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. 267–314

Parametric variation in differential object marking in Italo-Romance

 | University of Cambridge
This article provides an exhaustive review of the known variation found in the distribution of differerential object marking across the dialects of Italy, including those of central and northern Italy, in order to identify the relevant dimensions of microvariation in relation to information structure, animacy, specificity, person, number and the head vs phrasal distinction. Despite some similarities with other Romance varieties, there are some notable differences in the distribution of differential object marking in the dialects of Italy. Based on this examination, a parametric hierarchy is developed which maps the differing licensing conditions on differential object marking across Italy in an attempt to highlight the precise pragmatic, semantic and syntactic parameters involved in the observed patterns of distribution, their nature and their possible interactions.
Keywords: differential object marking, dialects of Italy, parameter (hierarchies), microvariation, person, number, specificity, animacy, external merge, internal merge
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Person split
    • 2.1Type 1A
    • 2.2Type 1B
    • 2.3Type 1C
    • 2.4Summary
  • 3.Pronominal split
    • 3.1Type 2A
    • 3.2Type 2B
    • 3.3Type 2C
    • 3.4Type 2D
    • 3.5Summary
  • 4.D-Split
    • 4.1Type 3A
    • 4.2Type 3B
    • 4.3Type 3C
    • 4.4Summary
  • 5.Animacy and specificity splits
    • 5.1Type 4A
    • 5.2Type 4B
    • 5.3Type 4C
    • 5.4Type 4D
  • 6.Summary and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.280.11led
References (155)
References
Accattatis, L. (1895). Vocabolario del dialetto calabrese. Patitucci.Google Scholar
Aissen, J. 1999. “Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory”, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17, 673–711. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andriani, L. (2011). Differential object marking, clitic doubling and argumental structure in Barese. (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Leiden.
(2015). Semantic and syntactic properties of the prepositional accusative in Barese. Linguistica Atlantica, 34, 61–78.Google Scholar
Barbato, M. (Ed.). (2001). Il libro viii del Plinio napoletano di Giovanni Brancati. Liguori.Google Scholar
Barca, F. (1996). Teatro dialettale. Commedie. Edizioni Santelli.Google 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 of Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus, 17, 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018a). On a-marking of object topics in the Italian left periphery. In R. Petrosino, P. Cerrone, & H. van der Hulst (Eds.), From sounds to structures: Beyond the veil of Maya (pp. 445–466). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Objects and subjects in the left periphery: The case of a-topics. In M. Grimaldi, R. Lai, L. Franco, & B. Baldi (Eds.), Structuring variation in Romance linguistics and beyond: In honour of Leonardo M. Savoia (pp. 57–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych verbs and Theta Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benincà, P. (1986). Il lato sinistro della frase italiana. ATI Journal, 47, 57–85.Google Scholar
(1988). L’ordine degli elementi della frase. Costruzioni con ordine marcato degli elementi. In L. Renzi (Ed.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. 1: La frase. I sintagmi nominale e preposizionale (pp. 129–194). Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Bentley, D. (2013). Subject canonicality and definiteness effects in Romance there-sentences. Language, 89, 675–712. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, D., Ciconte, F., & Cruschina, S. (2013). Microvariation in subject agreement: The case of existential pivots with split focus in Italo-Romance. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 25, 15–43.Google Scholar
(2015). Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berizzi, M. (2013). The preposition ma in the central Italian dialects. In D. Pescarini (Ed.), Studi sui dialetti delle Marche. Special issue of Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt, 15, 1–21.Google Scholar
Berretta, M. (1989). Sulla presenza dell’accusativo preposizionale in italiano settentrionale: Note tipologiche. Vox Romanica, 48, 13–37.Google Scholar
(1990a). E a me chi mi consola? Italian e Oltre, 5, 31–35.Google Scholar
(1990b). Sull’accusativo preposizionale in italiano. In M. Berretta, P. Molinelli, & A. Valentini (Eds.), Parallela 4. Morfologia/Morphologie (pp. 179–189). Narr.Google Scholar
(1991). Note sulla sintassi dell’accusativo preposizionale in italiano. Linguistica, 31, 211–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bichelli, P. (1974). Grammatica del dialetto napoletano. Pégaso.Google Scholar
Bleam, T. (1999). Object bare plurals in Spanish and the semantics of personal a. In J.-M. Authier, B. Bullock, & L. Reed (Eds.), Formal perspectives on Romance linguistics selected papers from the 28th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XXVIII), University Park, 16–19 April 1998 (pp. 21–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). The role of semantic type in differential object marking. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 19, 3–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonner, J. K. (2001). Introduction to Sicilian grammar. Legas.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. (1982). Der präpositionale Akkusativ im Sardischen. In O. Winkelmann (Ed.), Festschrift für Johannes Hubschmid zum 65. Geburtstag. Beiträge zur allgemeinen, indogermanischen und romanischen Sprachwissenschaft (pp. 579–599). Francke.Google Scholar
(1998). Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In J. Feuillet (Ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe (pp. 193–258). Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braitor, A.-M. (2017). Unità e diversità nella marcatura differenziale dell’oggetto diretto in rumeno e in siciliano. Studio comparativo (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Univerity of Palermo.
