Next Article in Journal
Stability and Change in the C-Domain in American Swedish
Next Article in Special Issue
Expletive Subject Clitics in Northern Italo-Romance
Previous Article in Journal
Processing Gapped and Gapless Relative Clauses in Mandarin: Evidence from Event–Related Brain Potentials
Previous Article in Special Issue
Interactions between Clitic Subjects and Objects in Piedmont and North Liguria Dialects
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Number Morphology and Bare Nouns in Some Romance Dialects of Italy

by
Cristina Guardiano
*,
Michela Cambria
and
Vincenzo Stalfieri
Dipartimento di Comunicazione ed Economia, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, 42121 Reggio Emilia, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Languages 2022, 7(4), 255; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7040255
Submission received: 30 April 2022 / Revised: 29 July 2022 / Accepted: 19 August 2022 / Published: 30 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Perspectives on Italian Dialects)

Abstract

:
This paper explores aspects of microvariation concerning the morphological realization of the feature Number within nominal structures in a selected subset of Romance dialects of Italy. First, the different strategies adopted in the dialects of the dataset for the realization of number alternations on various nominal categories (nouns/adjectives, articles, demonstratives, and possessives) are presented. Then, the relation between the latter and the distribution of “bare” argument nominals (i.e., of nominal structures which, in argument position, occur without any lexicalized determiner) is explored. It will be observed that the distribution of bare arguments in the dialects of the dataset is consistent with the hypotheses made in the literature, which suggest that there is a correlation between the realization of number alternations on nouns and the possibility for “null” (i.e., unpronounced) determiners to be licensed.

1. Introduction

The relation between the morphological representation of the feature Number on nouns and the possibility for nouns to be realized as bare (i.e., not introduced by any overt determiner) in argument position was explored by Delfitto and Schroten (1991).1 They propose that, in English, the licensing of argument bare nouns depends on the realization of number alternations through overt affixes “attached to a ‘free’ morpheme” (Delfitto and Schroten 1991, p. 157): a silent “plural quantifier” is licensed when the affix raises to D at LF, “providing the correct quantificational representation” (Delfitto and Schroten 1991, p. 162). By contrast, in French, where morphological number exponence on nouns is generally absent,2 bare arguments are ungrammatical: argument nominal structures, including indefinite mass and plural nouns, require a visible “quantification operator” in D, as shown in (1).
(1)a.J’aivu*(des)étudiantsdansl’édifice
I haveseenof.the.plstudentinthe.sgbuilding
‘I saw students in the building’
b.Jeanabu*(de l’)eau
Jeanhasdrunkofthe.sg water
‘Jean drunk water’
A similar proposal is presented in Crisma and Longobardi (2020, pp. 51–54); in their analysis, the possibility of identifying the feature Number via a null D is connected to the availability of overt morphological Number exponence on nouns, which distinguishes, for instance, languages like English, Italian, or Spanish—where number alternations are lexicalized on (almost) all nouns and bare arguments are possible—from languages like French, where nouns are generally unmarked for Number and bare arguments are impossible.
Concerning the realization of number alternations on suffixes, English, Italian, and Spanish exhibit three different strategies. In English, as already mentioned, plural suffixes attach to the root, which has the status of a “free morpheme”; in Italian, number and gender/class information are collapsed in one single suffix attached to a bound root, as shown in (2); in Spanish, plural number is realized through the suffix -s, which in turn attaches to a “word marker”3 suffix, as shown in (3).4
(2)Italian
a. student-e
       student-m.sg
b. student-i
       student-m.pl
(3)Spanish
a. estudiant-e
       student-wm
b. estudiant-e-s
       student-wm-pl
In the Romance dialects of Italy, number marking on nouns is realized through various strategies (for a detailed survey, see Manzini and Savoia 2005, vol. III). For example, there are dialects, such as Ladin or certain Friulian varieties, where “syncretic” suffixes of the Italian type alternate with the combination [wm + -s] (see, among others, Manzini et al. 2020; Pescarini 2020). Since none of the dialects considered in this paper exhibit -s suffixes, this phenomenon will not be further explored here. By contrast, we focus on the effect of the loss/weakening of final vowels (Tagliavini [1949] 1972) on the realization of “syncretic” suffixes. We observe two types of dialects. In the dialects where final vowels were not lost/weakened, number alternations are realized on suffixes, which, like in Italian (Manzini and Savoia 2005, vol. III, pp. 547–48), collapse class/gender and number information. By contrast, in the dialects where final vowels were dropped or became indistinct, the overt realization of number alternations on suffixes was blurred as well: in some such dialects, these phenomena affected almost all noun classes; in others, the weakening process affected only some final vowels: therefore, number alternations were retained on some suffixes and became lost in others. In turn, in some dialects, alternative strategies were developed to overtly mark singular vs. plural distinctions, through the re-analysis of stressed vowel alternations originally induced by metaphony (Tagliavini [1949] 1972, p. 408; Fanciullo 1994).5
With respect to these phenomena, the languages of our dataset can be classified into two major types: (1) languages where final vowels were preserved and, consequently, number alternations are realized on suffixes on all/most nouns, and (2) languages where, as a consequence of the weakening/loss of final vowels, number alternations on suffixes were (entirely or partially) lost. The latter, in turn, split into two further types: (2a) languages where, due to the loss of final vowels, suffixes were lost as well on entire classes of nouns, and (2b) languages where, due to the weakening of final vowels, suffixes were retained but have lost (either partially or entirely) number distinctions. These outcomes are discussed in the first part of the paper and are summarized in (26). The first part of the paper also contains a survey of the strategies available in the languages of the dataset for marking number alternations on nouns, adjectives, articles, demonstratives, and possessives.
In the second part of the paper, we focus on the relation between the morphological realization of number on nouns and the availability of bare argument nouns.6 Using original data collected from native speakers, we sketch a survey of the distribution of bare arguments in our sample of dialects. Two generalizations emerge from our data:
(a)
languages where there is regular/systematic number exponence on nouns have bare nouns;
(b)
the absence of suffixes on nouns seems to correlate with the absence of argument bare nouns.
The structure of the paper runs as follows. Section 2 introduces the languages of the dataset and presents some properties relevant for our discussion. Section 3 presents three parameters that govern the realization of the feature Number on nominal structures and describes the morphological strategies for number marking in the dialects of the dataset, focusing on the following nominal categories: nouns, adjectives, articles, demonstratives, and possessives. Section 4 presents the distribution of bare nouns in argument position in the dialects of the dataset as compared to Italian and explores how it relates with the morphological realization of Number on nouns. Section 5 summarizes the conclusions.

