Syntactic and semantic constraints on differential object marking in Old Sardinian
-
Michela Cennamo
Abstract
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.
Abstract
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.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- List of abbreviations vii
- Introduction 1
- Differential object marking in Barese 24
- Differential object marking in French 56
- Clitic doubling in Brazilian Portuguese as a DOM strategy 85
- Syntactic and semantic constraints on differential object marking in Old Sardinian 105
- Differential object marking in Brazilian Portuguese 135
- Corsican DOM 160
- Differential object marking in a dialect of Sicily 192
- The dative/accusative alternations in Old Romanian 232
- Differential object marking in kinship terms and animacy hierarchies in Old Sardinian 253
- Parametric variation in differential object marking in Italo-Romance 267
- A micro-comparative approach to DOM in language-contact environments 315
- Index 349
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- List of abbreviations vii
- Introduction 1
- Differential object marking in Barese 24
- Differential object marking in French 56
- Clitic doubling in Brazilian Portuguese as a DOM strategy 85
- Syntactic and semantic constraints on differential object marking in Old Sardinian 105
- Differential object marking in Brazilian Portuguese 135
- Corsican DOM 160
- Differential object marking in a dialect of Sicily 192
- The dative/accusative alternations in Old Romanian 232
- Differential object marking in kinship terms and animacy hierarchies in Old Sardinian 253
- Parametric variation in differential object marking in Italo-Romance 267
- A micro-comparative approach to DOM in language-contact environments 315
- Index 349