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capozzoli, R. (1889). Grammatica del dialetto napoletano. Chiurazzi.Google Scholar
Carè, P. (1982). ‘Ju matrimoniu. Oppido Maritimo: Barbaro.Google Scholar
Castagna, G. (1982). Guida grammaticale del dialetto foriano letterario. Epomeo.Google Scholar
Ciccotti, C. (2013). Studio comparato sull’uso dell’accusativo preposizionale in spagnolo, italiano e dialetto di Montemesola (Unpublished BA dissertation). University of Bologna.
Cimarra, L. (1998). Il dialetto di Sant’Oreste. Apeiron.Google Scholar
Colacino, E. (1994). E cchi ni manca? VIP Comunicazione.Google Scholar
Coluccia, R. (Ed.). (1987). Ferraiolo, Cronaca. Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
Compagna, A. M. (Ed.). (1990). Lupo de Spechio, summa dei re di Napoli e Sicilia e dei re d’Aragona. Liguori.Google Scholar
Company Company, C. (2002a). El avance diácronico de la marcación prepositiva en objetos directos inanimados. In A. Bernabé, J. A. Berenguer, M. Cantarero, & J. C. de Torres (Eds.), Presente y futuro de la lingüística en España. La Sociedad de Lingüística 30 años después (pp. 146–154). Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.Google Scholar
(2002b). Grammaticalization and category weakness. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 201–215). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornilescu, A. (2020). Ditransitive constructions with differentially marked direct objects in Romanian. In A. Pineda & J. Mateu (Eds.), Dative constructions in Romance and beyond (pp. 117–142). Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Corrado, M. (1995). Il Salento in vernacolo. Congedo Editore. ScorranoGoogle Scholar
Corti, M. (Ed.). (1956). Pietro Jacopo De Jennaro, Rime e lettere. Carducci.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dalbera-Stefanaggi, M.-J. (1997). Corsica. In M. Maiden & M. Parry (Eds.), The dialects of Italy (pp. 303–310). Routledge.Google Scholar
D’Achille, P. (2012). Questioni aperte nella storia del Romanesco: Una rilettura dei dati documentari’. In M. Loporcaro, V. Faraoni, & P. Di Pretoro (Eds.), Vicende storiche della lingua di Roma (pp. 3–27). Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. (2017). When you have too many features: Auxiliaries, agreement and clitics in Italian varieteis. Glossa, 2, 1–36.Google Scholar
De Angelis, A. (2017). Articolo definito e accusativo preposizionale nelle lingue romanze: Una distribuzione complementare?’ Paper presented at the Cambridge Italian Dialect Syntax-Morphology Meeting (CIDSM) 12, University of Cambridge, 3–5 July.
De Blasi, N., & Imperatore, L. (2000). Il napoletano parlato e scritto. Con note di grammatica storica (Nuova edizione). Dante & Descartes.Google Scholar
De Giovanni, M. (1993). Molise. Pacini.Google Scholar
De Marco, C. (1986a). Teatro 1. Fegato gruppo C…poste e telegrafi. Calabria Letteraria Editrice.Google Scholar
(1986b). Teatro 3. Processo a porte chiuse. Duv’è? Uno qualunque. Calabria Letteraria Editrice.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1981). An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language, 57, 626–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delille, K. H. (1970). Die geschictliche Entwicklung des präpositionalen Akkusativs im Portugieschen. Romanisches Seminar der Univerität Bonn.Google Scholar
Diez, F. (1844). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. Dritte Theil. Eduard Weber.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). Ergativity. Language, 55, 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Đurđulov, M. (2018). Italiano popolare a Fiume. Lettere di semicolti (1915–45). (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Padua.