2. The Dataset

The data discussed in this paper were collected from the 29 Romance dialects of Italy listed in (4) (see also Figure A1).7
(4)a.six “Gallo-Italic”8 dialects of northern Italy (Lombardia: Casalmaggiore;9 Emilia: Parma,10 Reggio Emilia,11 Novellara,12 Correggio;13 Romagna: Savignano sul Rubicone)14
b.ten “upper” southern dialects (Abruzzo: Teramo;15 Campania: Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Amalfi and Palma Campania;16 Cilento: Felitto;17 Puglia: Bari,18 Barletta,19 Taranto;20 Lausberg area: Francavilla in Sinni,21 Verbicaro)22
c.twelve “extreme” southern dialects (Salento:23 Cellino San Marco, Mesagne, Botrugno; Calabria:24 Cutro,25 Nicastro,26 Catanzaro,27 Reggio Calabria;28 Sicily:29 San Filippo del Mela, Ragusa, Ribera, Mussomeli, Trapani)
d.one “Gallo-Italic”30 dialect of Sicily (Aidone)
In what follows, we provide a brief description of some phenomena traditionally observed in these four groups of dialects that are relevant for our discussion.
The dialects of group (4a) share the generalized deletion of all final vowels except for -a (Tagliavini [1949] 1972, p. 399; e.g., bras, it. braccio, lat. brāchium, ‘arm’, vs. pjasa, it. piazza, lat. plăteam,‘square’), a phenomenon that affects several other Romance dialects of northern Italy.31
In the dialects of group (4b), final unstressed vowels were centralized as 32 (e.g., fiʎʎə,33 it. figlio/i/a/e, lat. fīlium/ii/am/ae, ‘son/s, daughter/s’), except for Felitto, where they were generally maintained. With respect to this phenomenon, variation mostly concerns which final vowels are involved in the weakening process. Some dialects (e.g., Francavilla in Sinni, or various dialects of Puglia and Campania: Loporcaro 1988; De Blasi 2006) centralize all final vowels. Others (see Cangemi et al. 2010 for an overview) centralize some vowels while retaining others. In our dataset, one example of the latter type is the dialect of Verbicaro (Loporcaro and Silvestri 2015; Idone and Silvestri 2018), where final -a was retained, with the consequence that “the phonemic opposition {-U(-); -O(-); -I(-); -E(-)} > /ə/ ≠ /a/ < {-A(-)} is preserved” (Idone and Silvestri 2018, p. 2)34, and, consequently, some gender/number alternations on suffixes (feminine singular vs. the rest) are maintained, as shown in (5)—adapted from Loporcaro and Silvestri (2015, pp. 69–70).35
(5)a.nukwatrarəbbjeddə
a.mboybeautiful
‘a beautiful boy’
b.nakwatrarabbɛdda
a.fgirl.f.sgbeautiful.f.sg
‘a beautiful girl’
c.tʃɛrtəkwatrarəbbjeddə
someboybeautiful
‘some beautiful girls/boys’
In the dialects of group (4c) and, as mentioned above, in Felitto, final vowels are generally preserved (figgju, it. figlio, lat. fīlium, ‘son’; figgja, it. figlia, lat. fīliam, ‘daughter’; figgji, it. figli, figlie, lat. fīlii/ae, ‘sons, daughters’). Consequently, in these dialects, overt singular vs. plural distinctions on suffixes were preserved too; by contrast, gender distinctions were maintained in the singular, but were lost in the plural, due to phonetic changes occurred to unstressed -Ī/-Ĭ and -Ē (Lausberg 1971; Tagliavini [1949] 1972).
Like Verbicaro, Aidone (4d) has preserved final -a while generalizing all other vowels as -ə, as seen in (6) and (7).
(6)a.uddibbrənuvə
the.m.sgbooknew
‘the new book’
b.iddibbrənuvə
the.plbooknew
‘the new books’
(7)a.akasanuva
the.f.sghouse.f.sgnew.f.sg
‘the new house
b.ikasənuvə
the.plhousenew
‘the new houses’
The loss/weakening of final vowels in groups (4a), (most dialects of) (4b), and (4d) had consequences on the realization of number alternations on suffixes, which is blurred on most noun/adjective classes (with the exception of feminine nouns ending in -a in the dialects where the latter was preserved). Yet, in some dialects, number distinctions were partially maintained thanks to metaphony (Tagliavini [1949] 1972, p. 408; Fanciullo 1994). “Metaphony is a type of quality agreement of stressed mid or low vowels” (Savoia and Maiden 1997, p. 15) induced by final vowels. For example, in various dialects of our dataset, the continuers of the Latin unstressed final -I and -U triggered the raising of stressed mid–high vowels -e-, which became -i- (e.g., mesə, it. mese, ‘month’ vs. mi, it. mesi, ‘months’), and -o-, which turned into -u- (e.g., nəpo, it. nipote, ‘nephew’ vs. nəpu, it. nipoti, ‘nephews’), and/or the diphthongization of mid–low vowels -ɛ- in -je- (e.g., rɛndə, it. dente, ‘tooth’, vs. rjendə, it. denti, ‘teeth) and -ɔ- in -wo- (e.g., fɔrtə, it. forte, ‘strong.sg’, vs. fwortə, it. forti, ‘strong.pl’).36 These processes obviously happened before the loss/centralization of final vowels.
In the dialects where final vowels became (i.e., most dialects of group (4b)), nouns (and adjectives) originally ending in -E, which realized plural number through the suffix -I, were affected by metaphony in the plural (triggered, in fact, by -I), while no change happened in the singular (because final -E does not trigger metaphony). Consequently, when final unstressed -E and -I changed into , singular vs. plural alternations were preserved through the alternation, on the stressed root vowel, between non-metaphonetic (singular) and metaphonetic (plural) outputs (e.g., me, ‘month.sg’ / mi, ‘month.pl’). By contrast, nouns (and adjectives) ending in -U, whose plural was -I, were affected by metaphony both in the singular and in the plural (because both final -U and final -I trigger metaphony); thus, after the weakening of final -U and -I, no alternation was preserved (e.g., nwo, ‘new.m.sg’/ nwo, ‘new.m.pl’). Finally, nouns and adjectives ending in -A, whose plural was -AE>-E, and were thus etymologically unaffected by metaphonetic changes, did not retain any singular/plural alternation after the weakening of final vowels (for example, in Campania, the item rɔtə, ‘wheel’, encodes both singular and plural number).37 Nouns/adjectives of all classes whose stressed root vowel was -a-, -i-, or -u- are not expected to display any metaphonetic output. Yet, there are exceptions. For example, Fanciullo (1994) reports cases of lexical roots etymologically unaffected by metaphony whose stressed vowels display alternations signaling singular vs. plural interpretation; he concludes that, in these dialects, metaphony, which was originally a phonetic/phonological process, was turned into a morphological procedure (that he calls morphometaphony) to maintain/restore the overt realization of singular/plural alternations originally lexicalized on suffixes (Fanciullo 1994, pp. 574–77).
Various instances of these phenomena are visible in Teramano and other dialects of Abruzzo (Fanciullo 1994; Savoia and Maiden 1997; D’Alessandro and Van Oostendorp 2014, a.o.), where the extension of stressed root vowel alternations to non-etymological contexts also affected -a-, as shown in (8) (from Mantenuto 2015b, p. 11).
(8)a.vasəkiss.sg vs.visəkiss.pl
b.nasənose.sg vs.nisənose.pl
In various dialects of northern Italy (Rohlfs 1966, §§ 141–47; Loporcaro 2009, p. 80; Foresti 1988), metaphony is triggered only by final -I, as in the following examples (from Foresti 1988, p. 579):
(9)a.Ferraraspozgroom.sgvs.spuzgroom.pl
b.Bolognabongood.sgvs.bungood.pl
pafoot.sgvs.pifoot.pl
anyear.sgvs.enyear.pl
grasfat.sgvs.gresfat.pl
Fusignano
(Badini 2002, p. 381)
kandog.sgvs.kendog.pl
In the dialect of Savignano sul Rubicone (Pelliciardi 1977, pp. 45–48), like in other dialects of Romagna (Foresti 1988), the realization of number distinctions through alternations of the stressed vowel was extended to almost all classes of nouns (and adjectives) which, because of the loss of final vowels, have lost their suffixes (see Table A4 and Table A5). Thus, in this dialect, three different types of nouns are identified on the basis of number marking strategies: indeclinable nouns (10a), nouns where singular vs. plural alternations are realized on suffixes (-a vs. -i, or -a vs. no suffix, as shown in (10b.i) vs. (10b.ii)), and nouns that have no suffix and realize number oppositions through stressed vowel alternations (10c).
(10) singularpluralmeaning
a. bikirbikirglass
b.i.fnestrafnestriwindow
ii.kriaturakriaturperson
c.i.lamplɛmplightning
ii.kapɛlkapelhat
iii.kapɔtkapotcoat
iv.fjorfjurflower
To sum up, the dialect of Savignano sul Rubicone shares the absence of suffixes on most noun (and adjective) classes with the other dialects of group (4a), while it shares the overt realization of Number through alternations of the stressed root vowel with the dialects of group (4b), where, in contrast, all nouns/adjectives have suffixes (although often undistinguished for Number). In Section 3.3.1, we briefly explore these differences and their morphosyntactic consequences.

3. Number in Nominal Structures

In this section, we first describe three syntactic parameters that are responsible for the representation of Number within nominal structures (Section 3.1) and observe their manifestations in our sample of dialects (Section 3.2). Then (Section 3.3), we describe the morphological strategies observed in our sample of dialects to mark number alternations on nouns and adjectives (Section 3.3.1), articles (Section 3.3.2), demonstratives (Section 3.3.3), and (pronominal) possessives (Section 3.3.4). Concerning the latter two, we also highlight some aspects of variation in their distribution across the languages of the sample.

3.1. Number in DPs

We start from a brief survey of three parameters that have been proposed in the literature to account for cross-linguistic variation in the representation of the feature Number in D and within DPs.38
Number is one of the features that can be realized in D.39 Languages differ according to whether Number is “grammaticalized” or not, where “grammaticalized” means “obligatorily valued through some overt exponence in syntactically defined contexts” (Crisma and Longobardi 2020, p. 21).40 In the comparative parametric analysis of the nominal domain proposed since Guardiano and Longobardi (2005) and Longobardi and Guardiano (2009), until its most recent instantiations (Crisma et al. 2020), this cross-linguistic distinction is encoded by parameter Grammaticalized Number, whose empirical manifestations are summarized in (11). The parameter is active (i.e., Number is grammaticalized) in languages that display (at least one of) the patterns in (11) (e.g., English and Italian). By contrast, the parameter is not active in languages that do not display any such manifestations (e.g., Mandarin or Japanese).
(11)Grammaticalized Number (adapted from Crisma et al. 2020)
a. Nominal arguments display bound morpheme alternations (on the head noun and/or on a definite article/demonstrative/quantifier/adjective) that oppose singular to non-singular interpretation.
b. There is agreement in number between a singular/non-singular nominal argument and the verb.
c. There is agreement in number between a singular/non-singular noun (or a definite article/demonstrative/quantifier) and adjectives (within the same nominal structure).
d. There is agreement in number between a 3rd person reflexive and its antecedent.
In turn, languages where parameter Grammaticalized Number is active are of two types (Crisma and Longobardi 2020): languages (e.g., Basque) where singular vs. plural alternations are realized overtly only in D, where the latter must thus be systematically lexicalized (i.e., bare arguments are ruled out, Longobardi 2021), and languages where number distinctions are overtly realized (also) on nouns and other nominal categories (e.g., Italian, English, and, more generally, Indo-European languages). This difference is assumed to follow from a further parameter, Number spread to N (Longobardi and Guardiano 2009; Longobardi et al. 2013; Crisma et al. 2020), that is active in Indo-European and non-active in Basque.
Finally, among languages where Number spread to N is active (i.e., where at least some nouns exhibit overt singular vs. plural alternations), there are languages where overt number exponence is generalized to all (or most) classes of nouns (like English, Italian, or Spanish) and languages (like French) where number alternations are visible only on a lexically restricted set of nouns (see note 2). The latter do not allow argument bare nouns, thus superficially behaving like Basque, while the former can allow empty Ds in argument nominals. This difference is encoded by parameter Number on N, which is active in English, Italian, and Spanish (see examples (2) and (3)), and non-active in French (see example (1)).
The implicational relations between these three parameters are summarized in (12).41
(12)Number in DPs: three parameters
Languages 07 00255 i001

