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. 253–266

Differential object marking in kinship terms and animacy hierarchies in Old Sardinian

| Kindai University
The purpose of this study is to illustrate the characteristics of Differential Object Marking (DOM) in kinship terms in Condaghe di San Pietro di Silki written in Logudorese Sardinian, and to demonstrate that the animacy hierarchy which governs the occurrence of DOM varies depending on the grammatical number of the direct object. In singular numbers, kinship terms are distinguished from animate common nouns in relation to the occurrence of DOM. On the other hand, in plural numbers, kinship terms and animate common nouns are not distinguished from each other as regards the occurrence of DOM. To conclude, we will structure animacy hierarchies regarding the occurrence of DOM and of the definite article.
Keywords: differential object marking, animacy hierarchy, kinship terms, grammatical number, Old Sardinian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous studies on DOM in Sardinian
  • 3.DOM with singular nouns
  • 4.DOM with plural nouns
  • 5.Analysis
    • 5.1Singular vs plural in the animacy hierarchy
    • 5.2Parallel distribution of DOM in other Romance languages
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.280.10kan
References (25)
References
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benincà, P. (2010). L’ordine delle parole e la struttura della frase. In G. Salvi & L. Renzi (Eds.), Grammatica dell’italiano antico (Vol. I., pp. 27–59). Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Boeddu, D. (2020). The differential object marking of the Arborense dialect of Sardinian in language contact setting. In A. Mardale & P. Karatsareas (Eds.), Differential object marking and language contact. Special issue of Journal of Language Contact, 13(1), 17–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, G. (1982). Der Präpositionale Akkusativ im Sardischen. In O. Winkelmann & M. Braisch (Eds.), Festschrift Johannes Hubschumid zum 65. Geburstag (pp. 579–599). Francke.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
(1998). Le marquage différentiel de l’object. In J. Feullet (Ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe (pp. 193–258). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappellaro, C. (2016). Tonic pronominal system: Morphophonology. In A. Ledgeway & M. Maiden (Eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages (pp. 722–740). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, M., Ciconte, F. M., & Andriani, L. (this volume). Syntactic and semantic constraints on differential object marking in Old Sardinian.
Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö., & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2001). Kinship in grammar. In I. Baron, M. Herslund, & F. Sørensen (Eds.), Dimensions of possession (pp. 201–226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, K. von, & Chiriacescu, S. (2013). The discourse structuring potential of differential object marking, the case of indefinite and definite direct objects in Romanian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 58, 439–456.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, G. (2010). Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language, 34(2), 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. A. (1995). The prepositional accusative in Sardinian: Its distribution and syntactic repercussions. In J. C. Smith & M. Maiden (Eds.), Linguistic theory and the Romance languages (pp. 37–75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Sintassi della lingua sarda. Condaghes.Google Scholar
Kanazawa, Y. (2018). A typological analysis of differential object marking in Old Sardinian. In M. G. Martínez, M. C. Moral del Hoyo, & J. T. Williams Camus (Eds.), Aplicaciones de la lingüística de corpus al estudio de lenguas modernas (pp. 101–112). Real Sociedad Menéndez Pelayo.Google Scholar
López, L. (2016). (In)definiteness, specificity, and differential object marking. In S. Fischer & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Manual of grammatical interfaces in Romance (pp. 241–265). Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neuberger, K. A., & Stark, E. (2014). Differential object marking in Corsican: Regularities and triggering factors. Linguistics, 52(2), 365–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Putzu, I. (2005). Introduction. In I. Putzu (Ed.) Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 58(2–3), 151–162.Google Scholar
(2008). Per uno studio dell’accusativo preposizionale in sardo antico: Emergenze dallo spoglio del Condaghe di San Pietro di Silki. In R. Lazzeroni, E. Banfi, G. Bernini, M. Chini, & G. Marotta (Eds.), Diachronica et synchronica. Studi in onore di Anna Giacalone Ramat. (pp. 397–428). Edizioni ETS.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, G. (1972). Autour de l’accusatif prepositionnel dans les langues romanes. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 35, 312–334.Google Scholar
Salvi, G. (2000). La formazione del sistema V2 delle lingue romanze antiche. Lingua e Stile, 35(4), 665–692.Google Scholar
Soddu, A., & Strinna, G. (Eds.). (2013). Il Condaghe di San Pietro di Silki. Ilisso.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1998). The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Virdis, M. (Ed.) (2003). Il condaghe di Santa Maria di Bonarcado. Ilisso.Google Scholar