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. 105–134

Syntactic and semantic constraints on differential object marking
in Old Sardinian

 | University of Naples Federico II
 | University of Chieti-Pescara
 | University of Hamburg
This paper explores the differential marking of (human) objects (DOM) in a corpus of old Sardinian texts from two different areas, Logudoro and Arborea. We investigate the constraints on the marking of objects, whether semantic, reflecting the Individuation Hierarchy (Silverstein, 1976, p. 122), syntactic, i.e., determined by verbal valency and/or the syntactic position of the O argument in relation to the verb and in the clause, or pragmatic, functioning as a marking device for topics. The data investigated reveal the role played by the notion of Individuation in the grammaticalization of the preposition a(d) as a DOM marker, which appears to spread progressively from the core to peripheral points along the hierarchy, namely from human proper names, to human, kinship and then common nouns, initially definite, subsequently indefinite. Already in 11th–13th century texts, a(d) does not appear to have only/mainly an identificational function, differentiating the A and O arguments when they are both high on the Individuation hierarchy, but has become a marker of high Individuation, its use being sensitive to the notions of definiteness and humanness.
Keywords: differential object marking, old Sardinian (Romance), grammaticalization, individuation, V1 syntax, (in)definiteness, discourse roles
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Synchronic overview of the O marking in modern Sardinian
  • 3.The marking of O arguments in Old Logudorese
  • 4.The marking of O arguments in old Arborense
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.280.05cen
References (65)
References
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atzori, M. T. (1953). Glossario di Sardo Antico. Scuola Tipografica Benedettina, Parma.Google Scholar
Bentley, D. (2001). Split intransitivity in Italian. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008). The interplay of focus structure and syntax. Evidence from two sister languages. In R. D. Van Valin Jr. (Ed.), Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface (pp. 263–284). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blasco Ferrer, E. (1988). Le parlate dell’alta ogliastra: Analisi dialettologica, saggio di storia linguistica e culturale. Edizioni Della Torre.Google Scholar
(1994). Ello Ellus. Grammatica della Lingua Sarda. Poliedro.Google Scholar
(2003). Linguistica sarda. Storia, metodi, problemi. Condaghes.Google Scholar
(Ed.). (2003). Crestomazia Sarda dei primi secoli, Vol. 1: Testi-grammatica storica-glossario. Ilisso.Google Scholar
Blasco Ferrer, E. & Ingrassia, G. (2010). Glossario di linguistica sarda. Termini specialistici. Esemplificazione sarda. Indici internazionali. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 126(4), 783–784.Google Scholar
Boeddu, D. (2017). Estudio diacrónico del acusativo preposicional sardo (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universitad del Pais Vasco, Vitoria-Gasteiz.
(2020). The differential object marking of the Arborense dialect of Sardinian in language contact setting. Journal of Language Contact, 13, 17–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, G. (1982). Der präpositionale Akkusativ im Sardischen. In O. Winkelmann & M. Braisch (Eds.), Festschrift für Johannes Hubschmid zum 65. Geburtstag (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 de l’Europe (pp. 193–258). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castellani, A. (1982). La prosa italiana delle origini. Testi toscani di carattere pratico. Pàtron.Google Scholar
Cennamo, M. (2003). (In)transitivity and object marking: Some current issues. In G. Fiorentino (Ed.), Romance objects. Transitivity in Romance languages (pp. 49–104). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). The rise and grammaticalization paths of Latin fieri and facere as passive auxiliaries. In W. Abraham & L. Leisiö (Eds.), Passivization and typology: Form and function (pp. 311–336). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Grammaticalization and changes in argument linking: A case-study from old Logudorese Sardinian. In M. Chini & P. Cuzzolin (Eds.), Tipologia, acquisizione, grammaticalizzazione – Typology, acquisition, grammaticalization studies (pp. 96–117). Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Ciconte, F. M. (2018). Soggetto e oggetto nell’italo- romanzo antico. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, LVI(1), 97–135.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1978). Ergativity. In W. P. Lehmann (Ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language. University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
(1989). Language universals and linguistic typology. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S. (2011a). Focalization and word order in Old Italo-Romance. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 10, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b). Discourse-related features and functional projections. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I. (2011). Objects and information structure. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delogu, I. (Ed.). (1997). Il Condaghe di San Pietro di Silki. Dess.Google Scholar
