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. 160–191

Corsican DOM

Towards a unified local explanation

| Université de Poitiers, MSHS, FoReLLIS
After focusing in a previous work (Giancarli, 2014) on the global factors involved in the emergence of DOM in Corsican, we would like here, based on a corpus almost twice as large, to concentrate on the local factors. We identify two: the DOM-ed object is either the marker of a scanning operation or a designator. Being able to cover most of the uses in Corsican and even integrate some marginal uses, these two factors branch into four (the scanning operation can be performed with or without totalization, and designators can be rigid or flaccid) while they can at the same time be reduced to an invariant: a DOM-ed object is an argument set out of contrast.
Keywords: Corsican, designator, scanning operation, pinpointing operation, Culioli’s Theory of Enunciative Operations, dislocation, definite article, determiners, fused relative pronouns.
Article outline
  • 1.Range of use of the Corsican DOM-marker
    • 1.1Dates
    • 1.2Proper nouns
    • 1.3Some kinship terms used without a determiner
    • 1.4Strong personal pronouns
    • 1.5The demonstrative pronouns questu/quistu, quessu/quissu and quellu/quiddu
    • 1.6Some “indefinite” pronouns
  • 2.Inadequacy of a number of local factors
    • 2.1Humaness, animacy (cf. Marcellesi, 1986, p. 133 or Giancarli, 2014, pp. 199–200)
    • 2.2Definiteness
    • 2.3Various hierarchies
  • 3.What the absence of determiner tells us about Corsican DOM
  • 4.Corsican DOM: An argument outside any kind of contrast
    • 4.1Designators
      • 4.1.1Rigid designators: Proper nouns
      • 4.1.2Flaccid designators
        • 4.1.2.1Some kinship terms
        • 4.1.2.2Dates
        • 4.1.2.3Strong personal pronouns, and demonstrative pronouns questu/quistu, quessu/quissu, quellu/quiddu
        • 4.1.2.4The pronouns unu/qualchidunu/qualchissia (someone) in a peripheral use
    • 4.2Scanning operation
      • 4.2.1Scan without totalization
        • 4.2.1.1The pronouns unu/qualchidunu/qualchissia (someone) in their major and minor uses
        • 4.2.1.2The interrogative pronoun quali (who?)
      • 4.2.2Scan with totalization
        • 4.2.2.1The antecedent pronouns in non-restrictive relative clauses + the fused relative pronoun
        • 4.2.2.2The quantifying pronouns tutti (all, everyone) + nimu / nisunu (no one)
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Corpora and abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.280.07gia
References (36)
Corpora and abbreviations
PF: Antoni, P. (2007). Par forza o par Amore ! CCU-Albiana.Google Scholar
C: Ciabrini, P. (2014). À dilla franca. Colonna Edizioni.Google Scholar
AT: Coti, R. (2000). A Travisagna. [URL]
UT: Coti, R. (2002–2008). U Taravu. Stamparia Sammarcelli.Google Scholar
F: Franchi, G. G. (1988). E Fole di Zia Anna-Maria.: Co-édition Alain Piazzola et Banque de Données Langue Corse.Google Scholar
DS: Fusina, J. (2010). Un dulore squisitu / une douleur exquise. Stamperia Sammarcelli.Google Scholar
CS: Giacomo-Marcellesi, M. (1989). Contra Salvatica, contes. Aix-en-Provence: Edisud..Google Scholar
I: Marcellesi, L. (2000). Giacomo-Marcellesi, M. (1989). Contra Salvatica L’infanfata ou l’exaltée. Editions Mediterranea.Google Scholar
References
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3) 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, É. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale. Gallimard.Google Scholar
Birner, B., & Ward, G. (1998). Informational status and noncanonical word order. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casta, S. (2003). La syntaxe du corse. CRDP di Corsica.Google Scholar
Culioli, A. (1990). Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation, Tome 1. Ophrys.Google Scholar
Curat, H. (1987). Nom propre et article. Cahiers de Praxématique, 8, 27–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalbera-Stefanaggi, M.-J. (1978). Langue corse, une approche linguistique. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (2000). A typology of causatives. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Changing valency (pp. 30–83). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floricic, F. (2003). Note sur l’accusatif prépositionnel en sarde. BSLP, XCVIII(fasc. 1), 247–303.Google Scholar
Franchi, G. G. (2000). Puntelli di gramatica, literatura corsa, Tome 3. CRDP di Corsica.Google Scholar
Giacomo-Marcellesi, M. (1988). Histoire du corse. Lexicon der Romanischen Linguistik 4 (pp. 820–829). Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Giancarli, P.-D. (2001). Le fléchage (spécifique et générique): Opération seconde ou opération double? Cycnos, 18(2), 81–104.Google Scholar
(2006). Les causatifs anglais-français-corse make-faire-fà et leur complémentation. Causalité et contrastivité: Études de corpus (pp. 113–139). Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
(2014). L’accusatif prépositionnel en corse. Faits de Langues, 43, 197–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, G. (2010). Topicality and differential object marking. Studies in Language, 34(2), 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kozinsky, I., & Polinsky, M. (1993). Causee and patient in the causative of transitive. In B. Comrie & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Causatives and transitivity (pp. 177–240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and necessity. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language, (pp. 253–355, 763–769). Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laca, B. (2006). El objecto directo. La marcación preposicional [The direct object. Prepositional marking]. In C. Company Company (Eds.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española (Vol. 1, pp. 42–475). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
La Mantia, F. (2020). Pour se faire langage. Lexique élémentaire de la Théorie des Opérations Prédicatives et Énonciatives d’Antoine Culioli. Éditions Academia.Google Scholar
Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcellesi, J.-B. (1986). Le complément d’objet direct en corse. In J. C. Bouvier (Ed.), Morphosyntaxe des langues Romanes, Actes du XVIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes, 4, Aix-en-Provence (pp. 129–137). PUP.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. [1843](1851). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive, being a connective view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation (3rd ed.). London: J. Parker. [URL]
Neuburger, K. A., & Stark, E. (2014). Differential object marking in Corsican. Linguistics, 52(2), 365–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse description (pp. 295–326). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, G. (1949). Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache, Vols I–III. Franke.Google Scholar
(1971). Autour de l’accusatif prépositionnel dans les langues. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 35, 312–334.Google Scholar
Schmidely, J. (1986). A devant l’objet direct en corse et en espagnol. Morphosyntaxe des langues Romanes, Actes du XVIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes, 4, Aix-en-Provence (pp. 115–125). PUP.Google Scholar