3.2. Parameter Manifestations in the Dialect Dataset

In what follows, we briefly explore the evidence available in the dialects of our sample concerning some of the patterns listed in (11), which define the empirical manifestations of parameter Grammaticalized Number.42 In (13)–(19), we provide examples of manifestations (11b) (subject-verb agreement)43 and (11c) (agreement in number between a noun or a definite article/demonstrative/quantifier and adjectives). Concerning (11a), an overview of how number alternations are realized on major nominal categories is provided in Section 3.3.
Example (13) is from Casalmaggiore (group (4a)). In this example, agreement in number between subject and verb is visible only on the participle: as in several other dialects of northern Italy, the auxiliary be does not agree in number with the subject (Manzini and Savoia 2005, chps. 2 and 5). Concerning DP-internal agreement, in the feminine, number agreement is visible on all DP-items (noun, adjective, definite article).
(13)Casalmaggiore (Vezzosi 2019, p. 26)
a.labɛlaragasalɛandadavia
the.f.sgbeautiful.f.sggirl.f.sgsubj.clbe.3gone.f.sgaway
‘The beautiful girl has left’
b.libɛliragasiliɛandadivia
the.f.plbeautiful.f.plgirl.f.plsubj.clbe.3gone.f.plaway
‘The beautiful girls have left’
Examples (14) and (15) are from Teramo and Santa Maria Capua Vetere (group (4b)), respectively.44 Both examples show subject-verb agreement. DP-internal agreement is realized on all DP-items: nouns and adjectives realize number alternations on the stressed vowel.
(14)Teramo (Mantenuto 2015a, pp. 2–3)
a.lukanəroʃʃəɛbbellə
the.m.sgdog.m.sgred.m.sgbe.3sgbeautiful.m.sg
‘The red dog is beautiful’
b.likinəruʃʃəsobbillə
the.m.pldog.m.plred.m.plbe.3pl beautiful.m.pl
‘The red dogs are beautiful’
(15)Santa Maria Capua Vetere
a.owaʎʎonəroʃəapartutə
the.m.sgyoung person.m.sgsweet.m.sghave.3sgleft
‘The sweet boy has left’
b.ewaʎʎunəruʃəannəpartutə
the.m.plyoung person.m.plsweet.m.plhave.3plleft
‘The sweet boys have left’
Examples (16)–(18) are from dialects of group (4c). Here, again, number agreement is visible between subject and verb and on all the items that belong to the same DP.
(16)Trapani
a.upittʃottumirikanupaittiu
the.m.sgyoung person.m.sgAmerican.m.sgleave.3sg.past
‘The American boy has left’
b.ipittʃottimirikanipaitteru
the.plyoung person.plAmerican.plleave.3pl.past
‘The American boys/girls left’
(17)Reggio Calabria
a.lufiggjɔlumirikanupartiu
the.m.sgyoung person.m.sgAmerican.m.sgleave.3sg.past
‘The American boy has left’
b.ifiggjɔlimirikanipartɛru
the.plyoung person.plAmerican.plleave.3pl.past
‘The American boys/girls left’
(18)Cellino San Marco
a.lukanebjankusefatʃesemprekkjujɛrtu
the.m.sgdog.sgwhite.m.sgSIdo.3sgalwaysmoretall.m.sg
‘The white dog is becoming increasingly taller’
b.likanibjankisefannusemprekkjujɛrti
the.pldog.plwhite.m.plSIdo.3plalwaysmoretall.pl
‘The white dogs are becoming increasingly taller’
Example (19) is from Aidone (group (4d)). Here, too, the verb agrees in number with the subject ((19a) vs. (19b)) and there is DP-internal agreement in number: the latter is only visible between items interpreted as feminine singulars.45
(19)Aidone
a.i.vinnənapəttʃiddasəmpatəka
come.3sg.pasta.fchild.f.sgnice.f.sg
‘A nice girl came’
ii.vinnənupəttʃiddəsəmpatəkə
come.3sg.pasta.mchildnice
‘A nice boy came’
b. vinnərə(tʃɛrtə)pəttʃiddəsəmpatəkə
come.3pl.pastsomechildnice
‘Some nice girls/boys came’
To sum up, all the dialects of our sample display subject-verb agreement in number (11b), and number agreement within DPs (11c). This constitutes positive evidence for Grammaticalized Number.
Concerning parameter Number spread to N, all the dialects of our sample display at least some nouns where number alternations are realized overtly (see Section 3.3.1 and Table A4); this means that, in these languages, parameter Number spread to N is active. In contrast, the empirical manifestations of parameter Number on N are more variable. We present the relevant data in Section 3.3.1.

3.3. Morphological Exponence of Number in the Dataset

3.3.1. Nouns (and Adjectives)

As shown in Section 1 and Section 2, across the dialects of our dataset, two strategies (often in complementary distribution) for making number on nouns46 are observed: suffix alternations and root vowel alternations47. The former strategy, as remarked in Manzini and Savoia (2005, vol. III, p. 583), is “clearly computational, namely syntactic” (“chiaramente computazionale, cioè sintattico”). The latter has the properties of an “introflexive” mechanism (“un paradigma di flessione interna”), which yet is not generalized to all inflectional classes and, especially in some dialects, is not productive (Fanciullo, p.c.).
In the dialects of group (4c) and in Felitto, number alternations are visible on almost all classes of nouns (with isolated lexical exceptions),48 and are realized through suffixes, which, like in Italian, collapse class/gender and number information, as shown in (20).49 In most such dialects, gender alternations are visible in the singular and blurred in the plural, as shown in (21).50
(20)Reggio Calabria (adapted from Falcone 1976, p. 68)
a.umulubbɔnu
the.m.sgmule.m.sggood.m.sg
‘the mule of good quality’
b.imulibbɔni
the.plmule.plgood.pl
‘the mules of good quality’
(21)San Filippo Del Mela
a.afiggjɔlamirikana
the.f.sgyoung person.f.sgAmerican.f.sg
‘the American girl’
b.ufiggjɔlumirikanu
the.m.sgyoung person.m.sgAmerican.m.sg
‘the American boy’
c.ifiggjɔlimirikani
the.plyoung person.plAmerican.pl
‘the American boys/girls’
The other dialects of our dataset display a “reduction of the internal articulation of the inflectional system” (‘una riduzione dell’articolazione interna del sistema flessivo’, Manzini and Savoia 2005, vol. III, p. 574) as compared to Italian. For example, in the dialects of group (4a), number alternations are visible on suffixes only on one class of nouns, i.e., feminine nouns ending in -a, with plural -i.51 The other classes do not exhibit any suffix (example (22) is from Casalmaggiore).52 Finally, in Savignano sul Rubicone, like in other dialects of Romagna, there are nouns that have no suffixes but overtly mark singular and plural interpretation through stressed vowel alternations (see the examples in (10)).
(22)Casalmaggiore (Vezzosi 2019, p. 26)
a.i.sotanadʒalda
gown.f.sgyellow.f.sg
‘yellow gown’
ii.sotanidʒaldi
gown.f.plyellow.f.pl
‘yellow gowns’
b. ragasgrand
boytall
‘tall boy/s’
In group (4b) (except for Felitto) and Aidone (4d), most final vowels have been weakened, and are now realized as . Thus, most number alternations on suffixes were lost. As already mentioned in Section 2 (see examples (5), (6), and (7)), in Verbicaro (23) and Aidone (24), some alternations on suffixes have been maintained, because of the retention of final -A. In these languages, there are two different suffixes: -a, which corresponds to (feminine) singular interpretation (originally -A), and , which collapses masculine singular (originally -U) and plural (originally -I).53
(23)Verbicaro (adapted from Loporcaro and Silvestri 2015, p. 69)
a.i.nabbɛllakasa
a.fbeautiful.f.sghouse.f.sg
‘a beautiful house’
ii.nakasabbɛdda
a.fhouse.f.sgbeautiful.f.sg
‘a beautiful house’
b.i.tʃɛrtəbbɛlləkasə
somebeautiful.f.plhouse.pl
‘some beautiful houses’
ii.tʃɛrtəkasəbbɛddə
somehouse.plbeautiful.f.pl
‘some beautiful houses’
c.i.nubbwellə54kwatrarə
a.mbeautiful.myoung person
‘a beautiful boy’
ii.nukwatrarəbbjeddə
a.myoung personbeautiful.m
‘a beautiful boy’
d.i.nabbɛllakwatrara
a.fbeautiful.f.sgyoung person.f.sg
‘a beautiful girl’
ii.nakwatrarabbɛdda
a.fyoung person.f.sgbeautiful.f.sg
‘a beautiful girl’
e.i.tʃɛrtəbbelləkwatrarə
somebeautifulyoung person
‘some beautiful boys/girls’
ii.tʃɛrtəkwatrarəbbjeddə
someyoung personbeautiful.m
‘some beautiful boys/girls’
iii.tʃɛrtəkwatrarəbbɛddə
someyoung personbeautiful.f.pl
‘some beautiful girls’
(24)Aidone
a.i.nabbravakaruza
a.fgood.f.sgyoung person.f.sg
‘a good girl’
ii.nakaruzabbrava
a.f.sgyoung person.f.sggood.f.sg
‘a good girl’
b.i.unbravəkaruzə
a.mgoodyoung person.sg
‘a good guy’
ii.unkaruzəbbravə
a.myoung person.sggood
‘a good guy’
c.i.tʃɛrtəbbravəkaruʒə
somegoodyoung person.pl
‘some good guys’
ii.tʃɛrtəkaruʒəbbravə
someyoung person.plgood
‘some good guys’
By contrast, in most dialects of group (4b), where final -A, -U, and -I turned into , there is only one suffix, which is not specified for number (i.e., -ə). Yet, in some such dialects, suffixes -a, -u, and -i re-emerge in certain contexts/classes of items, which might suggest that suffixes still encode number information, albeit often non-overtly.55 For example, Ledgeway (2007, p. 106) observes that, in the dialect of Napoli (like in several other dialects of Campania), (some) prenominal adjectives (as well as other prenominal modifiers) retain the suffixes -a (feminine, singular), -u (masculine singular), and -i (plural), while post-nominal adjectives generalize . Another case is exemplified by Francavilla in Sinni (examples in (25)). Here, on nouns, the feminine singular suffix is realized as -a when the noun is followed by an adjective (see (25a.i)); otherwise, it is realized as (see (25a.ii)). Similarly, on adjectives, the feminine singular suffix is realized as -a when the adjective precedes the noun and as when the adjective is post-nominal, as shown by the contrast between (25b.i) and (25a.i).56 Similar patterns have been described for Bari (Andriani 2017, p. 92) and Teramo (Savini 1881, p. 58).
(25)Francavilla in Sinni
a.i.amakənabbellə
the.f.sgcar.f.sgbeautiful
‘the beautiful car’
ii.imakənəbbellə
the.plcarbeautiful
‘the beautiful cars’
b.i.abbella57makənə
the.f.sgbeautiful.f.sgcar
‘the beautiful car’
ii.ibbelləmakənə
the.plbeautifulcar
‘the beautiful cars’
c.i.upallonəbbellə
the.m.sgball.sgbeautiful
‘the beautiful ball’
ii.ipallunəbbellə
the.plball.plbeautiful
‘the beautiful balls’
d.i.ubbelləpallonə
the.m.sgbeautifulball.sg
‘the beautiful ball’
ii.ibbelləpallunə
the.plbeautifulball.pl
‘the beautiful balls’
To sum up, concerning morphological exponence of Number on nouns, four major types of languages are identified in our dataset:58
(26)a.Languages where number distinctions are visible on suffixes on all noun classes as a rule (with spare lexical exceptions), and all noun classes have suffixes. The extreme southern dialects (group (4c)) belong to this type, as well as Felitto (4b).
b.Languages (i.e., Verbicaro and Aidone) where number alternations are visible on suffixes only on one class (i.e., nouns originally ending in -A), and suffixes appear on all nouns. In these languages, the suffix -a encodes feminine gender and singular number; masculine nouns and plurals have the suffix -ə.
c.Languages where no number alternations are visible on suffixes, and suffixes appear on all nouns. In some nouns, number distinctions are realized through alternations of the stressed vowel. Dialects of group (4b), except for Felitto and Verbicaro, belong to this type.
d.Languages where suffixes encode number alternations only on a subset of nouns (i.e., those ending in -a/-al/-el), while the other nouns do not display any suffix. Dialects of group (4a) belong to this type. In some such dialects (e.g., Savignano sul Rubicone), number alternations are also realized through alternations of the stressed root vowel.
In Section 4, we explore the relations between these number marking strategies and the distribution of bare nouns in the languages of the dataset, to check whether the predictions made by Delfitto and Schroten (1991) and Crisma and Longobardi (2020) are met in this domain of languages.
Before closing this Section, we provide a short survey of three categories (articles, demonstratives, and possessives) that display variation across the dataset in terms of how they realize number alternation and their DP-internal distribution.