Farkas, D. (2000). Scope matters. In K. von Heusinger & U. Egli (Eds.), Reference and anaphoric relations (pp. 79–108). Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floricic, F. (2003). Notes sur l’accusatif prépositionnel en sarde. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, XCVIII(1), 247–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). L’extension du marquage de l’ojet: Le cas des comparatives en Sarde. Workshop on Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues romanes. INALCO, Paris 18 June 2015. Hand-out.Google Scholar
(2020). Object marking e predicazione possessiva in sardo campidanese. In E.-M. Remberger, M. Virdis, & B. Wagner (Eds.), Il sardo in movimento (pp. 187–204). Vienna University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1978). Definiteness and referentiality. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. 4: Syntax (pp. 291–330). Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2011). On S, A, P, T and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology, 15(3), 535–689. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haude, K., & Witzlack-Makarevich, A. (2016). Referential hierarchies and alignment: An overview. Linguistics, 54(3), 433–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, K. von. (2002). Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics, 19(3), 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Specificity. In K. von Heusinger, K. C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 2. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, G. (2010). Topicality and DOM: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language, 34, 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, G., & Klumpp, G. (2014). Introduction. In Differential object marking: Theoretical and empirical issues. Special issue of Linguistics, 52(2), 271–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irimia, M. A., & Pineda, A. (2019). Differential object marking and scales: Insights from Romance diachrony. Proc Ling Soc Amer, 4, 57, 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, 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
(2020). Accusativo preposizionale in sardo: Elementi strutturali e semantici. In E.-M. Remberger, M. Virdis, & B. Wagner (Eds.), Il sardo in movimento (pp. 169–186). Vienna University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2023). Differential object marking in the dialects of southern Italy: an overview. Caplletra 74: 183–212.Google 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, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M. (2008). Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus, 20(1), 33–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Indefiniteness and specificity. In J. I. Hualde, A. Olarrea, A., & E. O’Rourke (Eds.), The handbook of Hispanic linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, A. (2007). Posizione dei clitici e ordine dei costituenti della lingua sarda medievale. In A. Ledgeway & D. Bentley (Eds.), Sui dialetti italoromanzi: Saggi in onore di Nigel B. Vincent (pp. 133–148). Biddles.Google Scholar
Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mardale, A. (2008). Microvariation within differential object marking: Data from Romance. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 4, 448–467.Google Scholar
Mensching, G., & Remberger, E.-M. (2016). Sardinian. In A. Ledgeway & M. Maiden (Eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages (pp. 270–291). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merci, P. (Ed.). (1992). Il Condaghe di San Nicola di Trullas. Testo Logudorese inedito dei secoli XI–XIII. Delfino.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, W. (1902). Zur Kenntniss der Altlogudoresischen. Akademie der Wissenschaft, Wien.Google Scholar
Mithun, M., & Chafe, W. (1999). What are S, A and O? Studies in Language, 23(3), 569–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murgia, G. (Ed.). (2016). Carta de Logu d’Arborea. Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Putzu, I. (2005). L’accusativo preposizionale in sardo campidanese. Aspetti tipologici e contesti areali. In A. Dettori (Ed.), Lingue e culture in contatto (Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica e Stilistica dell’Università di Cagliari, pp. 225–260). Carocci.Google Scholar
(2008). Per uno studio dell’accusativo preposizionale in sardo antico: Emergenze dallo spoglio dei 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) Edizione ETS.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. (2004). Person. Cambridge 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). Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Timberlake, A. (1977). Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp. 141–177). University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2005). Exploring the syntax- semantics interface. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., R. D., & LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Virdis, M. (1988). Sardisch: Areallinguistik. In C. Schmitt, G. Holtus, & M. Metzeltin (Eds.), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik (LRL), Vol. IV: Die einzelnen romanischen Sprachen und Sprachgebiete von der Renaissance bis zur Gegenwart: Rumänisch, Dalmatisch (pp. 897–913). Niemeyer.Google Scholar
(Ed.). (2003). Il Condaghe di Santa Maria di Bonarcado. Ilisso.Google Scholar
Wolfe, S. (2015). The old Sardinian Condaghes. A syntactic study. Transactions of the Philological Society, 113(2), 177–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Verb second in medieval Romance. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar