marks. This year fifty pupils received such prizes.
(16) a. Fiecare candidat la alegeri i- a favorizat pe mulţi cunoscuţi atunci

Every candidate at elections them.cl. has favoured PE many acquaintances

când a ajuns ministru.

when has become minister.

‘Every candidate in the elections favoured many acquaintances when they became ministers.’
b. Fiecare candidat la alegeri a favorizat mulţi cunoscuţi atunci

Every candidate at elections has favoured many acquaintances

când a ajuns ministru.

when has become minister.

‘Every candidate in the elections favoured many acquaintances when they became ministers.’
Specificity in the absence of another operator:
(17) a. Mihai i- a ajutat la teme pe câţiva copii

Mihai them.cl has helped at homework pe some children

(dintre cei care nu înţeleseseră lecţia în clasă).

(of those who not had understood lesson.the in class).

‘Mihai helped some children who had not understood the lesson in class with their homework’.
b. Mihai a ajutat la teme câţiva copii.
→ the direct object is specific: the children whom Mihai helps are part of the set of children who did not understood the lesson while in class¹⁰.
3. The divison of labor between the clitic and pe
3.1. The clitic
• the clitic doubled/ resumed object DP in the two constructions refers to a discourse antecedent which may be explicitly provided by the context or not. In the latter case the antecedent is presupposed.
(18) a. Pe băiatul acesta îl cunosc: am fost colegi de şcoală.

PE boy.the this him.cl know.I: have.we been colleagues of school.

‘I know this boy: we were colleagues in the same school.’
b. Pe ceilalţi, însă, nu i- am văzut niciodată.

PE others, however, not them.cl have.I seen never.

‘I have never seen the others though.’
> Clitic in the absence of pe: CLLD
• left dislocated DPs may function as supersets for their antecedents:
(19) Context: Who will repair the chairs?

Mobila nu o vom mai repara, este prea veche.

Furniture not it.cl will.we more repair is too old.

‘As for the furniture, we will no longer repair it because it is too old.’
- the left dislocated DP ‘mobila’ includes the antecedent ‘scaune (chairs)’
(20) Context: There are some students in our class who need to receive some marks

Profesorul i- a ascultat pe trei studenţi astăzi.

Teacher.the them.cl has listened PE three students today.

‘The teacher examined three of the students today’

3.2. The Differential Object Marker pe
3.2.1 pe does not always trigger specificity
A. several Romanian linguists have pointed out that pe marked DPs are specific:
Dobrovie-Sorin (1994): the accusative preposition disambiguates the indefinite DP towards a referential reading:
(21) a. In fiecare zi, Ion întâlneşte o fată la cinema. (ambiguous).

'Every day, Ion meets a girl at the cinema.'

b. În fiecare zi, Ion o întâlneste pe o fată la cinema. (non-ambiguous)

Every day, Ion her-meets PE a girl at the cinema.

'Every day Ion meets a girl at the cinema.'
Cornilescu (2000): epistemic specificity (Farkas 1995)
> the speaker has a referent in mind
(22) Intreb cu respect pe un domn impiegat "pe ce linie este tras

(I) ask with respect PE a railway clerk "on what platform has pulled in

trenul de Iaşi.

the train to Iasi.

>> bound by another DP from within the local context.
(23) a. O femeie numai în cămasă ţine strâns de piept pe un om îmbrăcat

A woman only in nightie grabs tightly by the chest PE a man dressed

în uniformă.

in uniform.

B. Nevertheless, pe does not always trigger specificity
a. pe may combine with the negative bare quantifiers such as “nimeni” (nobody), “cineva”(somebody), “oricine” (anybody) which may not be specific:
(24) a. N-am văzut pe nimeni.

Not-have.I seen pe nobody.

‘I haven’t seen anybody.’
b. Am văzut pe cineva.

Have.I seen pe somebody

‘I have seen somebody.’
Notice that clitic doubling is impossible in these contexts.
(25) a. *Nu l-am văzut pe nimeni.

Not him.cl-have.I seen pe nobody.

‘I haven’t seen anybody.’
b. *Nu l-am văzut pe nici unul.

Not him.cl-have.I seen pe none.