3.3.2. Definite Articles

All the dialects of our sample have a definite article, normally inflected for gender and number, as shown in Table 1 (full paradigms are given in Table A1).59 Few dialects display four-member paradigms; by contrast, most of the dialects have three-member paradigms, with only one plural item that syncretizes masculine and feminine.

3.3.3. Demonstratives

In all the dialects of the database, demonstratives are incompatible with articles (i.e., they are D-checking, Guardiano and Stavrou 2020). Most dialects display two different items for adnominal and pronominal demonstratives: adnominal demonstratives are usually “reduced” as compared to pronominal ones (monosyllabic vs. disyllabic).61 Almost all the dialects of the sample realize number distinctions on both forms (full paradigms are given in Table A2a and Table A2b). Like definite articles, only a few dialects display four-member paradigms, e.g., Casalmaggiore (27) and Palma Campania (28); in the latter, feminine plural demonstratives trigger Rafforzamento Fonosintattico (see note 60). In most of the other dialects, masculine and feminine gender are collapsed into one and the same item in the plural, while they take two separate forms in the singular.
(27)Casalmaggiore (adapted from Vezzosi 2019, p. 55)
a.kullebarke/le
dem.m.sgbookhere/there
‘this/that book’
b.kilebarke/le
dem.m.plbookhere/there
‘these/those books’
c.kladunake/le
dem.f.sgwoman.f.sghere/there
‘this/that woman’
d.klidunike/le
dem.f.plwoman.f.plhere/there
‘these/those women’
(28)Palma Campania
a.stu/killumaʎʎonə
this.m.sg that.m.sgsweater.sg
‘this/that sweater’
b.sti/killimaʎʎunə
this.pl that.m.plsweater.pl
‘these/those sweaters’
c.sta/kellakandzonə
this.f.sg that.f.sgsong.sg
‘this/that song
d.sti/kellikkandzunə
this.pl that.f.plsong.pl
‘these/those songs’
In Francavilla in Sinni, pronominal demonstratives realize number distinctions through alternations of the root vowel, as shown in (29a), while suffix alternations are visible only on adnominal demonstratives (29b–d).
(29)Francavilla in Sinni
a.i.kwistəkwestəkistə
this.m.sgthis.f.sgthis.pl
ii.kwilləkwelləkillə
that.m.sgthat.f.sgthat.pl
b. stu /kwilluwaʎʎonə
this.m.sgthat.m.sgyoung person.sg
‘this/that boy’
c. sta /kwellawaʎʎonə
this.f.sgthat.f.sgyoung person.sg
‘this/that girl’
d. sti /killiwaʎʎunə
this.plthat.pl young person.pl
‘these/those boys’
A further aspect of variation in the languages of our dataset concerns the realization of deictic interpretation (Guardiano and Stavrou 2020). Some dialects of group (4a) (Casalmaggiore, Correggio, Novellara, and Reggio Emilia) are like French: adnominal demonstratives are usually realized as two separated lexical items (as shown in (27) and (30), from Vezzosi 2019, p. 26), wherein one (ku/ki, kla/kli) occurs in the D-area, does not encode any deictic information (i.e., it is “deictically neutral”) and is inflected for gender and number, and the other (ke/le, a deictic “reinforcer”, Bernstein 1997) occurs DP-finally (after adjectives and prepositional phrases), realizes deictic reference and is uninflected. A difference between Casalmaggiore and the other dialects is that, in Casalmaggiore, the reinforcer seems to be required in all contexts (and with all interpretations, Vezzosi 2019), while in the other dialects (like in French) it is not obligatory when the demonstrative does not have deictic meaning.
(30)Casalmaggiore
a.kulragasgrandke/le
dem.m.sgboytallhere/there
‘this/that tall boy’
b.kiragasgrandke/le
dem.m.plboytallhere/there
‘these/those tall boys’
In Parma and Savignano sul Rubicone, and in the other groups, deictic demonstratives do not require reinforcers; like in Italian, they take different forms according to whether they encode proximal or distal distinctions, as shown in (31).
(31)Parma
a.i.sto/kolgat
this.m.sg/that.m.sgcat
‘this/that cat’ (M)
ii.sta/klagata
this.f.sg/that.f.sgcat.f.sg
‘this/that cat’ (F)
iii.sti/kilgati
this.pl/that.plcat.f.pl
‘these/those cats’ (F)
b.i.koste (ki) /kol (la)lɛ
this.m.sg herethat.m.sg there3sg.cl.subjbe.3sg
lmelibor
the.m.sgmybook
‘This/that is my book’
ii.kosti (ki) /koi (la)iin
this.pl herethat.m.pl there3pl.cl.subjbe.3pl
limelibor
the.m.plmybook
‘These/those are my books’
iii.kosta (ki) /kola (la)lɛ
this.f.sg herethat.f.sg there3sg.cl.subjbe.3sg
lamekamiza
the.f.sgmyblouse.f.sg
‘This/that is my blouse’
iv.kosti (ki) /koli (la)iin
this.pl herethis.f.pl there3pl.cl.subjbe.3pl
almekamizi
the.f.plmyblouse.f.pl
‘These/those are my blouses’
A peculiar case is instantiated by the dialect of Teramo. As noted in Mantenuto (2016), Teramano features “demonstrative doubling”: two demonstratives can occur in the same DP, one DP-initially, in the reduced form of adnominal items, and the other DP-finally, in the non-reduced form of pronominal items. Doubling is not obligatory but is preferred when the DP has deictic interpretation.
(32)Teramo (Mantenuto 2016, pp. 35–39)
a.ʃtu/llulibbrə(kwaʃtə)/(kwallə)
this.m.sg /that.m.sgbookthis.m.sg/that.m.sg
‘this/that book (here)/(there)’
b.ʃta/llaparnindzə(kaʃtə)/(kallə)
this.f.sg/that.f.sgapron.f.sgthis.f.sg/that.f.sg
‘this apron (here)’
c.ʃti/llikinə(kəʃtə)/(kəllə)
this.pl/that.pldog.plthis.pl/that.pl
‘these/those dogs (here)/(there)’

3.3.4. Possessives

By the label “possessive”, we refer here to pronominal forms interpreted as arguments of the head noun (i.e., expressing one of the following relations: Possessor, Subject, Object; Crisma et al., forthcoming). In several Romance dialects of Italy,62 like in Italian (and unlike in English), adnominal possessives must co-occur with a determiner (e.g., an article or a demonstrative: il/un/questo mio libro, lit. ‘the/a/this my.m.sg book.m.sg’ vs. *mio libro) and do not assign any definite reading to the noun phrase they modify.63
In various dialects of our dataset, possessives agree in gender and number with the head noun, like in Italian,64 while in others they don’t.65 For example, in group (4a), adnominal possessives are prenominal (with exceptions, see Vezzosi 2019, p. 50) and uninflected.66 Pronominal possessives display number alternations only on some forms: 1st and 2nd person plural, except for Savignano (nɔstra.f.sg vs. nɔstre, vɔstra.f.sg vs. vɔstre), exhibit the same suffix alternations as adjectives (like in most other dialects, Manzini and Savoia 2005, p. 573), i.e., -a/-i in the feminine (nɔstra/nɔstri, vɔstra/vɔstri) and no alternations in the masculine (nɔster, vɔster); 3rd person plural forms are uninflected (lor); 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person singular are uninflected for gender when modifying a plural head noun (me, to, so), while, in some dialects, gender alternations (through the suffixes -o/-a, masculine and feminine, respectively) are visible on possessives modifying a singular head noun (e.g., mio/mia, tuo/tua, suo/sua in Reggio Emilia and Novellara).
More variation is observed in group (4b), mostly resulting from the combination of the weakening of final vowels and metaphony. Barletta has uninflected items for all persons but 1st singular, which has two forms opposing masculine (mejə) vs. feminine (ma), with no number oppositions. In Bari (Andriani 2017, p. 106), Amalfi, and Palma Campania, possessives are inflected for gender but not for number, except for 1st person singular in Amalfi and Palma Campania, where mijə encodes singular (masculine and feminine), mjejə encodes masculine and plural, and mɛjə encodes feminine and plural—note that no such alternation is realized through suffixes. In Verbicaro, all items are invariable (Silvestri 2016, p. 135), except for 1st and 2nd person plural, which, as in most other dialects, display gender/number alternations identical to adjectives. In Teramo, except for 1st person singular (mi), possessives are inflected for number (to vs. tu, so vs. su, nɔstrə vs. nustrə, vɔstrə vs. vustrə, so vs. su) but not for gender. In Francavilla in Sinni, 3rd person plural is uninflected (lorə) and 1st and 2nd person plural, like adjectives, have two forms, one encoding feminine singular (nɔstə/vɔstə), and the other (nwostə/vwostə) encoding plural and masculine singular. The other forms (1st, 2nd, and 3rd person singular) are inflected for number (mijə vs. mejə; tujə vs. tojə, sujə vs. sojə) but not for gender; in all forms, number distinctions are realized through root vowel alternations only. In Taranto, possessives exhibit the same gender/number alternations as adjectives (see Table A4). In Santa Maria Capua Vetere, the suffix -a encodes feminine gender and singular number on all persons but 3rd plural. Plural number and masculine gender are realized as -ə. In the 1st person singular, root vowel alternations encode singular vs. plural and masculine vs. feminine oppositions (mijə.m.sg, mija.f.sg, mjejə.m.pl, mɛ.f.pl). Finally, in Felitto, number alternations are realized through suffixes (-u/-a for the singular, masculine and feminine, respectively, -i/-e for the plural); in 1st and 2nd person plural, gender alternations are also visible on the stressed vowel (-wo- vs. -ɔ-, masculine and feminine, respectively).
In group (4c), the dialects of Sicily and Reggio Calabria have two types of possessives (Manzini and Savoia 2005, vol. III, pp. 552–74; Guardiano et al. 2018). Pre-nominal possessives are uninflected and realized attached to D (called “Wackernagel possessives” in Guardiano et al. 2018); by contrast, inflected adnominal possessives are post-nominal and identical to pronominal “strong” items. The latter are inflected for gender and number in Ragusa, Trapani, and Reggio Calabria; in Ribera, San Filippo del Mela, and Mussomeli, possessives are uninflected (except for 1st and 2nd person plural, which display the same suffix alternations as adjectives). In Salento (Cellino San Marco, Mesagne, Botrugno) and the rest of Calabria (Cutro, Catanzaro and Nicastro), possessives are post-nominal only; in Cellino San Marco, they are inflected for number but not for gender, except for 1st and 2nd person plural, which display the same suffix alternations as adjectives and stressed vowel alternations (nweʃʃu/vweʃʃu.m.sg, nɔʃʃa/vɔʃʃa.f.sg, nweʃʃi/vweʃʃi.pl), and for 3rd person plural, which is invariable (lɔru); in Nicastro, Mesagne, and Cutro, possessives are uninflected (except for 1st and 2nd person plural and, in Nicastro, also 1st person singular), and in Botrugno and Catanzaro (except for 3rd person plural), they are inflected for number and, in the singular, also for gender.
In Aidone (4d), possessives are uninflected, except for 1st and 2nd person plural, which, as in the other dialects, display the same alternations as adjectives.

