Cover not available
Part of
Differential Object Marking in Romance: Towards microvariation
Edited by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Alexandru Mardale
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 280] 2023
► pp. 24–55

Differential object marking in Barese

Old and new perspectives

| University of Hamburg
This article describes the behaviour of differential object marking (DOM) in Barese in the light of a preliminary study conducted by the author, which is here refined and rectified thanks to sets of novel data. A variety of referents along the Definiteness Scale is considered and discussed, and these suggest that DOM in Barese is obligatory with highly specific and referential determiner-less elements, but it becomes optional, if not ungrammatical, with nouns modified by an overt functional element, e.g. (in)definite determiners, numerals, or quantifiers. Furthermore, two structural contexts block DOM in Barese, namely the co-occurrence of human direct and indirect objects, and whenever the DO is embedded under a perception verb.
Keywords: differential object marking, Barese, upper-southeastern Italo-Romance, Definiteness Scale, specificity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A preliminary overview on Barese DOM
  • 3.A new overview of Barese DOM
    • 3.1Pronouns with human referents
      • 3.1.1Personal pronouns
      • 3.1.2Demonstrative pronouns
    • 3.2Kinship terms and proper names
    • 3.3Overt determiners: Demonstratives and definite articles
      • 3.3.1Demonstrative + NP
      • 3.3.2Definite article + NP
        • 3.3.2.1Singular DPs
        • 3.3.2.2Plural DPs
        • 3.3.2.3Non-human DPs
    • 3.4Indefinite pronouns
    • 3.5Indefinites, numerals, and quantifiers + NP
  • 4.Structural contexts blocking DOM in Barese
    • 4.1Ditransitive structures with human indirect objects
    • 4.2Complement of perception verbs
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Sources
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.280.02and
References (49)
References
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andriani, L. (2011). Differential object marking, clitic doubling, and argument structure in Barese (Unpublished MRes thesis). LUCL/Universiteit Leiden.
(2015). Semantic and syntactic properties of the prepositional accusative in Barese. Linguistica Atlantica, 34(2), 61–78.Google Scholar
(2017). The syntax of the dialect of Bari (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge.
(2023). Differential object marking in Apulia: A descriptive overview. Caplletra: Revista Internacional de Filología, 74, 213–258.
Bárány, A. (2018). DOM and dative case. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 97, 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. (2004). Aspects of the Low IP Area. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The structure of CP and IP (pp. 16–51). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, J., Ordóñez, F., & Roca, F. (2019). On the emergence of personal articles in the history of Catalan. In M. Bouzouita, A. Breitbarth, L. Danckaert, & E. Witzenhausen (Eds.), Cycles in language change (pp. 88–108). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1991). Essays on Spanish: Words and grammar. Juan de la Cuesta.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. (1982). Der präpositionale Akkusativ im Sardischen. In O. Winkelmann & M. Braisch (Eds.), Festschrift Iohannes Hubschmid zum 65 Geburtstag (pp. 579–599). Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
(1985). Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielleobjektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
(1991). Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Wanner & D. A. Kibbee (Eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Urbana-Champaign, April 7–9, 1988 (pp. 143–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). Language typology and linguistic universals: Syntax and morphology. The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S. (2012). Discourse-related features and functional projections. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. (2017). When you have too many features: Auxiliaries, agreement, and clitics in Italian varieties. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2, 50.Google Scholar
De Angelis, A. (2019). Articolo espletivo e marcatura differenziale dell’oggetto nel dialetto reggino di San Luca. L’Italia Dialettale, 80, 59–76.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Egerland, V. (2013). On the grammar of kinship. Possessive enclisis in Italian dialects. In K. J. Kragh, & J. Lindschouw (Eds.), Deixis and pronouns in Romance languages (pp. 69–83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1–25.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (2005). Extended projection. In J. Grimshaw, Words and structure (pp. 1–74). CSLI.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C. (2010). L’oggetto diretto preposizionale in siciliano. Una breve rassegna e qualche domanda. Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt (“Studi sui dialetti della Sicilia”), 11, 83–101.Google Scholar
Heusinger, K. von, & Kaiser, G. A. (2005). The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. In K. von Heusinger, G. A. Kaiser, & E. Stark (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Specicity and the Evolution/Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance” (pp. 33–69). University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2000). A comparative syntax of southern Italian dialects: A minimalist approach. Wiley.Google Scholar
(2009). Grammatica diacronica del napoletano. Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A., & Lombardi, A. (2005). Verb movement, adverbs and clitic positions in Romance. Probus, 17(1), 79–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A., Schifano, N., & Silvestri, G. (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), 51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(4), 609–665.Google Scholar
(2005). Toward a unified grammar of reference. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 24, 5–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López, L. (2016). (In)definiteness, specificity, and differential object marking. In S. Fisher & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Manual of grammatical interfaces in Romance (pp. 241–266). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, M. (1988). Grammatica storica del dialetto di Altamura. Giardini.Google Scholar
Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., & Savoia, L. M. (2005). I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa (3 Vols). Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R., & Franco, L. (2016). Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34(1), 197–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milsark, G. (1974). Existential sentences in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
Neuburger, K. A., & Starke, E. (2014). Differential object marking in Corsican: Regularities & triggering factors. Linguistics, 52(2), 365–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pineda, A. (2016). Les fronteres de la (in)transitivitat. Estudi dels aplicatius en llengües romàniques i basc. Institut d’Estudis Món Juïc.Google Scholar
(2020). From dative to accusative. An ongoing syntactic change in Romance. Probus, 32(1), 129–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pineda, A., & Royo, C. (2017). Differential indirect object marking in Romance (and how to get rid of it). Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 62(4), 445–462.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281–337). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohlfs, G. (1969). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Einaudi.Google Scholar
(1971). Autour de l’accusatif prépositionnel dans les langues romanes: Concordances et discordances. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 35, 312–334.Google Scholar
Sornicola, R. (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
Torrego, E. (1998). The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sources
Antonellis, L. (1994). Dizionario dialettale cerignolano etimologico e fraseologico. Centro regionale di servizi educativi e culturali.Google Scholar
IvDC (1912–1914). Il vero Don Ciccio: filastrocche settimanali. Tipografia Popolare.Google Scholar
Papiol (1947). Papiol: settimanale umoristico pupazzettato. Soc. Ed. Tipografica.Google Scholar
Sada, L., Scorcia, C., & Valente, V. (1971). Dizionario storico-etimologico del dialetto barese (saggio). Levante Editori.Google Scholar
Solfato, G. (2008). Teatro. Un percorso nella lingua barese. Casa Stornaiolo.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Corr, Alice
2024. Differential marking of direct objects in Monastirli džudezmu: a case study in Judeo-Spanish morphosyntax. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 140:2 ► pp. 484 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.