‘I haven’t seen any one (of them).’

b. mood used as a test of specificity: if a nominal phrase includes a relative clause, the mood of the relative clause depends on specificity (Rivero 1979):

 

(26) a. Maria caută un profesor.

Maria looks for a professor.

‘Maria is looking for a professor’

b. Maria caută un profesor care s- o ajute la lecții.

Maria looks for a professor who SĂ (sibj.)-her.cl. help with lessons

‘Maria is looking for a professor who should help her with her lessons’
c. Maria caută un profesor care a ajutat-o la lecții.

  Maria looks for a professor who has helped her.cl. help with lessons

‘Maria is looking for a professor who helped her with her lessons’
(a) un profesor = ambiguous between a specific and a non-specific reading.

(b) the subjunctive forces the non-specific interpretation

(c)> the indicative actualizes the specific reading
► With pe marked indefinites both types of relatives may be used:

 

(27) a. Maria caută pe un profesor care a ajutat-o la lecții.

Maria looks for pe a professor who has helped her.cl. help with lessons

‘Maria is looking for a professor who helped her with her lessons’

b. ?Maria caută pe un profesor care s-o ajute la lecții.

Maria looks for pe a professor who SĂ (sibj.)-her.cl. help with lessons

‘Maria is looking for a professor who should help her with her lessons’
> (a) the professor that Mary is looking for is known to her

> (b) it is not.

> difference between 26a and 27b: the latter, although Mary does not have a certain professor in mind, there is however a set of professor from among whom she will eventually select one > the indefinite quantifies over a set of known professors e.g. the ones from the English Department
> CD+pe marked DPs may only be used with a relative clause in the indicative:
(28) a. Maria îl caută pe un profesor care a ajutat-o la lecții.

Maria him.cl looks for pe a professor who has helped her.cl. help with lessons

‘Maria is looking for a professor who helped her with her lessons’
b. *Maria îl caută pe un profesor care s-o ajute la lecții.

Maria him.cl. looks for pe a professor who SĂ (sibj.)-her.cl. help with lessons

‘Maria is looking for a professor who should help her with her lessons’
c. oarecare (any) >> triggers a non-specific interpretation on the DP it modifies:
(29) Pe cine au ales director de department?

‘Whom did they elect head of the department?’

a. Nu știu – (pe)-un profesor oarecare.

Not know.I – (pe) – a professor any.

‘I don’t know – some teacher.’
3.2.2. pe eliminates the property reading

• 
  a direct map between the presence or absence of pe-marking and the semantic type of the direct object nominal (in line with Bleam 1999, 2005 and Cornilescu 2000)
  
• 
  Romanian pe marked DPs seem to pattern with a marked nominals in Spanish: accepted in those contexts which unambiguously select for an A-type DP and rejected in those contexts which unambiguously select a property-denoting nominal:
  

1. 
   Pe marking is obligatory with proper names and pronouns
   
2. 
   the individual-level reading of the verb a avea (have) does not allow pe marked DPs. The data parallel the case of the verb have (Schafer (1995) and Spanish tener (Bleam 2005)¹¹
   

> the individual level reading of a avea never allows the use of a pe marked complement:

(30) Maria are (*pe) o soră.

Mary has (*pe) a sister.

> the DO may be pe marked in the case of the stage-level a avea:

(31) Am pe o soră (de-a lui Mihai la mine luna asta).

Have.I pe a sister (of Michael at me month this)

‘I have one of Michael’s sisters living with me this month.’

3. 
   non-incorporating verbs such as love/hate do not allow a property denoting NP complement:
   

> Romanian: bare plurals are not allowed by non-incorporating a iubi/a urî. (Cornilescu 2000)
(32) *Ion urăște profesori.

John hates teachers.

These non-incorportating verbs may have definite and pe marked complements:
(33) Ion urăște profesorii.

John hates teachers.the

‘John hates teachers.’
(34) Ion (îi) urăște pe profesori.

John (them.cl) hates teachers.the

‘John hates teachers.’

