Éléments d'analyse du marquage différentiel de l'objet dans les langues romanes

Abstract

pour certains dialectes de l'italien). Pour parler de ce même phénomène dans les langues romanes, d'autres auteurs parlent d'accusatif prépositionnel ou encore d'objet direct prépositionnel (voir, entre autres, Niculescu (1959, 1965)). (1) L-am întâlnit *(pe) Ion. (roumain) le CL.Acc-ai rencontré PE Acc Jean « J'ai rencontré Jean. » (2) Vi *(a) Juan. (espagnol) vis A Acc Jean « J'ai vu Jean. » (3) An furatu *(a) Ercole. (sarde) ont volé A Acc Hercule « Ils / elles ont enlevé Hercule. » Dans ces exemples, le MDO est obligatoire, mais dans d'autres cas il peut aussi être optionnel ou exclu, en fonction de différents paramètres. Les paramètres qui déterminent le MDO en général, et l'accusatif prépositionnel dans les langues romanes en particulier, peuvent être organisés dans une hiérarchie comportant les trois paramètres suivants (cf.

The Differential Object Marking of The Arborense Dialect of Sardinian in Language Contact Setting

“…Sardinian most probably developed dom independently from other languages: in fact, the 11th century Sardinian documents already show this feature. This dom system is similar to that of other Romance languages such as Spanish (Pensado 1995;Fiorentino 2003;Mardale 2008Mardale , 2010, where the preposition a also serves as the marker of the dom.3…”

“…3 Some scholars, however, have argued that this similarity is only superficial. In Spanish and Rumanian, for instance, dom seems to be conditioned primarily by semantic factors such as animacy and specificity (Mardale 2008(Mardale , 2010. The optional cases of Sardinian dom can also be accounted for on the basis of semantic factors (Mardale 2008(Mardale , 2010.…”

“…In Spanish and Rumanian, for instance, dom seems to be conditioned primarily by semantic factors such as animacy and specificity (Mardale 2008(Mardale , 2010. The optional cases of Sardinian dom can also be accounted for on the basis of semantic factors (Mardale 2008(Mardale , 2010. On the contrary, Jones (1993Jones ( , 1995Jones ( , 1999 In example (1c) the presence or absence of the preposition a correlates with a change in meaning.…”

Optional and alternating case marking: Typology and diachrony

“…By way of contrast, in Romanian, the accusative preposition derives from the perlative pe "through," descended from Latin per "through." According to Mardale (2010), the use of this accusative marker involves both a FIGURE 4 Grammaticalization chains for O markers referent-based split and optionality, as defined in Section 2. It is optional for specific, human nouns, as shown in (26), while it is obligatory for proper names and pronouns, and excluded everywhere else.…”

“…In some cases, there are indications that information structure played a role in the path towards O marking. For instance, Mardale (2010) argues that in addition to local semantic features such as animacy and specificity, the global factor of topicality also plays a role in the evolution from dative/perlative to an O marker in Romanian. An indication for this is the existence of a construction-based split in Romanian, in which O marking is obligatory in left-dislocation constructions, as shown in (27). Similarly, Iemmolo (2010) uses discourse data for a further four Romance languages to show that O marking is particularly favoured in left-dislocation structures, in which the direct object, typically a pronoun, is placed in clause-initial position.…”