Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2022: Selected papers from the 25th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oxford, 1–5 August 2022
Edited by Holly Kennard, Emily Lindsay-Smith, Aditi Lahiri and Martin Maiden
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 369] 2025
► pp. 150–166

Differential object marking in early Italo-Romance and old Sardinian

| University of Naples “Federico II”
| University of Chieti-Pescara
This paper explores the differential marking of objects (DOM) in two southern early Italo- Romance vernaculars, namely old Sicilian and old Neapolitan, and in old Sardinian texts from two different areas, Logudoro and Arborea. We investigate the constraints on the marking of objects, whether semantic, encoding the Individuation Hierarchy, syntactic, determined by verbal valency and/or the position of the O argument in relation to the verb, or pragmatic, resulting from the topicality of the object. We show that, unlike in old Neapolitan and old Sicilian, in old Sardinian Topicality and the Person Hierarchy do not appear to play a role in the occurrence of the object marker a(d).
Keywords: Differential Object marking, Individuation hierarchy, topicality, old Sardinian, old Neapolitan, old Sicilian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Differential object marking in Italo-Romance and Sardinian
  • 3.Differential object marking in diachrony: Old Sicilian, old Neapolitan and old Sardinian
    • 3.1Old Sicilian
    • 3.2Old Neapolitan
    • 3.3Differential object marking in old Sardinian
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (58)
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 435–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo. 1988. Le parlate dell’alta Ogliastra: analisi dialettologica, saggio di storia linguistica e culturale. Cagliari: Edizioni Della Torre.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2003. Crestomazia Sarda dei Primi Secoli, Vol. 1. Testi — Grammatica Storica-Glossario, Nuoro: Ilisso.Google Scholar
Boeddu, Daniela. 2017. Estudio Diacrónico del acusativo preposicional sardo. PhD thesis. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Universidad del País Vasco.
. 2020. The Differential Object Marking of The Arborense Dialect of Sardinian in Language Contact Setting. Jornal of Language Contact 13, 17–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1982. Der präpositionale Akkusativ im Sardischen. In Otto Winkelmann & Maria Braisch (eds), Festschrift für Johannes Hubschmid zum 65. Geburtstag, 579–99. Bern/München: Francke.Google Scholar
. 1998. Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michela. 2003. (In)transitivity and object marking: some current issues. In Fiorentino, Giuliana (ed.), Romance Objects. Transitivity in Romance Languages, 49–104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The rise and grammaticalization paths of Latin fieri and facere as passive auxiliaries. In Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and Typology: Form and Function, 311–36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Argument structure and alignment variations and changes in late Latin. In Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana Chelliah (eds.), The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case, 307–46. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Grammaticalization and changes in argument linking: a case-study from old Logudorese Sardinian. In Marina Chini & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), Tipologia, acquisizione, grammaticalizzazione — Typology, acquisition, grammaticalization studies, 96–117. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela, Francesco Maria Ciconte & Luigi Andriani. 2023. Syntactic and semantic constraints on Differential Object Marking in Old Sardinian. In Monica Alexandrina Irimia & Alexandru Mardale (eds.), Differential Object Marking in Romance, 103–131. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ciconte, Francesco Maria. 2018. Soggetto e oggetto nell’italo-romanzo antico. Studi e Saggi Linguistici LVI.1. 97–135.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Blasi, Nicola. 1998. Kampanien / Campania. In Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin & Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik II, 174–189. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Delogu, Ignazio. 1997 (ed.). Il Condaghe di San Pietro di Silki. Sassari: Dessì.Google Scholar
Fiorentino, Giuliana. 2003. Prepositional objects in Neapolitan. In Giuliana Fiorentino (ed.), Romance Objects. Transitivity in Romance Languages, 117–51. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floricic, Franck. 2020. Object marking e predicazione possessiva in sardo campidanese. In Eva-Maria Remberger, Maurizio Virdis & Birgit Wagner (eds.), Il sardo in movimento, 187–204. Vienna: Vienna University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Formentin, Vittorio. 1998 (ed.). Loise De Rosa, Ricordi. Roma: Salerno.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1978. Definiteness and referentiality. In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, Syntax, vol. 4, 291–330. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Guardiano, Cristina. 2010. L’oggetto preposizionale in siciliano. Una breve rassegna e qualche domanda. Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt: 11. 95–115.Google Scholar
