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. 192–231

Differential object marking in a dialect of Sicily

| Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia
This contribution proposes an overview of the distribution of a-marked objects in a Romance dialect of Sicily, focusing on the relation between a-marking and the syntactic properties of the nominal structure in object position. The following properties are considered: type of lexical head (pronouns vs. nouns); coding of the Person feature on the lexical head and its relation with the functional head D; type of noun (proper names, kinship nouns, other nouns); lexical realization of the determiner (D head); definiteness and animacy of the object; Number. It will be shown that, in the dialect explored, a-marking is constrained by two major restrictions: (1) a-marking is only possible if the head D is phonetically realized, and (2) [+human] referents must be a-marked.
Keywords: animacy, articles, DP-structure, definiteness, empty D, human referent, person, Ragusa, Romance dialects, Sicilian, Southern Italy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.The realization of D in Sicily
    • 3.1Person and overt raising to D
    • 3.2Definite and indefinite articles
    • 3.3Towards a classification
  • 4.The distribution of a-marking in the dialect of Ragusa
    • 4.1Pronominal items
    • 4.2Proper names
    • 4.3Kinship expressions
    • 4.4Count nouns
    • 4.5Mass and abstract nouns
  • 5.Towards a taxonomy
  • 6.Some (marginal) speculations on contact
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.280.08gua
References (146)
References
Aissen, J. (1999). Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 17, 673–711. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. 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 Differential object marking, clitic doubling and argumental structure in Barese (Unpublished MA thesis).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
(2018). The syntax and semantics of DOM in Barese. Paper presented at the Workshop Differential Object Marking in Romance – towards microvariation, Paris, 9–10 November.
Bárány, A. (2018). DOM and dative case. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. (2018). 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
Benincà, P. (1988). L’ordine degli elementi della frase. Costruzioni con ordine marcato degli elementi. In L. Renzi (Ed.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Volume I: La frase. I sintagmi nominale e preposizionale (pp. 129–194). Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J. (2008a). English th- forms. In A. Klinge & H. Müller (Eds.), Essays on nominal determination (pp. 213–232). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b). Reformulating the Determiner Phrase analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berretta, M. (1989). Sulla presenza dell’accusativo preposizionale in italiano: Note tipologiche. Vox Romanica, 48, 13–37.Google Scholar
(1990a). E a me chi mi consola? Italiano 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 (179–189). Narr.Google Scholar
(1991). Note sulla sintassi dell’accusativo preposizionale in italiano. Linguistica, 31, 211–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berruto, G. (1987). Sociolinguistica dell’italiano contemporaneo. La Nuova Italia Scientifica.Google Scholar
Blake, B. J. (2001). Case. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, G. (1982). Der prâpositionale Akkusativ im Sardischen. In O. Winkelmann (Ed.), Festschrift für Johannes Hubschmid zum 65. Geburstag. Beiträge zur allgemeinen, indogermanischen und romanischen Sprachwissenschaft (pp. 579–599). Franke.Google Scholar
(1985). Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den Neuiranischen Sprachen. Narr.Google Scholar
(1991). Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Wanner & D. A. Kibbee (Eds.), Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the XVIII linguistic symposium on Romance languages, Urbana Champaign, April 7–9, 1998 (pp. 143–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(1998). Le marquage diffèrentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In J. Feuillet (Ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe (pp. 193–258). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Nominal and/or verbal marking of central actants. In G. Fiorentino (Ed.), Romance objects. Transitivity in Romance languages (pp. 17–47). Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braitor, A.-M. (2017). Unità e diversità nella marcatura differenziale dell’oggetto diretto in rumeno e in siciliano. Studio comparativo (Tesi di Dottorato). Università di Palermo.Google Scholar
Brugè, L. (2000). Categorie funzionali del nome nelle lingue romanze. Cisalpino.Google Scholar
Cennamo, M. (2003). (In)transitivity and object marking. In G. Fiorentino (Ed.), Romance objects. Transitivity in Romance languages (pp. 49–104). Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). (In)transitivity and the marking of O in Italo-Romance and Sardinian. Paper presented at The Italo-Romance languages – ALT 2019, Pavia, 3 September.
Cennamo, M., Andriani, L., & Ciconte, F. M. (this volume). Syntactic and semantic constraints on differential object marking in Old Sardinian.
Chilà, A. (2017). Il sincretismo genitivo-dativo nella varietà reggina di S. Luca. L’Italia Dialettale, 78, 57–71.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. Praeger.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1979). Definite and animate objects: A natural class. Linguistica Silesiana, 3, 15–21.Google Scholar
(1989). Language typology and linguistic universals: Syntax and morphology. The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Contreras, H. (1986). Spanish bare NPs and the ECP. In I. Bordelois, H. Contreras, & K. Zagona (Eds.), Generative studies and Spanish syntax (pp. 5–49). Foris.Google Scholar
Crisma, P., & Longobardi, G. (2020). The parametric space associated with D. In M. Wiltschko & S. Armoskaite (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of determiners. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crisma, P., Guardiano, C., & Longobardi, G. (2020). Syntactic parameters and language learnability. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 58, 99–130.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (2008). Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny. Lingua, 118, 141–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darlymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I. (2011). Objects and information structure. Cambridge University Press.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
Del Puente, P. (2003). L’accusativo preposizionale nel dialetto napoletano. In F. Sànchez (Ed.), Actas del XXII Congreso Internacional de Linguistica y Filologia Romànica (Vol. 2). Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). Ergativity. Language, 55, 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. (2007). Topics from Ibiza: Differential object marking and clitic-dislocation. In G. A. Kaiser & M. Leonetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop “Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages” (pp. 23–43). University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
(2009). Differential object marking and topicality: The case of Balearic Catalan. Studies in Language, 33(4), 832–885. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fanciullo, F. (1997). Raddoppiamento sintattico e ricostruzione linguistica nel Sud italiano. ETS.Google Scholar
Ferrazzi, J. (2017). Prepositional accusatives in contemporary standard Italian (Unpublished MA thesis). Università Ca’ Foscari.
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. BSLP, 98, 247–303.Google Scholar
Franco, L. & Manzini, M. R. (2017). Genitive/‘of’ arguments in DOM contexts. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, LXII, 427–444.Google Scholar
Ganfi, V., & Pisano, S. (2020). La marcatura differenziale dell’oggetto in alcune varietà sarde. Paper presented at Unimore, Microwebinars.
García García, M. (2005). Differential object marking and informativeness. 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. 17–32). University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A., & Longobardi, G. (1991). The syntax of noun phrases: Configuration, parameters, and empty categories. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C. (1999). Sull’oggetto diretto preposizionale nel siciliano (Tesi di laurea). Università di Pisa.Google Scholar
(2000). Note sull’oggetto diretto preposizionale nel siciliano. L’Italia Dialettale, 51, 1–35.Google Scholar
(2010). L’oggetto preposizionale in siciliano. Una breve rassegna e qualche domanda. Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt, 11, 95–115.Google Scholar
(2019). The history of Greek articles: A syntactic approach. In D. King (Ed.), The article in post-classical Greek (pp. 57–81). SIL International.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C., Cambria, M., & Stalfieri, V. (2022). Number morphology and bare nouns in (some) Romance dialects of Italy. Languages, 57: 255. DOI logo
Guardiano, C., & Koopman, H. (2016). From O 01 1_Indef mass_can be bare, retrieved on 23 February 2023 from [URL]; to O 09 5_PN+A_Order PN A, retrieved on 23 February 2023 from [URL]; and From S01_Existential constructions, retrieved on 23 February 2023 from [URL]; to S 04 3_Indef Pl Ns (Subj) must have an article, retrieved on 23 February 2023 from [URL]. In H. Koopman (Ed.), Syntactic structures of the world’s languages. Retrieved on 23 February from [URL]
Guardiano, C., & Longobardi, G. (2006). The underlying unity of reference and quantification. Paper presented at the 32mo Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Firenze, 2–4 March.
Guardiano, C., Michelioudakis, D., Ceolin, A., Irimia, M. A., Longobardi, G., Radkevich, N., Silvestri, G., & Sitaridou, I. (2016). South by south east. A syntactic approach to Greek and Romance microvariation. L’Italia Dialettale, 77, 96–166.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C., Michelioudakis, D., Cordoni, G., Irimia, M. A., Radkevich, N., & Sitaridou, I. (2018). Parametric comparison and dialect variation: Insights from Southern Italy. In L. Repetti & F. Ordóñez (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 14. Selected papers from the 46th Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) (pp. 103–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guardiano, C., & Stavrou, M. (2014). Greek and Romance in Southern Italy: History and contact in nominal structures. L’Italia Dialettale, 75, 121–147.Google Scholar
(2020). Dialect syntax between persistence and change. The case of Greek demonstratives. L’Italia Dialettale, 81, 121–58.Google Scholar
(2021). Modeling syntactic change under contact: The case of Italiot Greek. Languages, 6, 74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, H., & Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric approach. Language, 78, 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, K. von. (2008). Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish. Probus, 20, 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, K. von, & Gáspár, E. O. (2008). Triggering and blocking effects in the diachronic development of DOM in Romanian. Probus, 20, 67–110. 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 Syntactic 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
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse: The transitivity hypothesis. Language, 56, 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, G. (2007). La marcatura differenziale dell’oggetto in siciliano: Un’analisi contrastiva. In Actes du XXV Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, Innsbruck, 3–7 September 2007 (pp. 341–350). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009). La marcatura differenziale dell’oggetto in siciliano antico. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, 94, 185–225.Google Scholar
(2010). Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language, 34, 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irimia, M. A. (2020). *ABA, DOM and other accusatives. Paper presented at GLOW 43, Berlin, 8–20 April.