4. 
   Interactions with various operators: unmarked nominals¹² may be opaque in intensional contexts and receive non-specific interpretations in contexts with other operators
   

► the mood of the relative clause modifying an NP (see above):

► the interaction with intensional verbs such as a vrea (want), a dori (wish):
> bare singulars are opaque in this context:
(35) Ion vrea/dorește menajeră.

John wants/wishes house keeper.

‘John wants a house keeper.’
(36) Ion vrea/dorește câteva/trei/multe menajere.

John wants/wishes some/three/many house keepers.

‘John wants some/three/many house keepers.’
(37) Ion ? (o) vrea/dorește pe o menajeră (pricepută / din acest hotel).

John ? (her.cl) wants/wishes pe a house keeper (good/ from this hotel).

‘John wants a (good) house keeper (from this hotel).’
► the interaction with negation: the pe marked DP may have both a wide and a narrow scope reading with respect to negation; its unmarked counterpart may only have narrow scope (see also Kamp&Farkas to appear).

(38) A. Ion a văzut o vrăjitoare.

John has seen a witch

‘John has seen a witch’.

B. Fii serios, nu există vrăjitoare!

Be serious, no exist witches.

‘Come on, witches don’t exist!’
(39) A. *Ion a văzut pe o vrăjitoare mâncând broaște.

John has seen pe a witch eating frogs

‘John has seen a witch eating frogs’.

B. Fii serios, nu există vrăjitoare!

Be serious, no exist witches.

‘Come on, witches don’t exist!’

> as it seems the formal type-theoretic properties of nominals are relevant when it comes to pe marking.

> pe marked DPs are never property denoting because pe places constraints on the denotations of the DPs it marks.

4. A DRT account of the semantic import of the clitic

• 
  Sportiche (1996): the clitic is a functional head, heading its own projection and licensing the DP double which moves into SpecClP at LF (the clitic licenses in its specifier a particular property of a designated argument agreeing with it in the relevant features i.e., person, number, gender, Case)
  
• 
  The structure obtained after LF movement of the DP double to SpecClP will be taken as input for deriving DRSs.
  
• 
  The clitic introduces a discourse referent which functions as an antecedent for the discourse referent introduced by the DP double.
  
• 
  The value of the discourse referent introduced by the clitic is already determined by the context either explicitly, through an already introduced discourse referent or implicitly (this discourse referent is presupposed and will therefore be accommodated).
  
• 
  the denotation of the direct object DP is related to the denotation of the clitic pronoun by means of a subset-set relation (the subset may be equal to the set in the case of definite direct objects)
  
• 
  when the referent is presupposed, it is resolved by accommodation
  

4.1 LF movement of the DP out of its base generated position
4.1.1. inverse binding > evidence that cl+pe DPs leave the VP
(40) a. *Colegii lui_i au ajutat pe Mihai_i.

Coleagues.the his_i have.they helped pe Mihai_i.

‘His_i colleagues helped Mihai.’
b. Colegii lui_i l-au ajutat pe Mihai_i.

Coleagues.the his_i him.cl.-have.they helped pe Mihai_i.

‘His_i colleagues helped Mihai.’
(41) Pe un profesor bun_i orice elev de-al lui_i îl admiră.

pe a teacher good any pupil of-art.gen his cl.3sg.m.acc admire.3sg

‘Any pupil will admire a good teacher.’
(42) Orice elev de-al lui_i îl admiră pe un profesor bun_i.

any pupil of-art.gen his cl.3sg.m.acc admire.3sg pe a teacher good

‘Any pupil admires a good teacher.’
- the unmarked DP may only bind into the subject if it is in a c-commanding position with respect to this DP.
(43) a. *Profesorul lor_i doar câţiva elevi_i nu va

teacher their_i only some pupils_i not aux.3sg

putea lăuda la sfârşitul anului,

can praise at end.def year.gen.def

‘It is only a few pupils that their professor will not be able to praise at the end of the year.’
b. Doar câţiva elevi_i profesorul lor_i nu va

only some pupils_i teacher.def their_i not aux.3sg

putea lăuda la sfârşitul anului,

can praise at end.def year.gen.def

‘It is only a few pupils that their professor will not be able to praise at the end of the year.’
4.1.2. Parasitic gaps
- Cornilescu (2002) > Heavy NP Shift (HNPS) of undoubled object DPs may license parasitic gaps, as opposed to their doubled counterparts.
(44) a. Am examinat t fãrã a intrerupe t fiecare concurent separat.

