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.
Syntactic and semantic constraints on differential object marking in Old Sardinian
Ciconte Francesco Maria
;
2023-01-01
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.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.