Irimia, M. A., & Pineda, A. (2019). Differential object marking and scales: Insights from diachrony. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, Vol. 4, 57: 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1936). Contribution to the General Theory of Case: General meanings of the Russian cases. In L. R. Waugh & M. Halle (Eds., 1984) Roman Jakobson: Russian and Slavic grammar. Studies 1931–1981 (pp. 59–103). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google 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
Klein, U., & de Swart, P. (2011). Case and referential properties. Lingua, 121(1), 3–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J. (1949). Le problème du classement des cas. Bulletin de la Société Polonaise de Linguistique, Kraków.Google Scholar
La Fauci, N. (1990). L’oggetto con preposizione nei “Confessionali” siciliani antichi. Risultati di uno spoglio sistematico. In L. Giannelli, N. Maraschio, T. Poggi Salani, & M. Vedovelli (Eds.), Tra Rinascimento e strutture attuali. Atti del primo convegno della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana, Siena 28–31 marzo 1989 (Vol. 1, pp. 387–398). Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Laca, B. (2006). El objeto directo. La marcación preposicional. In C. Company (Ed.), Sintaxis historica del español. Primera parte: La frase verbal (Vol. 1, pp. 423–475). Fondode cultura económica/Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Lazard, G. (1984). Actance, variation and categories of the object. In F. Plank (Ed.), Objects. Towards a theory of grammatical relations (pp. 269–292). Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2003). What is an object in the crosslinguistic perspective? In G. Fiorentino (Ed.), Romance objects. Transitivity in Romance languages (pp. 1–16). Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazzeroni, R. (1992). Genere grammaticale e sistema nominale nel sanscrito: Per una interpretazione della deriva. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, 57, 89–104.Google Scholar
(1993). Il genere indoeuropeo. Una categoria naturale? In M. Bettini (Ed.), Maschile/Femminile. Generi e ruoli nelle culture antiche (pp. 3–16). Laterza.Google Scholar
(1997). La transitività come categoria linguistica: I nomi d’azione indoeuropei. Incontri Linguistici, 20, 71–82.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2000). A comparative syntax of the dialects of southern Italy: A minimalist approach. Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2004). Lo sviluppo dei dimostrativi nei dialetti centromeridionali. Lingua e Stile, XXXIX, 65–112.Google Scholar
(2009). Grammatica diacronica del napoletano. Niemeyer. 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
(2018). Parametric variation in DOM in Italo-Romance. Paper presented at the Workshop Differential Object Marking in Romance – towards microvariation, Paris, 9–10 November.
(2019). L’accusativo preposizionale: Parametri di variazione. Paper presented at the VI Convegno A.L.Ba. Dialetti: Per parlare e parlarne, 10–13 April.
(this volume). Parametric variation in differential object marking in Romance.
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
Leone, A. (1995). Profilo di sintassi siciliana. Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. (2003). Specificity and object marking: The case of a. In K. von Heusinger & G. A. Kaiser (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop “Semantic and Syntactic aspects of specificity in Romance languages” (pp. 67–101). University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
(2008). Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus, 20, 33–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lima, A. (2003). Differential object behaviour (Unpublished undergraduate honours thesis). University of Queensland.
(2006). A minimalist view on differential object marking for specificity. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Michigan Linguistics Society, Oakland University, October.