Have.I examined t without interrupting t each competitor separately

'I examined without interrupting each candidate separately
b. Am examinat t fãrã a intrerupe t pe fiecare concurent separat.

Have.I examined t without interrupting t pe each competitor separately

'I examined without interrupting PE each candidate separately

(45) a. *L-am întîlnit fãrã a saluta însã pe Ion

him.cl-have.I met without to greet though pe Ion.

'I met Ion without greeting him though.'

b. L-am întîlnit fãrã a-l saluta însã pe Ion

Him.cl-have.I met without to-him.clgreet though pe Ion.

(46) a. *L- am examinat t fãrã a intrerupe t pe fiecare concurent separat.

Him.cl-have.I examined t without interrupting t pe each candidate separately

b L- am examinat t fãrã a-l intrerupe t pe fiecare concurent separat.

Him.cl-have.I examined t without to-him.cl interrupt t pe each candidate separately.

>HNPS is an A’ movement which targets a position inside vP; the operator in the PG adjunct clause should be a copy of the antecedent, structurally identical with it> only DPs which are not clitic licensed may be antecedents in a PG construction as they remain inside the vP

> If the antecedent is clitic licensed, i.e., it is a BigDP, the operator in the PG is also a BigDP licensed by a clitic. But the clitic moves out of the vP to T hence the adjunct clause should be itself a TP, adjoined to the main TP, and should also contain a clitic (as the operator should be a copy of the antecedent) > HNPS is possible with CD-ed object DPs without the licensing of PGs

4.2. Our DRT account
(47) L-am întîlnit fãrã a-l saluta însã pe Ion

Him.cl-have.I met without to-him greet though pe Ion.

'I met Ion without greeting him.'

(48) a. Maria i- a trimis pe doi copii la un magazin

Mary them.cl. has.she sent pe two children at a shop.

‘Mary sent two children to the shop’

b. TP

ru

DP T’

Mary ru

T ClP

-ed ru

Cl’

ru

Cl^o VP

them.cl ru

VP PP

ru 4

V’ to the shop

ru

V DP

send pe two children

m, e1, now, Y, Z, X, s

m = Mary e1< now children (Y) Card (Y) = 2 Zcl= Xold Y  Z s= shop send (e1) Agent (e1, m) Theme (e1, Y) to-the-shop (e1, s)

Obs: X is presupposed/accommodated or ‘old’

• 
  X ‘old’:
  

(49) Maria are mulți copii.

Mary has many children.
Maria i- a trimis pe doi copii la un magazin

Mary them.cl. has.she sent pe two children at a shop.

‘Mary sent two children to the shop’

m, X, e1, now, y,Y, Z, s

m = Mary have (m, X) children (X) Card (X)= many e1< now y=m children (Y) Card (Y) = 2 Zcl= X Y  Z s= shop send (e1) Agent (e1, m) Theme (e1, Y) to-the-shop (e1, s)

• 
  X presupposed/accommodated
  

• 
  the clitic provides an antecedent for the double DP. But the value of the clitic is already determined by the context.
  
• 
  test that this is a matter of presupposition:
  

(50) a. Ion nu a văzut câțiva copii.

John not has seen some children

‘John did not see a few children children.’

b. Ion nu i-a văzut pe câțiva copii.

John not them.cl-has seen pe some children

‘There are some children (pertaining to a larger set) such that John has not seen them.’
> (b) seems to be endorsing the existence of some particular set of children which is presupposed. The presupposition survives negation. This is not possible with example (a) where the existence of such a set is not inferred.
8. Conclusions

• 
  configurational languages (German, Dutch, Hungarian) rely on movement and sentence structure for the disambiguation of scope readings. Romanian seems to rely on the internal structure of the DP for the same end.
  
• 
  the semantic import of PE marking + CD does not necessarily revolve around scopal specificity though marked direct objects seem prone on being scopally specific. PE + CD ensures specificity as ‘covert partitivity’ or ‘epistemic specificity’
  
• 
  the clitic pronoun is the trigger for such an interpretation. Pe represents a means for extensional reduction, eliminating the property reading in those DPs it marks.
  