Escandell-Viret, V. (2009). Differential object marking and topicality. The case of Balearic Catalan. Studies in Language, 33(4), 832–885. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falcone, G. (1979). Racconti popolari calabresi con prolegomeni linguistici. Reggio Calabria: Casa del Libro.Google Scholar
Ferrazzi, J. (2017). Prepositional accusatives in contemporary standard Italian (Unpublished BA dissertation). University of Venice.
Fierro, A. (1989). Grammatica della lingua napoletana. Rusconi.Google Scholar
Finamore, G. (1893). Vocabolario dell’uso abruzzese. Lapi.Google Scholar
Fiorentino, G. (2003). Prepositional objects in Neapolitan. In G. Fiorentino (Ed.), Romance objects. Transitivity in Romance languages (pp. 117–151). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floricic, F. (2003). Notes sur l’‘accusatif prépositionnel’ en Sarde. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 98, 247–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Formentin, V. (Ed.). (1987). Francesco Galeota, le lettere del Colibeto. Liguori.Google Scholar
(Ed.). (1998). Loise De Rosa, Ricordi. Salerno.Google Scholar
Frattolillo, R. (1985). Appunti sul dialetto di Campobasso. Saggio sul lessico. Enne.Google Scholar
García García, M. (2018). Nominal and verbal parameters in the diachrony of differential object marking in Spanish. In A. Witzlack-Makaraevich & I. Seržant (Eds.), The diachronic typology of differential argument marking (pp. 209–242). Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Giannell, L. (1997). Tuscany. In M. Maiden & M. Parry (Eds.), The dialects of Italy (pp. 297–302). Routledge.Google Scholar
Gioiosa, M. (2000). Grammatica del dialetto sannicandrese. Gioiosa Editrice.Google Scholar
Gioscio, J. (1985). Il dialetto lucano di Calvello. Steiner.Google Scholar
Granatiero, G. (1987). Grammatica del dialetto di Mattinata. Edigraf.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C. (1999). Sull’oggetto diretto preposizionale nel siciliano. (Unpublished BA dissertation). University of Pisa.
(2000). Note sull’oggetto diretto preposizionale nel siciliano. L’Italia Dialettale, 51, 1–35.Google Scholar
(2010). L’oggetto diretto preposizionale in siciliano. Una breve rassegna e qualche domanda. In J. Garzonio (Ed.), Studi sui dialetti della Sicilia (pp. 83–101). Unipress.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T. (1993). Causative and perception verbs. A comparative approach. Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Harley, H., & Ritter, E. (2002). A feature-geometric analysis of person and number. Language, 78(3), 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, K. von, & Kaiser, G. A. (2003). The interaction of animacy, definiteness, and specificity in Spanish. In K. von Heusinger & G. A. Kaiser (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop ‘Semantic and Syntatic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages’ (pp. 41–65). University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
(2005). The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. In K. von Heusinger, G. A. Kaiser, & E. Stark (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop ‘Specificity and the Evolution/Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance’ (pp. 33–69). University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Hill, V., & Mardale, A. (2017). On the interaction of differential object marking and clitic doubling in Romanian. In A. Mardale (Ed.), Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues romanes: Quelques nouvelles pièces du puzzle. Special issue of Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 62, 393–409.Google Scholar
Iandolo, C. (1994). ’A lengua ’e Pulecenella. Grammatica napoletana. Franco Di Mauro Editore.Google Scholar
Iannace, G. (1983). Interferenza linguistica ai confini fra Stato e Regno. Il dialetto di San Leucio del Sannio. Longo.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, G. (2010). Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language, 34, 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irimia, M. (2018). Differential objects and other structural objects. Proceedings of Linguistic Society of America, 50, 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irimia, M., & Pineda, A. (2019). Differential object marking and scales: Insights from Romance diachrony. Proceedings of the Linguistics Society of America, 4, 57.1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. (1993). Sardinian Syntax. Routledge.Google Scholar
(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
Kany, C. (1951). American Spanish syntax. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2000). A comparative syntax of the dialects of southern Italy: A minimalist approach. Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2009). Grammatica diacronica del napoletano. Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Varieties in Italy. In K. Jungbluth & F. Da Milano (Eds.), Manuals of Romance linguistics, Vol. 6: Manual of deixis in Romance languages (pp. 146–162). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). The dialects of southern Italy. In A. Ledgeway & M. Maiden (Eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages (pp. 246–269). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020a). Rethinking microvariation in Romance demonstrative systems. In A. Bárány, T. Biberauer, J. Douglas, & S. Vikner (Eds.), Syntactic architecture and its consequences, II: Between syntax and morphology (pp. 451–490). Language Science Press.Google Scholar