Longobardi, G. (1987). Sulle piccole isole. Italia Dialettale, 50, 215–219.Google Scholar
(1994). Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 609–665.Google Scholar
(1996). The syntax of N-raising: A minimalist theory (OTS Working Papers). University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. (2005). Towards a unified grammar of reference. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 24/1, 5–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. (2008). Reference to individuals, person and the variety of mapping parameters. In A. Klinge & H. Müller (Eds.), Essays on nominal determination (pp. 189–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G., & Guardiano, C. (2009). Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness. Lingua, 119, 1679–1706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lopez, 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. (1997). L’origine del raddoppiamento fonosintattico. Saggio di fonologia diacronica romanza (Romanica Helvetic, 115). Francke.Google Scholar
(2009). Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani. Laterza.Google Scholar
Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, A. L. (2005). Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In M. Amberber & H. de Hoop (Eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for Case (pp. 73–117). Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations. In L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov, & P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (pp. 175–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua, 118(2), 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., & Savoia, L. (2005). I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa. 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
Mardale, A. (2008a). Microvariation within differential object marking: Data from Romance. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, LIII(4), 448–467.Google Scholar
(2008b). Notes on bare plurals and differential object marking in Romance. In Hommage à la Professeure Ioana Vintilă-Rădulescu. Special issue of Studii şi Cercetări Lingvistice, LIX(2), 411–424.Google Scholar
(2010). Éléments d’analyse du marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues romanes. Faits de Langues. Les Cahiers, 2, 161–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Differential object marking in the first original Romanian texts. In V. Hill (Ed.), Formal approaches to DPs in Old Romanian (pp. 200–245). Brill.Google Scholar
(2017). Le marquage différentiel de l’object dans les langues romanes: Quelques Nouvelles pieces du puzzle. Special issue of Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 62.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Y., & de Swart, P. (2006). Language variation and historical change. The spread of DOM in Spanish. In J. Doetjes & P. Gonzáles (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2004. Selected papers from “Going Romance”, Leiden, 9–11 Dec. 2004 (pp. 225–245). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild. (2004). What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 114, 1186–1212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Å. (2007). Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pensado, C. (Ed.). (1995). El complemento directo preposicional. Visos Libros.Google Scholar
Peverini-Benson, C. (2004). The prepositional accusative in Marchigiano (Unpublished MPhil thesis). University of Cambridge.
Piccitto, G., Tropea, G., & Trovato, S. (1977–2002). Vocabolario Siciliano. Centro di Studi Linguistici e Filologici Siciliani.Google Scholar
Pottier, B. (1968). L’emploi de la preposition ‘a’ devant l’object in Espagnol. Bulletin de la Societè de Linguistique de Paris, 63, 83–85.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Mondoñedo, M. (2008). The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish. Probus, 20, 111–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohlfs, G. (1969). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, Vol. III: Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Einaudi.Google Scholar
(1971). Autour de l’accusatif prépositionnel dans les langues romanes. Revue de Linguistique Romaine, 35, 312–327.Google Scholar
(1973). Panorama de l’accusatif prépositionnel en Italie. Studii i Cercetari Lingvistice, 24, 617–621.Google Scholar
Romagno, D. (2005). La codificazione degli attanti nel Mediterraneo romanzo: Accordo del participio e marcatura dell’oggetto. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, 90, 90–113.Google Scholar
(2006). Gradiente di transitività e codifica dell’oggetto. Dall’accusativo preposizionale al partitivo. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, 91, 203–222.Google 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
Sornicola, R. (1997a). L’oggetto preposizionale in siciliano antico e in napoletano antico. Italienische Studien, 18, 66–80.Google Scholar
(1997b). Campania. In M. Maiden & M. Parry (Eds.), The dialects of Italy (pp. 330–337). Routledge.Google Scholar
(1998). Processi di convergenza nella formazione di un tipo sintattico: La genesi ibrida dell’oggetto preposizionale. In A. Englebert, M. Pierrard, L. Rosier, & D. van Raemdonck (Eds.), Les nouvelles ambitions de la linguistique diachronique, Actes du XXIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes (Bruxelles 23–29 Juillet 1998) (pp. 419–427). Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Stark, E. (2005). Typological correlations in nominal determination in Romance. 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. 123–138). University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Swart, P. de. (2007). Crosslinguistic variation in object marking. LOT.Google Scholar
. (2008). Sense and simplicity: Bidirectionality in differential case marking (Unpublished manuscript). Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Swart, P. de, & de Hoop, H. (2007). Semantic aspects of differential object marking. In E. Puig-Wermueller (Ed.) Proceedings of “Sinn und Bedeutung 11” (pp. 598–611). Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Tekavčić, P. (1972). Grammatica storica dell’italiano. Il Mulino.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
Terenghi, S. (2022). Demonstrative systems are not affected by contact: evidence from heritage Southern Italo-Romance. Languages 7(3), 201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. A., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E. (1999). El complemento directo preposicional. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (Vol. 2, pp. 1779–1805). Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Varvaro, A. (1988). Aree linguistiche XII. Sicilia. In G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, & C. Schmitt (Eds.), Lexicon der Romanistischen Linguistik IV (pp. 716–731). Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Vezzosi, M. (2019). Le strutture nominali del casalasco: Analisi di comparazione parametrica (Tesi di laurea). Università di Modena e Reggio Emiiia.Google Scholar
Zamboni, A. (1993). Postille alla discussione sull’accusativo preposizionale. In Actas do XIX Congreso Internacional de Linguistica et Filoloxia Romanicas, Fundacion Pedro Barriè de la Maza, Conde de Fenoza (pp. 707–808). Fundación “Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa.Google Scholar