• 
  the clitic provides an antecedent for the double DP. But its value is already determined by the context either explicitly, through an already introduced discourse referent or implicitly (this discourse referent is presupposed and will therefore be accommodated).
  

Selected Bibliography
Beghelli, F. and T. Stowell. 1996. Distributivity and Negation: The Syntax of Each and Every. In A.

Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking. 71–107. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Bleam, T. 1999. Leísta Spanish and the Syntax of Clitic Doubling. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of

Delaware.

Bleam, T. 2005. The role of semantic type in differential object marking. In Vogeleer, S. (ed.), Bare

Plurals, Indefinites, and Weak-Strong Distinction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics. 19: 3-27

Cornilescu, A. 2006. On Clitic Doubling and Parasitic Gaps in Romanian. Revue roumaine de linguistique

LI (1): 23-42.

Cornilescu, A. 2002. At the Romanian Left Periphery. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 88-106.

Cornilescu, A. 2001. On the Interpretation of the Prepositional Accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 1- 15

Cornilescu, A. 2000. Notes on the Interpretation of the Prepositional Accusative in Romanian. Bucharest

Working Papers in Linguistics, 2 (1): 91−106.

Cornilescu, A & Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 2008. Clitic Doubling, complex heads and interarboreal operations. In

Dalina Kallulli and Liliane Tasmowski (eds.). Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages, 289-319. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian. In Studies in Generative Grammar, vol 40. Berlin:

Mouton.

Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1990. Clitic Doubling, Wh-Movement, and Quantification in Romanian.Linguistic Inquiry 21: 351-397.

Dobrovie-Sorin, C. & Galves, C. 2000. Proclisis, enclisis and head-to-head merge. Bucharest Working

Papers in Linguistics 2(1): 35–51.

Farkas, Donka. 2002a. Specificity Distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19: 213-243.

Farkas, D. 2002b. Varieties of Indefinites. In B. Jackson (ed.). Proceedings of SALT XII, 58-83 Ithaca:

CLC Publications.

Farkas, D.2002 c. Extreme Non-Specificity. In C. Beyssade et al., (eds.), Romance Languages and

Linguistic Theory 2000, 127-151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Farkas, D. F. 2001. Specificity Distinctions. In von Heusinger, K. and K. Schwabe (eds.). ZAS Papers in

Linguistics, 85-101. Leipzig: ZAS.

Farkas, Donka. 1997a. Towards a Semantic Typology of Noun Phrases. Paper presented at Colloque de

syntaxe et sémantique de Paris, Université Paris 7.

Farkas, D. F. 1997b. Evaluation Indices and Scope. In Szabolcsi, A. (ed.). Ways of Scope Taking, 183-215.

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Farkas D. 1995. Specificity and Scope. ms. University of Santa Cruz.

Farkas, D.1981. Quantifier Scope and Syntactic Islands. Proceedings of CLS 17:59–66.

Farkas, Donca.1978. Direct and indirect object reduplication in Romanian. Chicago Linguistics Society14:

88-97.

von Heusinger, Klaus 2002. Specificity and Definiteness in Sentence and Discourse Structure. Journal of

Semantics 19, 245-274.

Gierling, D. 1997. Clitic Doubling, Specificity and focus in Romanian. In Black, J. & Motapanyane, V.

(eds.) Clitic, pronouns and movement. 63-85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Kamp. H. & Bende-Farkas, A. to appear. Epistemic Specificity from a Communication-theoretic

Perspective

Kratzer, A. 1995. “Stage-level and individual-level predicates”. In G. Carlson & J. Pelletier (eds), The

Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 125-175.

Krifka, Manfred. 1998. Scope inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry 29 (1):

75-112.

Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. PhD Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.

Philip, W. 2005. Pragmatic control of specificity and scope: Evidence from Dutch L1A. Proceedings of

Sinn und Bedeutung 9: 271-286.

Schafer, R. 1995. “The SLP/ILP distinction in have-predication”. In M. Simons & T. Galloway (eds),

Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory V. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 292-309.

Szabolcsi, Anna.1996. Strategies for scope taking. In A. Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of scope Taking, 29-71.

Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Tigău, Alina. 2009. The Order of Constituents within the Romanian Sentence with a focus on the

movement of the direct object in the VOS order. In Rodica Zafiu (ed.), Grammaticalization and Pragmaticalization in Romanian. Bucureşti: EUB

Tigău, Alina. to appear. The Semantic Import of the clitic in CD Structures. Analele

Universităţii Spiru Haret

Uriagereka, J. 1995. Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance.

Linguistic Inquiry 26 (1): 79-123.
Alina-Mihaela Tigău

[e-mail]

1^This work is supported by the Sciex post-doctoral fellowship 12 203/1.03.2014-28.02.205; project: Sciex-NMSch - Contribution suisse à l’élargissement de l’UE

2^I am deeply indebted to prof. Alice ter Meulen (University of Geneva) and prof. Alexandra Cornilescu (University of Bucharest) for precious comments and discussions without which this paper would not have been possible.

3^ indefinite direct objects i.e., DPs headed by ‘weak’determiners ‘un/o (a)’, ‘mulţi (many)’, ‘câţiva/câteva (some)’, and numerals such as ‘doi (two)’

4^ Differential Object Marking (DOM): a mechanism by means of which prominent direct objects are singled out: we tentatively included Clitic Doubling (CD) and Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) as strategies of DOM.

5^ Inanimate indefinite direct objects may only be marked when left dislocated: in this case they are resumed by clitic. PE never marks inanimate indefinites nor are these DPs clitic doubled when occurring to the right of the verb.

6^.93.0% of our respondents agreed that the clitic doubled and PE marked indefinite ‘pe un vorbitor de seamă’ may only acquire a wide scope reading. Only 2.3% of the respondents said that the indefinite in question may acquire a narrow scope reading.

7^ Most of the respondents agreed on the wide scope interpretation of the clitic doubled and PE marked indefinite ‘pe câţiva moguli’ and only 9.3% favoured a narrow scope interpretation for the object DP. Finally, 7.0% of the respondents accepted both a wide scope reading and a narrow scope one.

8^ Most of the speakers i.e., 74.4% agreed that the clitic doubled and PE marked indefinite ‘pe un elev’ may only acquire a narrow scope reading. However, 9.3% of the respondents pointed to a wide scope interpretation for the same DP, while 7.0% accepted both readings.

9^ Most of the respondents (93.0%) argued that the clitic doubled and PE marked indefinite ‘pe o celebră interpretă’ may only acquire a wide scope reading according to which there is one famous singer such that all spectators will admire. 4.7% of the respondents accepted both a wide scope reading and a narrow scope one on the indefinite object.

10^ The marked DP may also be interpreted as epsitemically specific

11^ > we may distinguish between an individual-level have and a stage-level one:

(30) I have a car.

1. 
   I own a car (individual-level)
   
2. 
   I have a car (with me today) (stage level)
   
3. 
   
   

(a) = I own a car > this relationship is not associated with or restricted by a particular spatio-temporal location (individual-level use)

(b) the possession of the car is anchored to a spatio-temporal location (stage-level use)

> the individual-level use allows indefinite objects. If the complement is definite, only the stage level reading is possible. Bleam: have always selects a property denoting element. In the stage-level use its complement denotes a property over events (type ) and is syntactically represented as a small clause containing a subject DP and a spatio-temporal predicate, whereas in its individual-level reading, have selects a NP complement denoting a property over individuals (type ) in this case there is no spatio-temporal component > the NP must be property denoting because there is no small clause present > the NP may never be definite. In the case of stage-level have, the complement may be definite because it is not itself the complement of have, but the subject of the small clause which is the complement of have. It follows that the complement of he individual level have is always property denoting. Spanish data meet the expectations: the individual level tener, behaves just like its counterpart have in that in that it only allows property denoting complements. As such the complements selected by individual level tener are never marked by a.
(1) Juan tiene (*a) un hermano.

Juan has (*a) brother.

12^ pe stipped nominals in the sense of Bleam (2005)