(2020b). The north-south divide: Parameters of variation in the clausal domain. L’Italia Dialettale, 81, 29–77.Google Scholar
(2022). Disentangling parameters: Romance differential object marking and the distribution of head and edge features. In G. Alboiu, D. Isac, A. Nicolae, M. Tănase-Dogaru, & A. Tigău (Eds.), Studies in honour of Alexandra Cornilescu. Editura Universități din Bucarești 439–58.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A., Schifano, N., & Silvestri, G. (2019a). Variazione nella codifica degli argomenti verbali nelle varietà romanze e greche della Calabria meridionale: “Dativo greco” e marca differenziale dell’oggetto diretto’. In P. Del Puente (Ed.), Atti del IV Convegno internazionale di dialettologia – Progetto A.L.Ba (pp. 93–113). Osanna Edizioni.Google Scholar
(2019b). 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), 51.1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A., & Smith, J. C. (2016). Deixis. In A. Ledgeway & M. Maiden (Eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages (pp. 879–896). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leone, A. (1995). Profilo di sintassi Siciliana. Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani.Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, E., & Suzuki, S. (2013). L’oggetto preposizionale in romeno e in italiano. Studia Romanica, 46, 11–20.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 609–665.Google Scholar
López, L. (2012). Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, M. (1988). Grammatica storica del dialetto di Altamura. Giardini.Google Scholar
(1997). Puglia and Salento. In M. Maiden & M. Parry (Eds.), The dialects of Italy (pp. 338–348). Routledge.Google Scholar
(2009). Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani. Laterza.Google Scholar
Loporocaro, M., & Paciaroni, T. (2016). The dialects of central Italy. In A. Ledgeway & M. Maiden (Eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages (pp. 226–245). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenzetti, L. (1999). Nota linguistica. In M. Formica & L. Lorenzetti (Eds.), Il misogallo romano (pp. 107–181). Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Maggiore, M. (2016). Scripto sopra Theseu Re. Il commento salentino al Teseida di Boccaccio (Ugento/Nardò, ante 1487), Vol. 1: Studi. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mancarella, G. B. (Ed.). (1998). Salento. Monografia regionale della ‘Carta dei Dialetti Italiani’. Edizioni del Grifo.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R., & Franco, L. (2016). Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 197–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchese, F. (2016). Il lessico del dialetto di Polia (VV) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florence.
Mardale, A. (2017). Introduction. Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues romanes: Quelques nouvelles pièces du puzzle. In A. Mardale (Ed.), Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues romanes: Quelques nouvelles pièces du puzzle. Special issue of Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 62, 351–357.Google Scholar
Massarelli, E. (2010). Dicete angiò che è bellu Terni mia!: Lingua e dialetto nei versi di Furio Miselli (Unpublished BA dissertation). Università degli Studi della Tuscia.
Maturi, P. (2002). Dialetti e substandardizzazione nel Sannio beneventano. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Meliadò, R. (1994). Le radici linguistiche e psico-antropologiche del dialetto reggino. Jason.Google Scholar
Mennonna, A. (1977). Un dialetto della Lucania: Studi su Muro Lucano. Congedo.Google Scholar
Mensching, G. (2005). Remarks on specificity and related categories in Sardinian. In K. von Heusinger, G. A. Kaiser, & E. Stark (Eds.), Nereus II: Specificity and the evolution/emergence of nominal determination systems in Romance. Proceedings of the International Workshop at the Freie Universität Berlin, October 8th-9th 2004 (pp. 81–106). University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Montaut, A. (2018). The rise of differential object marking in Hindi and related languages. In A. Witzlack-Makaraevich & I. Seržant (Eds.), The diachronic typology of differential argument marking (pp. 281–313). Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Neuburger, K., & Stark, E. (2014). Differential object marking in Corsican: Regularities and triggering factors. Language, 52, 365–390.Google Scholar
Nocentini, A. (1985). Sulla genesi dell’oggetto preposizionale nelle lingue romanze. In L. Agostiniani, V. Grazi, & A. Nocentini (Eds.), Studi linguistici e filologici per Carlo Alberto Mastrelli (pp. 299–311). Pacini.Google Scholar
Palazzini, M. (2015). Poesie e prose in vernacolo aretino. Arezzo. Retrieved on 24 February 2023 from [URL]
Pană Dindelegan, G. (2013). The direct object. In G. Pană Dindelegan (Ed.), The grammar of Romanian (125–144). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parry, M. (2003). L’oggetto preposizionale nel ligure medievale. Verbum, 5, 113–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perrone, C. C. (Ed.). (1977). Francesco Oliva, Opere napoletane. Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Petroselli, F. (2009). Il lessico dialettale viterbese nelle testimonianze di Emil Maggini. Banca di Viterbo.Google Scholar
Peverini-Benson, C. (2004). The prepositional accusative in Marchigiano (Unpublished MPhil thesis).
Pineda, A. (2018). Acostament al marcatge diferencial d’objecte als inicis del català modern. eHumanista/IVITRA, 14, 570–596.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1969). On so-called pronouns in English. In D. Reibel & S. Shane (Eds.), Modern studies in English (201–223). Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Protopapa, R. (1991). Teatro dialettale leccese, Volume terzo:. L’àncura. La furtuna. Lu rre te Lecce. Filippu e ppanaru. Nna causa alla pretura. Capone.Google Scholar
Radtke, E. (1989). Areallinguistik IX. Kampanien, Kalabrien. In G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, & C. Schitt (Eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik IV (pp. 652–668). Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Reynolds, D. (2005). The distribution of the prepositional accusative in Neapolitan (Unpublished BA dissertation). University of Cambridge
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman, Elements of grammar (pp. 281–337). Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (2019). Parameter hierarchies and Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press. 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
Ruggieri, D., & Batinti, A. (1992). Lingua e dialetto ad Anzi (Potenza). Note sulla situazione linguistica. Il Salice.Google Scholar
Savini, G. (1881). La grammatica ed il lessico del dialetto teramano. Forni.Google Scholar
Scerbo, F. (1886). Studio sul dialetto calabro con dizionario. Forni.Google Scholar
Sgrilli, P. (Ed.) (1984). Il Libro di Sidrac salentino. Pacini.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. (2016). Complex predicates. In A. Ledgeway & M. Maiden (Eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages (pp. 981–993). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Singh, O. (2019). The emergence of differential object marking in spoken northern Italian – A syntactic investigation (Unpublished MPhil thesis). Univeristy of Cambridge.
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
(2002). Concezioni del parlato e concezioni del cambiamento linguistico. Ricordando Monica Berretta. Rivista di Linguistica, 14, 375–390.Google Scholar
Telmon, T. (1993). Varietà regionali. In A. Sobrero (Ed.), Introduzione all’italiano contemporaneo. La variazione e gli usi (pp. 93–149). Laterza.Google Scholar
Tigău, A. (2021). Differential object marking in Romanian and Spanish. A contrastive analysis between differentially marked and unmarked direct objects. In J. Kabatek, P. Obrist, & A. Wall (Eds.), Differential object marking in Romance. The third wave (pp. 173–212). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E. (1998). The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varvaro, A. (1988). Aree linguistiche XII. Sicilia. In G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, & C. Schitt (Eds.), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik IV (pp. 716–731). Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Vespucci, G. (1994). Terra nostra. Edizioni Nuova Comunità.Google Scholar
Vignuzzi, U. (1997). Lazio, Umbria and the Marche. In M. Maiden & M. Parry (Eds.), The dialects of Italy (pp. 311–320). Routledge.Google Scholar
Vincelli, A. (1995). Grammatica descrittiva del dialetto di Casacalenda. Enne.Google Scholar
Viola, L. S. (2006). Idio del Pollino. Grammatica del dialetto saracenaro. Edizioni “il Coscile”.Google Scholar
Voci, B. (1994). Com’a ru focularu. Dizionario lessicale fraseologico calabro andreolese – italiano. Con elementi di grammatica descrittiva e centri d’interesse illustrati. Calabria Letteraria Editrice.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makaraevich, A., & Seržant, I. (2018). Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In A. Witzlack-Makaraevich & I. Seržant (Eds.), The diachronic typology of differential argument marking (pp. 1–39). Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M.-L. (1985). The relationship between morphophonology and morphosyntax: The case of Romance causatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 247–289.Google Scholar