In:Variation in Second and Heritage Languages: Crosslinguistic perspectives
Edited by Robert Bayley, Dennis R. Preston and Xiaoshi Li
[Studies in Language Variation 28] 2022
► pp. 311–336
Chapter 12Differential object marking in heritage and homeland Italian
Published online: 14 July 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.28.12dis
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.28.12dis
Abstract
We examine variable patterns of use of differential object marking (DOM) in conversational Italian recorded in
Toronto, Canada, and Calabria, Italy. An exhaustive sample of 366 direct objects, produced by Homeland and three generations
of Heritage speakers, shows retention of the DOM system. Successive generations have lower rates of DOM, but this is because
they don’t produce enough tokens of certain syntactic and semantic types (e.g., left-dislocated or indefinite pronouns). Thus,
they have less opportunity to use DOM: token distributions account for their lower rates. In contexts with sufficient tokens,
significant contrasts emerge, indicating that all generations retain the conditioning of relevant factors (Definiteness,
Referent of Object, Verb Type, Dislocation). No effects of social network or linguistic practices emerged.
Article outline
- Introduction
- The status of DOM in Romance languages
- Methods
- Results
- Modeling DOM where it is expected
- Non-canonical use of DOM
- (Non)-effects of ethnic orientation
- Summary of findings
- Discussion
Notes References
References (59)
Aalberse, Suzanne, Ad Backus, and Pieter Muysken. 2019. Heritage languages: A language contact approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural language and linguistic theory 21. 435–483.
Balasch, Sonia. 2011. Factors determining Spanish differential object marking within its domain of variation. In Jim Michnowicz & Robin Dodsworth (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, 113–124. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Berretta, Monica. 1989. Sulla presenza dell’oggetto preposizionale in italiano: note tipologiche. Vox Romanica 48. 13–37.
Boeddu, Daniela. 2017. Estudio diacrònico del acusativo preposicional sardo. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad del Paìs Vasco.
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Georg Bossong, Dieter Wanner & Douglas Kibbee (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–171. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cortelazzo, Manlio. 1972. Avviamento critico allo studio della dialettologia italiana, Vol. III: Lineamenti di Italiano Popolare. Pisa: Pacini.
Di Salvo, Margherita. 2017. L’oggetto preposizionale nell’italiano parlato in contesto dell’extraterritorialità. L’Italia Dialettale 78. 93–124.
Di Venanzio, Laura, Katrin Schmitz & Anna-Lena Rumpf. 2012. Objektrealisierungen und–auslassungen bei transitiven Verben im Spanischen von Herkunftssprechern in
Deutschland. Linguistische Berichte 232. 437–461.
Dufter, Andreas & Elisabeth Stark. 2008. Double indirect object marking in Spanish and Italian. In Elena Seoane & María José López-Couso (eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 111–129. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fiorentino, Giuliana (ed.). 2003a. Romance objects. Transitività in Romance languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fiorentino. Giuliana. 2003b. Prepositional objects in Neapolitan. In Giuliana Fiorentino (Ed.), Romance objects. Transitività in Romance languages, 117–151. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Guardiano, Cristina. 2000. Note sull’oggetto diretto preposizionale in siciliano. L’Italia Dialettale LXI. 7–41.
. 2010. L’oggetto diretto preposizionale in siciliano. Una breve rassegna e qualche domanda. In Jacopo Garzonio (Ed.), Quaderni di lavoro ASIt 2010. Studi sui dialetti della Sicilia, 95–115. Padova: Unipress.
Guijarro-Fuentes, Pedro & Theodoros Marinis. 2011. Voicing language dominance: Acquiring Spanish by British English/Spanish bilingual children. In Kim Potowski & Jason Rothman (ed.), Bilingual youth: Spanish in English-speaking societies, 227–248. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse: The transitivity hypothesis. Language 56. 251–299.
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2009. La marcatura differenziale dell’oggetto in siciliano antico. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 94(2). 185–225.
Irizarri van Suchtelen, Pablo. 2016. Spanish as a heritage language in the Netherlands: A cognitive linguistic exploration. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Radboud University dissertation.
Labov, William. 1984. Field methods of the Project on Linguistic Change and Variation. In John Baugh & Joel Sherzer (eds.), Language in use: Readings in sociolinguistics, 28–53. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Laca, Brenda. 2006. El objeto directo. In Sintaxis historica del español. Vol 1: La frase verbal, edited by Concepción Company, 197–204. México City: Universidad Nacional de México.
Leonetti, Manuel. 2008. Specificity in Clitic Doubling and in Differential Object Marking. Probus 20. 33–66.
Lopez, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions, and differential marking. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Marchese, Floriana. 2016. Il lessico del dialetto di Polia (VV). Doctoral dissertation, Università di Firenze.
Mardale, Alexandru. 2008. Microvariation within Differential Object Marking: Data from Romance. Revue Romaine de Linguistique LIII (4). 448–467.
Mardale, Alexandru-Daniel. 2009. Les prépositions fonctionnelles du roumain: études comparatives sur le marquage casuel. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Montrul, Silvina. 2004. Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic
convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7 (2). 125–142.
Montrul, Silvina, Rakesh Bhatt, & Roxana Girju. 2015. Differential Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage languages. Language 91. 564–610.
Montrul, Silvina, & Melissa Bowles. 2009. Back to basics: Incomplete knowledge of Differential Object Marking in Spanish heritage
speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(3). 363–383.
Montrul, Silvina, & Noelia Sánchez-Walker. 2013. Differential Object Marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition 20 (2). 109–132.
Nagy, Naomi. 2009. Heritage Language Variation and Change. [URL]. Accessed 23 January 2020.
2011. A multilingual corpus to explore geographic variation. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 43 (1–2). 65–84.
. 2015. A sociolinguistic view of null subjects and VOT in Toronto heritage language. Lingua 164B. 309–327.
Nagy, Naomi and Alexei Kochetov. 2013. VOT Across the generations: A cross-linguistic study of contact-induced change. In Peter Siemund, Ingrid Cogolin, Monika Schulz and Julia Davydova (eds.), Multilingualism
and language contact in urban areas: Acquisition –development – teaching – communication, 19–38. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nagy, Naomi & Miriam Meyerhoff. 2015. Extending ELAN into variationist sociolinguistics. Linguistic Vanguard 1 (1) 271–281.
Nocentini, Alberto. 1985. Sulla genesi dell’oggetto preposizionale nelle lingue romanze. In Studi linguistici e filologici per Carlo Alberto Mastrelli, 299–311. Pisa: Pacini.
Nodari, Rosalba, Chiara Celata, and Naomi Nagy. 2019. Socio-indexical phonetic features in the heritage language context: Voiceless stop aspiration in the
Calabrian community in Toronto. Journal of Phonetics 73. 91–112.
Pittau, Massimo. 1972. Grammatica del sardo-nuorese. Il più conservativo dei parlari neolatini. Bologna: Pàtron.
Pottier, Bernard. 1968. L’emploi de la préposition ‘a’ devant l’objet in espagnol. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 63: 63–85.
Renzi, Lorenzo. 1988. La grande grammatica di consultazione. Vol. 1: La frase. Sintagmi nominale e preposizionale. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel. 2008. The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus 20. 111–145.
Schwenter, Scott. A. 2014. Two kinds of differential object marking in Portuguese and Spanish. In Patricia Amaral & Ana María Caravalho (eds.), Portuguese-Spanish
interfaces: Diachrony, synchrony, and contact, 237–260. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. W. Dixon(ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
Sornicola, Rosanna. 1997. L’oggetto preposizionale in siciliano antico e in napoletano antico. Italienische Studien 18. 66–80.
. 1998. Processi di convergenza nella formazione di un tipo sintattico: la genesi ibrida dell’oggetto
preposizionale. In Annick Englebert (ed.), Les nouvelles ambitions de la linguistique diachronique, Actes du XXIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et
de Philologie Romanes (Bruxelles 23–29 Juillet 1998) II, 419–427. Brussels: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Telmon, Tullio. 1993. Varietà regionali. In Alberto Sobrero (ed.), Introduzione all’italiano contemporaneo: La variazione e gli usi, 93–149. Rome-Bari: Laterza.
Ticio, Emma & Luisa Avram. 2015. The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish and Romanian: Semantic scales or semantic
features? Revue roumaine de linguistique 4. 383–402.
Tippets, Ian Robert. 2010. Differential Object Marking in Spanish: A quantitative variationist study. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Von Heusinger, Klaus. 2008. Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish. Probus 20 (1). 1–31.
Wittenburg, Peter, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann, & Han Sloetjes. 2006. ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Aldo Gangemi, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, & Daniel Tapias (eds.), Proceedings
of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 1556–1559. Paris: European Language Resources Association.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