4. The Distribution of Bare Nouns

Based on the premises sketched in Section 3.1, and on the data discussed in Section 3.2, we can now attempt some preliminary predictions concerning the availability of bare nouns in argument position in the dialects under investigation.
(33)aConcerning the realization of number on nouns, type (26a), where number alternations are systematically realized on suffixes on all classes of nouns, does not display significant differences with respect to Italian; hence, it is expected that these languages allow bare nouns, arguably with a distribution similar to that observed in Italian.
bType (26b) displays number alternations (on suffixes) on a subset of nouns (the -A class). Similarly, in type (26d), number distinctions are realized only on a subset of classes (-a, -al, -el). The difference between the two types is that in type (26b) all nouns have a suffix, while in type (26d) there are noun classes that do not display any suffix. One might wonder whether the “partial” encoding of the feature Number on nouns is sufficient to license empty Ds (i.e., bare nouns) or, by contrast, whether, for the licensing mechanisms described in Delfitto and Schroten (1991) and Crisma and Longobardi (2020) to be activated, it is necessary that Number be systematically realized on all noun classes.
cIn type (26c), all nouns have suffixes, but the latter are never overtly specified for Number. However, number alternations are realized through (semi-)productive introflexive strategies. According to Crisma and Longobardi (2020, p. 52), “for an empty D the value of Number is recovered via formal agreement between such a D and some category on which it is spelt out”. Thus, these languages should, in principle, license bare nouns. Yet, the fact that, in most languages of this type, number marking is not systematically realized on all noun classes raises the same issues as in (33b).
In what follows, we illustrate the distribution of bare nouns in argument position in the dialects of the dataset, to check whether the predictions suggested in (33) are borne out. To do so, we test (a) whether bare arguments are grammatical in the dialects investigated and, if they are, (b) whether their distribution displays any differences with respect to Italian.

4.1. Data Collection

The data used to test the predictions in (33) were collected from native speakers and further integrated, when possible, with those available in the literature. When not otherwise specified, the examples presented in this Section come from elicited data. For each dialect, we interviewed one speaker. If needed, speakers were consulted multiple times to refine and double-check the material they provided.
We arranged a list of syntactic environments where testing the degree of acceptability of various types of nominals when used with no visible determiner (i.e., bare). Our starting point is the distribution of bare nouns in Italian (Crisma and Longobardi 2020), which is summarized in (34) and exemplified in (35)–(39).
(34)aSingular count nouns cannot be bare in any argument position (35).
bPlural (and mass) nouns cannot be bare in pre-verbal subject position (36a), unless they are modified by an adjective, a PP or a relative clause, (36b).
cPlural (and mass) nouns can be bare in post-verbal subject position (37), as pivots of existential clauses (38), and in object position (39).
(35)a.*hovistostudente(americano)
have.1sgseenstudent.m.sgAmerican.m.sg
Intended: ‘I saw a(n American) student/the (American) student’
b.*studente(americano)èarrivato
student.m.sgAmerican.m.sgbe3sgarrived m.sg
Intended: ‘A(n American) student/the American student has arrived’
(36)a.*studentisonoentratinell’edificio
student.m.plbe.3plentered.m.plin.the.sgbuilding.m.sg
‘Students have entered the building’
b. studentidaognipartedel
student.plfromeverypartof.the.m.sg
mondosonoentratinell’edificio
world.m.sgbe.3plentered.m.plin.the.sgbuilding.m.sg
‘Students from all over the world have entered the building’
(37)a.sonoentratistudentinell’edificio
be.3plentered.m.plstudent.m.plin.the.sgbuilding.m.sg
‘Students have entered the building’
b.ècadutaacquasultavolo
be.3sgfallen.f.sgwater.f.sgon.the.m.sgtable.m.sg
‘Water has dropped on the table’
(38)a.cisonostudentinell’edificio
therebe.3plstudent.m.plin.the.sgbuilding.m.sg
‘There are students in the building’
b.c’èacquasultavolo
therebe.3sgwater.f.sgon.the.m.sgtable.m.sg
‘There is water on the table’
(39)a.hovistostudentinell’edificio
have.1sgseenstudent.m.plin.the.sgbuilding.m.sg
‘I saw students in the building’
b.hobevutoacqua
have.1sgdrunkwater.f.sg
‘I drank water’
Based on this material, we created a list of 41 different patterns/sequences (see Table A6) that contain modified and unmodified plural nouns, singular count nouns, and mass nouns, in the following positions in non-negative sentences:
(40)a.Object
b.Post-verbal subject
c.Pivot of existential clause:
i. with a “locative” coda
ii. with a relative clause as the coda
d.Pre-verbal subject
The list was then used as a “lexically-flexible” guide to collect the relevant data from the speakers and test their judgements.67 During the interviews, for each of the 41 patterns, speakers were asked to generate a sentence in their language with the same properties of that pattern. The language used in the interviews was Italian. It has been shown (Pinzin and Poletto 2022) that the use of Italian (i.e., the other native language for most of the speakers) as the input language in this type of task is likely to induce non-trivial priming effects (Cornips and Poletto 2005; Van Craenenbroek et al. 2019). To control for this, when possible, we provided sentences in the dialect of the speaker, asking about their grammaticality.68 Each pattern was tested twice, using different lexical items. When the answers provided by a speaker were unclear or inconsistent, we tested the relevant pattern multiple times, controlling for potentially infelicitous lexical choices and/or pragmatic contexts.
In what follows, we present the data that are relevant to test the predictions in (33).

4.2. Data Description

In the dialects of group (4c) and in Felitto (type (26a)), bare argument nouns are grammatical, and their distribution is constrained by the same restrictions as in Italian (see (34)): (a) bare singulars are ungrammatical in all argument positions (see examples (41a–c) from Ragusa); (b) plural (and mass) nouns are ungrammatical as pre-verbal subjects (41d) and very marginally accepted when modified by an adjective, a relative clause, or a PP (41e); and (c) unmodified bare plural (and mass) nouns can only occur as objects (41f–g), post-verbal subjects (41h–i), and pivots of existential sentences (41j–k). Prediction (33a) is therefore borne out.
(41)Ragusa
a.*priparaitɔrta(bwonissima)
prepare1sg.pastcake f.sgexcellent
Intended: ‘I prepared an excellent cake’
b.*pittʃɔtta(mirikana)arruvau
young person.f.sgAmerican.f.sgarrive.3sg.past
Intended: ‘A(n American)/the American girl arrived’
c.*arruvaupittʃɔtta(mirikana)
arrive.3sg.pastyoung person.f.sgAmerican.f.sg
Intended: ‘A(n American)/the American girl arrived’
d.*pittʃwɔttiarruvarruri
young people.plarrive.3pl.pastfrom
tuttaaSitʃilja
all.f.sgthe.f.sgSicily
Intended: ‘Young people arrived from all over Sicily’
e.??turistispaɲɲwɔliarruvarruajɛri
tourist.plSpanish.plarrive.3pl.pastyesterday
Intended: ‘Spanish tourists arrived yesterday’
f.ddʒɔvannivinniulibbrappina
Giovannisell.3sg.pastbook.plfora.f
vita
life.f.sg
‘Giovanni sold books for his entire life’
g.ddʒɔvannifabbrikakasiranni
Giovannibuild.3sghouse.plbig
‘Giovanni builds big houses’
h.rituttaaSitʃiljaarruvarru
fromall.f.sgthe.f.sgSicilyarrive.3pl.past
pittʃwɔtti
young people.pl
‘There arrived young people from all over Sicily’
i.ajɛriarruvarruturistispaɲɲwɔli
yesterdayarrive.3pl.pasttourist.plSpanish.pl
‘There arrived Spanish tourists yesterday’
j.ttʃisuffurmikulintatutta
therebe.3plant.plintoall
akasa
the.f.sghouse.f.sg
‘There are ants all over the house’
k.ttʃisupittʃwɔtti ka
therebe.3plyoung people.plthat
nunvwɔnusturjari
negwant.3plstudy
‘There are young people who do not want to study’
Let’s now explore (33b). In the dialects of type (26d), bare nouns are ungrammatical in all contexts, as shown in (42). By contrast, in type (26b), bare nouns are possible and occur with almost the same distribution as (34). As shown in (43), a difference with respect to (34) is that plural (and mass) nouns are only marginally accepted in pre-verbal position, even when modified.
(42)Novellara
a.dʒwanialkunteva*(dal)buzɛi
Gianni3sg.cl.subjtell.3sg.pastof.the.f.pllie.f.pl
‘Gianni used to tell lies’
b.dʒwanialkunteva*(dal)grandbuzɛi
Gianni3sg.cl.subjtell.3sg.pastof.the.f.plbiglie.f.pl
‘Gianni used to tell big lies’
c.iinrivè*(di)turesta
3pl.cl.subjbe.3plarrivedof.the.m.pltourist
‘Tourists have arrived’
d.iinrivè*(di)turestaspaɲol
3pl.cl.subjbe.3plarrivedof.the.m.pltouristSpanish
‘Spanish tourists have arrived’
e.agɛ*(dal)matʃi
cl.subjtherebe.3of.the.f.plstain. f.pl
insemaalvistì
abovethe.m.sgdress
‘There are stains on the dress’
f.agɛ*(dal)matʃi
cl.subjtherebe.3of.the.f.plstain. f.pl
kivanmiavia
that3pl.cl.subjgo.3plnegaway
‘There are stains which never go away’
(43)Aidone, Verbicaro
a.ajələddʒutəlibbrə Verbicaro
have.1sgreadbooks
‘I have read books’
b.askɔlapəggjà Verbicaro
the.f.sgschool.f.sgwant.3sghire
pruvəssurəddʒugənə
teacheryoung
‘The school wants to hire young teachers’
c.anavənìa Aidone
have.3sgtocometo
ferə-məvisətaamiʒə
do-1sg.cl.datvisit.f.sgfriend.pl
‘Friends are coming to visit me’
d.anavənìa Aidone
have.3sgtocometo
ferə-məvisətaamiʒəfədzjunarə
do-1sg.cl.datvisit.f.sgfriend.plbeloved
‘Beloved friends are coming to visit me’
e.ggjəsubbeddəkaruʒə Aidone
therebe.3plniceto
ntafotografiayoung person.pl
inthe.f.sgpicture.f.sg
‘There are nice boys in the picture’
As mentioned, there is one difference between type (26d) and type (26b), i.e., the absence, in type (26d), of suffixes generalized to all nouns. In this latter group, like in French, there are nouns that do not exhibit any specification for Number and have no suffixes; according to Delfitto and Schroten’s (1991) analysis of French, this type of nouns do not allow the licensing of empty Ds. Apparently, the persistence of number alternations on a restricted class of suffixes (e.g., -a/-al/-el) and, in some dialects (e.g., Savignano sul Rubicone), the realization of number alternations through other strategies (i.e., alternations of the stressed vowel) are not sufficient to license bare arguments. By contrast, one can assume that, in type (26b), because of the alternation between the suffix -a and the suffix -ə, the latter is assigned number/gender interpretation (e.g., non-singular, non-feminine) even though it is not overtly specified for number/gender. If this line of reasoning is on the right track, a possible conclusion is that, among languages that partially mark number on nouns, what sets a difference between those which allow bare nouns and those which do not is not the amount of nouns that overtly display number exponence, but rather the morphological structure of nouns themselves, and the mechanisms that, through this structure, make the retrieving of number information possible even when the latter is “silent” (i.e., not overtly specified).
A further similarity between the dialects of type (26d) and French is that, in all the dialects of this group, like in French, the item that overtly realizes D with non-definite plural/mass nouns is a “partitive-like” article (DE+definite article; for a recent detailed survey of the distribution of this item in northern Italy, including Emilian varieties, see Pinzin and Poletto 2021). In all the other dialects of our dataset, this item is never used to lexicalize D with non-definite plural/mass nouns in argument position.69
Finally, concerning prediction (33c), the data collected from languages of type (26c) show the highest variability. Speakers of Francavilla in Sinni, Taranto, and Amalfi accept argument bare nouns under the same conditions as types (26a) and (26b), as shown in (44)–(46).
(44)Francavilla in Sinni
a.i.Pumbejəvennəpummədorəka
Pompeasell.3sgtomatothat
soddietʃannə
be.3pltenyear
‘Pompea has been selling tomatoes for ten years’
ii.ajierəitsijəennəmunnætə
yesterdaythe.plunclehave.3plpeeled
fasulətuttajurnætə
beanallthe.f.sgday
‘Yesterday my uncles were peeling beans all day long’
b. kwelladittəfrabbəkəkæsəgrannə
that.f.sgfirmbuild.3sghousebig
‘That firm builds big houses’
c. ennəarrəvætə(tʃertə)furəstjerəutəmamendə
have.3plarrivedsomeforeigner.3plrecently
‘Foreigners have arrived recently’
d. sopəuvəstitətʃəso
abovethe.m.sgdresstherebe.3pl
makkjə
stain
‘There are stains on the dress’
e. arənəwaɲɲunə70 ka
therebe.3pl.pastyoung person.plwho
kurrijənə sendzamaʎʎə
run.3pl.pastwithoutshirt
‘There were children running without their shirts’
(45)Taranto
a.aggjəvənnutəpatånəttrɛndəannə
have.1sgsoldpotatoforthirtyyear
‘I have been selling potatoes for thirty years’
b.passənəmakənətuttəddʒurnəsus
pass.3plcarallthe.pldayon
ɔpɔndə
to.the.m.sgbridge
‘Cars cross the bridge every day’
c.jɛssəfumədasusə
go.out.3sgsmokefromabove
‘Smoke comes out from above’
(46)Amalfi
a.kelladittəfrabbəkəkasəgrɔssə
that.f.sgfirmbuild.3sghousebig.f
‘That firm builds big houses’
b.ennəvənutə??(tʃertə)turistəspaɲɲwoləind
have.3plcomesometouristSpanish.min
opaesə
the.m.sg
‘Spanish tourists have arrived at the village’
c.tʃəstannəsturjendəkanuvɔnnə
therestay.3plstudent.plthatnegwant.3pl
fanjendə
donothing
‘There are students who do not want to do anything’
In Teramo, according to Mantenuto (2015a, 2015b, 2016), bare nouns are ungrammatical, as shown in (47). The ungrammaticality of bare nouns in this dialect seems to be a recent phenomenon: older varieties of Abruzzese accepted bare (plural) nouns at least in some argument function, for example in object position, as shown in (48)—from Finamore (1882, pp. 112, 148, respectively).71
(47)Teramo
a.*(li)ʃtudintəannəskrittə*(li)latterə
the.plstudent.plhave.3plwrittenthe.plletter
‘(The) students wrote (the) letters’
b.tʃiʃta*(i)sidʒədentralakasə
therestay.3sgthe.plchair.plinsidethe.f.sghouse
‘There are chairs in the house’
c.soarrivitə*(li)pittsə
be.3plarrivedthe.plpizza
‘Pizzas have arrived’
(48)Abruzzese (19th century)
a.èddispiacerechipèrdəparèndə
be.3sgpainwholose.3sgrelative
‘It is painful for those who lose their relatives’
b.semétt’alett’eccèrche
SEput.3sgonbedandsearch.3sg
medecine
medication
‘He goes to bed and looks for medications’
Similarly, our speakers of Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Palma Campania, Bari, and Barletta do not accept bare nouns in argument position: argument nominals require an overt D-like item (e.g., an article, a demonstrative, or a quantifier); a difference with respect to French and type (26d) is that these dialects never use the “partitive article” to introduce indefinite arguments (see Pinzin and Poletto 2021). However, in all these dialects, there are signals that bare nouns are not entirely ruled out. For example, the speaker of Palma Campania accepts bare plurals as pivots of existential constructions when the coda is a relative clause, as shown in (49). Moreover, in the literature about other dialects of Campania (e.g., the dialect of Napoli, Ledgeway 2009, p. 191), instances of argument bare nouns are attested, as shown in the examples in (50), which show that, in Napoli, plural bare nouns in object position have been grammatical at different diachronic stages, and mass nouns as pivots of existential clauses were possible at least until the 20th century. Instances of argument bare nouns are also reported in the literature about the dialect of Bari, as can be seen in (51).
(49)Palma Campania
a.ʧǝstannǝsturjendǝʃfatikatǝ
therestay.3plstudent.pllaggard
‘There are laggard students (= there exist students who are laggard)’
b.ʧǝstannǝmakkjǝnunllɛvǝnǝ
therestay.3plstainthatnotSIgo-away.3pl
‘There are stains which don’t fade away (= there exist stains…)’
(50)Napoli (adapted from Ledgeway 2009, p. 191)
a.facevano pertoseallemure
make.3pl.pastholeto.the.plwall
‘They made holes in the walls’ (16th cent.)
b.cuogliefasuleetornafradojeore
pick.2sgbeanandcome.back.2sgintwo.fhour
‘Go pick beans and come back in two hours’ (17th cent.)
c.quannəvedəuommənəncəmenancuollə
whensee.3sgman.plSIlocthrow.3sgin.neck
‘When she sees men, she jumps in their arms’ (19th cent.)
d.cestacasəsivulitə
therestay.3sgcheeseifwant.2pl
‘There is cheese if you want’ (20th cent.)
(51)Bari (Lacalendola 1972, p. 22, in Andriani 2017, p. 76)
a.jiakkattəsèmbəcosəmərcàtə
1sgbuy.1sgalwaysthingcheap
‘I always buy cheap stuff’
b.ucùddəc’avànzətərrìsə, préchə
thethat.mthatexceedsmoney.pl2sg.cl.datpraises
lavìtə
the.f.sglife
‘The person who is owed (by you) will praise your life’
The conclusion seems to be that, in the dialects of type (26c) where bare nouns are not currently accepted by the speakers, they were possible, and presumably productive, at older diachronic stages. Prediction (33c) is therefore partially met. What remains to be explained is why—although there is no visible difference among languages of type (26c) in the realization of number on nouns—in some dialects bare nouns have become lost while in others they remained productive.

4.3. A Summary of the Results

Table 2 compares the two groups of phenomena considered so far in the dialects of the dataset: the morphological representation of number on nouns and the availability of bare arguments. In the Table, the label S indicates that all nouns have suffixes that realize number alternations systematically. The label S/ə indicates that all nouns have suffixes, but number alternations are overtly realized only in a subset of nouns. The label S/0 indicates that suffixes (which also show number alternations) are visible only on a subset of nouns, while the other nouns have no suffixes and do not realize number alternations. The label S/0/M indicates that some nouns have suffixes specified for number, while other nouns have no suffixes, but some of them realize overt number alternations on the root vowel. The label ə/M indicates that all nouns have suffixes unmarked for number (-ə) and number distinctions are realized through stressed vowel alternations. The label YES indicates that bare nouns are grammatical, (roughly) in the same syntactic configurations as in Italian (summarized in (34)).72 The label NO indicates that speakers do not accept bare nouns under any condition. Finally, the label NO* signals that bare nouns are generally ungrammatical, but there are exceptions.

5. Summary

The data observed in Section 4 support the hypothesis that there is a relation between the possibility for nominal structures to occur bare in argument position and the realization of the feature Number on nouns. In our dataset, languages where number alternations are systematically realized on nouns can have bare arguments (type (26a)). This sets a first split between languages where number marking is generalized to all (or most) nouns and those where it is not (see the schema in (52)).
Concerning languages where number alternations are only found on some (classes of) nouns, it appears that generalized number marking is not a necessary condition for bare nouns to be licensed; as a matter of fact, bare nouns are also possible in languages where not all noun classes exhibit overt number alternations (type (26b)). Yet, having “partial” number alternations is not sufficient by itself for bare nouns to be licensed (type (26d)). As seen above, a difference between types (26d) and (26b) is that, in the former, there are nouns that do not have suffixes at all. By contrast, in type (26b), all nouns have suffixes, although not all suffixes display number alternations. Thus, the property of having suffixes on all nouns vs. not having suffixes (or having suffixes only on a subset of noun classes) seems to set a further split between languages that can have bare nouns and languages that never license them, respectively (i.e., the second split in (52)).
Finally, among languages where all nouns have suffixes but only some noun classes display overt number alternations (i.e., where number marking is not generalized to all nouns, types (26b) and (26c)), there is more variability. Concerning languages where bare nouns are allowed, we make the hypothesis that, in these languages, there exists some mechanism that allows the speakers to extract number information even from nouns where such information is not visible on the surface. In this respect, the nature of the suffix and the way it interacts with the alternations of the stressed root vowels (in type (26c)) require better investigation. In what follows, we provide some preliminary hints.
We make the hypothesis that final is not merely the “relic” of a phonetic change but has rather retained the morphological properties of a suffix that contains number information. In the dialects where final -a was not lost (type (26b)), the plural interpretation of is presumably induced by pairs like a fava (lit. ‘the.f.sg fava bean.f.sg’) vs. i favə (lit. ‘the.pl fava bean’), where is associated with plural interpretation by opposition to singular -a. By contrast, in the dialects where overt number alternations are realized through the stressed root vowel only, one might assume that harmonically agrees (Manzini and Savoia 2016) in number with it, thereby replicating number information “silently”.
The realization of plural number through multiple morphemes on the same item has been recently explored by Koopman (2020) who, capitalizing on previous proposals by Alexiadou (2011) and Schwarzschild (2015), analyzes “two plural morphemes” in Dutch—one realizing the “inner plural” (often through vowel alternations), and the other realizing the “outer plural”, in the form of a suffix. This analysis can be tentatively extended to our dataset under the assumption that suffixes realize the outer plural and root vowel alternations realize the inner plural. As a rule, only one such morpheme overtly realizes number alternations, while the other silently agrees with it. Yet, in the dataset, there are also instances (again, like in Dutch) of nouns (and/or other DP-items, e.g., possessives or adjectives) where both the root vowel and the suffix overtly encode number information (see for instance the examples from Felitto in Table A4).
What also remains to be explored, through the investigation of diachronic data, is whether the different degrees of acceptability of bare argument nouns in the dialects of type (26c) correlate with potential differences in the productivity of the number marking strategies available in these dialects, how the latter are related with class/gender marking, and how the phonetic processes of weakening/loss of final vowels are diachronically related with the persistence of morphological information on suffixes.
Languages 07 00255 i002

Author Contributions

This work is the result of collaboration among the three authors; for official purposes, C.G. takes responsibility for Section 1, Section 3.1, Section 3.3.3 and Section 5, M.C. for Section 3.2 and Section 3.3.2, and for Table A1 and Table A2, V.S. for Section 2 and Section 3.3.4, and for Table A3, Table A4 and Table A5; the authors take joint responsibility for Section 3.3.1 and Section 4. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is part of the project MIUR PRIN 2017K3NHHY Models of language variation and change: new evidence from language contact: the data discussed in this paper (when not taken from the literature) have been collected as a part of this project and are the property of the project database (http://www.parametricomparison.unimore.it/site/home/projects/prin-2017/romance-and-greek-dialects-the-database.html; last accessed: 18 August 2022; the content of this website is regularly updated as work progresses).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Most of the data we collected are listed in the examples and in the tables found in the text and in the Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C. Further data and material can be found on the project website: www.parametricomparison.it, in particular at this link: http://www.parametricomparison.unimore.it/site/home/projects/prin-2017/documents-and-materials.html (last accessed: 18 August 2022; the content of this section is regularly updated as work progresses).

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Franco Fanciullo, Rita Manzini, Alessandro De Angelis, Pino Longobardi, Monica Irimia, Andrea Ceolin, Giusi Silvestri, Gigi Andriani, Diego Pescarini, Bianca Ferrari, Rosarita Colavito, Ilaria Maria Sole della Corte and Giovanni Manzari for discussion of various parts of this paper. We also thank two anonymous referees for their constructive comments and suggestions. Finally, we thank our informants: Nicola Anastasio, Gigi Andriani, Marco Bagni, Giuseppe and Leonardo Barbalinardo, Danilo Candeliere, Ileana Canfora, Amerigo Caridi, Mauro Casarini, Mariangela Cerullo, Franca Ciantia, Giulio Costanzo, Silvio Cruschina, Alberto De Giorgi, Francesca Di Grazia, Roberta Fanara, Cristina Fereoli, Roberto Galia, Lucrezia Garofalo, Umberto Giangreco, Fabio Guarini, Pino Gulino, Anna Ligorio, Marino José Malagnino, Iara Mantenuto, Luigi Mercuriali, Simone Monteleone, Carmelo Giuseppe Nucera, Giovanni Roversi, Nadia Sabattini, Francesco Sardaro, Donatella Strocchi and Flavio Vallone.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Map

Figure A1. The dialects investigated.
Figure A1. The dialects investigated.
Languages 07 00255 g0a1

Appendix B. Tables

Table A1. Definite articles.73
Table A1. Definite articles.73
Singular Plural
MasculineFeminineMasculineFeminine
Casalmaggiore74allaili
Parmaallaial
Reggio Emilia75allaial
Novellaraallaial
Correggioallaial
Savignano s. Rubicone76e(l)laili
Teramo77lulalili
S.M. Capua Vetere78oae[-RF]e[+RF]
Amalfioae[-RF]e[+RF]
Palma Campaniaoae[-RF]e[+RF]
Felitto79(l)u(l)a(l)i(l)i
Bari80ula
Barletta81uaii
Taranto82ua
Francavilla in Sinni83uaii
Verbicaro84uaii
Cellino San Marco85lulalili
Mesagne86lulalili
Botrugno87uaie
Cutro88uaii
Nicastrouaii
Catanzarouaii
Reggio Calabria89(l)u(l)a(l)i(l)i
San Filippo del Melauaii
Ragusauaii
Riberauaii
Mussomeliuaii
Trapani90uaii
Aidoneuaii
Table A2. (a) Adnominal demonstratives. (b) Pronominal demonstratives.
Table A2. (a) Adnominal demonstratives. (b) Pronominal demonstratives.
(a) Adnominal demonstratives
Singular Plural
MasculineFeminineMasculineFeminine
Casalmaggiore91kul … ke
kul … le
kla … ke
kla … le
ki … ke
ki … le
kli … ke
kli … le
Parmasto
kol
sta
kla
sti
kil
sti
kil
Reggio Emilia92kost, ste
kol, kal
 