. 2023. Differential Object Marking in a dialect of Sicily. In Monica Irimia & Alexandru Mardale (eds.), Differential Object Marking in Romance, 192–231. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haude, Katharina & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2016. Referential hierarchies and alignment: An overview. Linguistics 54.3. 433–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.2. 251–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2009. La marcatura differenziale dell’oggetto in siciliano antico. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 94.2. 185–225.Google Scholar
. 2010. Topicality and DOM: evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language 34. 239–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio & Gerson Klumpp. 2014. Introduction to the special issue ‘Differential Object Marking: theoretical and empirical issues’. Linguistics 52(2). 271–9.Google Scholar
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina & Anna Pineda. 2019. Differential object marking and scales: insights from Romance diachrony. Proceedings of the LSA 4. 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. On the setting of scales in the diachrony of Differential Object Marking. Journal of Historical Syntax 5. 1–41.Google Scholar
Jones, Michael Allan. 1995. The prepositional accusative in Sardinian: its distribution and syntactic repercussions. In John Charles Smith & Martin Maiden. (eds.), Linguistic Theory and the Romance Languages, 37–75. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
La Fauci, Nunzio. 1988. Oggetti e Soggetti nella Formazione della Morfosintassi Romanza, Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar
. 1991. L’oggetto con preposizione nei Confessionali Siciliani Antichi. Risultato di uno spoglio sistematico. In Luciano Giannelli, Nicoletta Maraschio, Teresa Poggi Salani & Massimo Veovelli (eds), Tra Rinascimento e Strutture Attuali. Saggi di Linguistica Italiana. Atti del Primo Convegno della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana, Siena, 28–29 March 1989, 387–398. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2009. Grammatica Diacronica del Napoletano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023a. Differential object marking in the dialects of southern Italy. Cappletra. Revista Internacional de Filologia 74. 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023b. Parametric variation in differential object marking in Italo — Romance. In Monica Irimia & Alexandru Mardale (eds.), Differential Object Marking in Romance, 267–314. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam, Norma Schifano & Giuseppina Silvestri. 2019. Differential Object Marking and the properties of D in the dialects of the extreme south of Italy. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 4(1). 1–25.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Alessandra. 2007. Posizione dei clitici e ordine dei costituenti della lingua sarda medievale. In Adam Ledgeway & Delia Bentley (eds.), Sui dialetti italoromanzi: Saggi in onore di Nigel B. Vincent, 133–48. Norfolk: Biddles.Google Scholar
Lorenzetti, Luca. 2002. L’Italiano Contemporaneo. Rome: Carocci.Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita & Leonardo Savoia. 2005. I Dialetti Italiani e Romanci. Morfosintassi Generativa. Alessandria: Edizioni Dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Mardale, Alexandru. 2008. Microvariation within differential object marking: data from Romance. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 4. 448–67.Google Scholar
Mensching, Guido & Eva-Maria Remberger. 2016. Sardinian. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merci, Paolo (ed.). 1992. Il Condaghe di San Nicola di Trullas. Testo Logudorese inedito dei secoli XI-XIII. Sassari: Delfino.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1902. Zur Kenntniss der Altlogudoresischen. Wien: Akademie der Wissenschaft, Band CXLV.Google Scholar
Murgia, Giulia (ed.). 2016. Carta de Logu d’Arborea. Rome: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Næss, Åschild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Putzu, Ignazio. 2008. Per uno studio dell’accusativo preposizionale in sardo antico: Emergenze dallo spoglio dei Condaghe di San Pietro di Silki. In Romano Lazzeroni, Emanuele Banfi, Giuliano Bernini, Marina Chini & Giovanna Marotta (eds.), Diachronica et synchronica: Studi in onore di Anna Giacalone Ramat, 397–428. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.Google Scholar
Reynolds, Deborah. 2005. The Distribution of the Prepositional Accusative in Neapolitan. BA thesis, Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1969. Grammatica Storica della Lingua Italiana e dei suoi Dialetti, vol. III. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Soddu, Alessandro & Giovanni Strinna (eds.) 2013. Il Condaghe di San Pietro di Silki. Nuoro: Ilisso.Google Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna. 1997. L’oggetto preposizionale in siciliano antico e in napoletano antico. Considerazioni su un problema di tipologia diacronica. Italienische Studien 18. 66–80.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 141–77. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Virdis, Maurizio (ed.). 2003. Il Condaghe di Santa Maria di Bonarcado. Nuoro: Ilisso.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Sam. 2015. The old Sardinian Condaghes: A syntactic study. Transactions of the Philological Society 113.2. 177–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamboni, Alberto. 2000. Alle origini dell’italiano. Dinamiche e Tipologie della Transizione dal Latino. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar