5. Romanian clitic doubling: A view from pragmatics-semantics and diachrony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that an approach to the Romanian C(litic) D(oubling) from a pragmatics-semantics perspective produces a systematic account for three peculiarities of this construction; namely, the obligatory particle pe preceding the D(irect) O(bject) dp, the interaction between this type of marking and the insertion of a doubling clitic, and the DO/I(ndirect) O(bject) asymmetry in the conditions for CD. In particular, speech act effects emerging from the presence versus absence of pe lead us to define this element as a pragmatic marker for prominence in these configurations. Its interaction with the doubling clitic depends on the semantics of reference: only an acceptable degree of stable reference of the dp allows for the coocurrence with a clitic (i.e., for the CD of DOs). These constraints do not extend to the CD of IOs. We consider that an acceptable degree of stable reference is intrinsically ensured in Romanian CD with IOs because of the matching morphological endings for Oblique Case on both the clitic and the dp; prominence , on the other hand, emerges from the high location of IOs on the topicality scale (i.e., close to Agent-like theta-roles), in contrast to the low location of DOs (i.e., close to Theme-like theta-roles). Thus, IOs meet the pragmatic prominence conditions for CD due to their morpho-semantics, whereas DOs need categorial marking (i.e., pe ) to qualify for this process. An overview of the CD in three texts of Old Romanian attests a gradual emergence of the modern CD that supports our analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".