kal … ke
kal … le/la
kosta / sta
kola, kla
 
kla … ke
kla … le/la
sti
ki
 
ki … ke
ki … le/la
ste(l)
kal, koli
 
kal … ke
kal … le/la
Novellarakəl … ke
kəl … le
kla … ke
kla … le
ki … ke
ki … le
kal … ke
kal … le
Correggiokal … ke
kal … le/la
kla … ke
kla … le/la
ki … ke
ki … le/la
kal … ke
kal … le/la
Savignano s. Rubicone93ste
ke(l)
sta
kla
sti /stal
kli
sti
kli
Teramo94ʃtu
ssu
llu
ʃta
ssa
lla
ʃti
ssi
lli
ʃti
ssi
lli
S.M. Capua Vetere95stu
ssu
killu
sta
ssa
kella
sti[-RF]
ssi[-RF]
killi[-RF]
sti[+RF]
ssi[+RF]
kelli[+RF]
Amalfistu
ssu
killu
sta
ssa
kella
sti[-RF]
ssi[-RF]
killi[-RF]
sti[+RF]
ssi[+RF]
kelli[+RF]
Palma Campaniastu
ssu
killu
sta
ssa
kella
sti[-RF]
ssi[-RF]
killi[-RF]
sti[+RF]
ssi[+RF]
kelli[+RF]
Felitto96stu
ssu
kiru
sta
ssa
kera
sti
ssi
kiri
sti
ssi
kiri
Bari97stu
kuddə
sta
kɛdda
sti
kiddə
sti
kiddə
Barletta98stu
kuddə
sta
kɛdda
sti
kiddə
sti
kiddə
Taranto99stu
kwiddə
sta
kwɛdda
sti
kiddə
sti
kiddə
Francavilla in Sinni100stu
ssu
kwillu
sta
ssa
kwella
stə/-i
ssə/-i
killə/-i
stə/-i
ssə/-i
killə/-i
Verbicaro101stu
ssu
kwiddə
sta
ssa
kwidda
stə
ssə
kwiddə
stə
ssə
kwiddə
Cellino San Marco102ʃtu
ddu
ʃta
dda
ʃti
ddi
ʃti
ddi
Mesagne103ʃtu
ddu
ʃta
dda
ʃti
ddi
ʃti
ddi
Botrugno104stu
ddu
sta
dda
sti
ddi
ste
dde
Cutro105ssu
kiru
ssa
kira
ssi
kiri
ssi
kiri
Nicastrostu
ssu
killu
sta
ssa
killa
sti
ssi
killi
sti
ssi
killi
Catanzarostu
ssu
kiru
sta
ssa
kira
sti
ssi
kiri
sti
ssi
kiri
Reggio Calabria106stu
ddu
sta
dda
sti
ddi
sti
ddi
San Filippo del Melastu
ssu
ddu
sta
ssa
dda
sti
ssi
ddi
sti
ssi
ddi
Ragusastu
ssu
ddu
sta
ssa
dda
sti
ssi
ddi
sti
ssi
ddi
Riberastu
ssu
ddu
sta
ssa
dda
sti
ssi
ddi
sti
ssi
ddi
Mussomelistu
ssu
ddu
sta
ssa
dda
sti
ssi
ddi
sti
ssi
ddi
Trapani107stu
ssu
ddu
sta
ssa
dda
sti
ssi
ddi
sti
ssi
ddi
Aidonestu
ssu
ddu
sta
ssa
dda
stə
ssə
ddə
stə
ssə
ddə
(b) Pronominal demonstratives.108
Singular Plural
MasculineFeminineMasculineFeminine
Casalmaggiorekostu (ke)
kol (le)
kosta (ke)
kola (le)
kosti (ke)
koli (le)
kosti (ke)
koli (le)
Parmakoste (ki)
kol (la)
kosta (ki)
kola (la)
kosti (ki)
koi (la)
kosti (ki)
koli (la)
Reggio Emiliakost/ste/kus ke
kol le/li lor
kosta/sta/kosta ke
kola le
kost/sti/kwis ke
kwi le
kosti/ste/kosti ke
koli le/kwi le/li lor
Novellarakus ke
kul le
kosta ke
kola le
kwis ke
kwi le
kosti ke
koli le
Correggiokost ke
kol le/la
kosta ke
kola le/la
kwis ke
kwi le/la
kosti ke
koli le/la
Savignano sul Rubiconekwest
kwel
kwesta
kwela
kwest
kwei
kwesti
kwei
Teramo109kwaʃtə
kwassə
kwallə
kaʃtə
kassə
kallə
kəʃtə
kəssə
kəllə
kəʃtə
kəssə
kəllə
S.M. Capua Veterekistə
kissə
killə
kestə
kessə
kellə
kistə
kissə
killə
kestə
kessə
kellə
Amalfikistə
kissə
killə
kestə
kessə
kellə
kistə
kissə
killə
kestə
kessə
kellə
Palma Campaniakistə
kissə
killə
kestə
kessə
kellə
kistə
kissə
killə
kestə
kessə
kellə
Felittokistu
kissu
kiru
kesta
kessa
kera
kisti
kissi
kiri
keste
kesse
kere
Bari110kussə
kuddə
kɛssə
kɛddə
kissə
kiddə
kissə
kiddə
Barlettakussə
kuddə
kɛssə
kɛddə
kissə
kiddə
kissə
kiddə
Taranto111kwistə
kwiddə
kwɛstə
kwɛddə
kistə
kiddə
kistə
kiddə
Francavilla in Sinnikwistə
kwissə
kwillə
kwestə
kwessə
kwellə
kistə
kissə
killə
kistə
kissə
killə
Verbicarokwistə
kwissə
kwiddə
kwista
kwissa
kwidda
kwistə
kwissə
kwiddə
kwistə
kwissə
kwiddə
Cellino San Marcokwiʃtu
kwidda
kwiʃta
kwidda
kwiʃti
kwiddi
kwiʃti
kwiddi
Mesagne112kuʃtu
kuddu/kwiru
kweʃta
kwedda/kwera
kwiʃti
kwiddi/kwiri
kwiʃti
kwiddi/kwiri
Botrugno113kwistu
kwiddu
kwista
kwidda
kwisti
kwiddi
kwiste
kwidde
Cutrokistu
kiru
kista
kira
kisti
kiri
kisti
kiri
Nicastrokistu
kissu
killu
kista
kissa
killa
kisti
kissi
killi
kisti
kissi
killi
Catanzaro114kistu
kissu
kiru
kista
kissa
kira
kisti
kissi
kiri
kisti
kissi
kiri
Reggio Calabria115kistu
kissu
kiddu
kista
kissa
kidda
kisti
kissi
kiddi
kisti
kissi
kiddi
San Filippo del Melakistu
kissu
kiddu
kista
kissa
kidda
kisti
kissi
kiddi
kisti
kissi
kiddi
Ragusakistu
kissu
kiddu
kista
kissa
kidda
kisti
kissi
kiddi
kisti
kissi
kiddi
Ribera kistu
kissu
kiddu
kista
kissa
kidda
kisti
kissi
kiddi
kisti
kissi
kiddi
Mussomelikistu
kissu
kiddu
kista
kissa
kidda
kisti
kissi
kiddi
kisti
kissi
kiddi
Trapanikistu
kissu
kiddu
kista
kissa
kidda
kisti
kissi
kiddi
kisti
kissi
kiddi
Aidonekustə
kussə
kuu
kusta
kussa
kudda
kustə
kussə
kuddə
kustə
kussə
kuddə
Table A3. Pronominal possessives.116
Table A3. Pronominal possessives.116
LanguagePersonSingular M/FPlural M/F
Casalmaggiore1171 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
me / mia
to
so
nɔster / nɔstra
vɔster / vɔstra
lor
me
to
so
nɔster / nɔstri
vɔster / vɔstri
lor
Parma1 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
me / mea
to
so / so, sua, soa
nɔster / nɔstra
vɔster / vɔstra
lor
me
to
so
nɔster / nɔstri
vɔster / vɔstri
lor
Reggio Emilia1181 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mio / mia
tuo, to(vo) / tua, to(va)
suo, so(vo) / sua, so(va)
nɔster / nɔstra
vɔster / vɔstra
lor
me
to
so
nɔster / nɔstri
vɔster / vɔstri
lor
Novellara1191 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mio / mia
tuo, to / tua, to
suo, so / sua, so
nɔster / nɔstra
vɔster / vɔstra
lor
me
to
so
nɔster / nɔstri
vɔster / vɔstri
lor
Correggio1 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
me / mia (mea)
to
so / so, sua, soa
nɔster / nɔstra
vɔster / vɔstra
lor
me
to
so
nɔster / nɔstri
vɔster / vɔstri
lor
Savignano sul Rubicone 1 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mi / mi(a)
tuv / tua
suv / sua
nɔstre / nɔstra
vɔstre / vɔstra
suv
mi
tu
su
nɔstre
vɔstre
su
Teramo1201 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mi
to
so
nɔstrə
vɔstrə
so
mi
tu
su
nustrə
vustrə
su
Santa Maria Capua Vetere1211 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mijə / mija
twojə / toja
swojə / soja
nwostə / nɔsta
vwostə / vɔsta
lɔrə
mjejə / mɛjə
twojə / tojə
swojə / sojə
nwostə / nɔstə
vwostə / vɔstə
lɔrə
Amalfi1 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mijə / mijə
twojə / tojə
swojə / sojə
nwostə / nɔstə
vwostə / vɔstə
lɔrə
mjejə / mɛjə
twojə / tojə
swojə / sojə
nwostə / nɔstə
vwostə / vɔstə
lɔrə
Palma Campania1 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mijə / mijə
twojə / tojə
swojə / sojə
nwostə / nɔstə
vwostə / vɔstə
lɔrə
mjejə / mɛjə
twojə / tojə
swojə / sojə
nwostə / nɔstə
vwostə / vɔstə
lɔrə
Felitto1 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mmiu / meja
twoju / toja
swoju / soja
nwostu / nɔsta
vwostu / vɔsta
lɔru
mi(e)i / me(j)e
t(w)oi / to(j)e
s(w)oi / so(j)e
nwosti / nɔste
vwosti / vɔste
lɔru
Bari122 1 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mi(jə) / me
tu(jə) / to
su(jə) / so
n(w)ɛstə / nɔstə
(v)wɛstə / vɔstə
(də) lorə
mi(jə) / me
tu(jə) / to
su(jə) / so
n(w)ɛstə / nɔstə
(v)wɛstə / vɔstə
(də) lorə
Barletta1231 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mejə / ma
towə
sowə
nɔstə
vɔstə
lorə
mejə / ma
towə
sowə
nɔstə
vɔstə
lorə
Taranto1241 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
miə / me(ə)
tuə / to(ə)
suə / so(ə)
nwɛstə / nɔstə
vwɛstə / vɔstə
lorə
miə
tuə
suə
nwɛstə
vwɛstə
lorə
Francavilla in Sinni1251 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mijə
tujə
sujə
nwostə / nɔstə
vwostə / vɔstə
lorə
mejə
tojə
sojə
nwostə
vwostə
lorə
Verbicaro1261 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mija
tuwa
suwa
nwostə / nɔsta
vwostə / vɔsta
lɔrə
mija
tuwa
suwa
nwostə / nɔstə
vwostə / vɔstə
lɔrə
Cellino San Marco1271 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mia
tua
sua
nweʃʃu / nɔʃʃa
vweʃʃu / vɔʃʃa
lɔru
mei
toi
soi
nweʃʃi
vweʃʃi
lɔru
Mesagne1281 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mia
tua
sua
nweʃtru / nɔʃtra
vweʃtru / vɔʃtra
lɔru
mia
tua
sua
nweʃtri
vweʃtri
lɔru
Botrugno1291 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mɛu / mia
tɔu / tɔa
sɔu / sɔa
nɔstru / nɔstra
vɔstru / nɔstra
lɔru
mɛi
tɔi
sɔi
nɔstri / vɔstre
vɔstri / vɔstre
lɔru
Cutro1301 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mia
tua
sua
nwastru / nɔstra
vwastru / vɔstra
sua
mia
tua
sua
nwastri
vwastri
sua
Nicastro1 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
miu / a mia
tua
sua
nwastru
vwastru
lɔru
mia
tua
sua
nuastri
vuastri
lɔru
Catanzaro1311 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mɛu / mia
tɔu (tɔi) / tua
sɔu (sɔi) / sua
nɔstru / nɔstra
vɔstru / vɔstra
lɔru
mɛi
tɔi
sɔi
nɔstri
vɔstri
lɔru
Reggio Calabria1321 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mɛu / mia
tɔu / tua
sɔu / sua
nɔstru /nɔstra
vɔstru / vɔstra
lɔru
mɛi
tɔi
sɔi
nɔstri
vɔstri
lɔru
San Filippo del Mela1 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl



nɔstru / nɔstra
vɔstru / vɔstra



nɔstri
vɔstri
Ragusa1 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
miu / mia
tuu (twɔu) / tua
suu (swɔu) / sua
nwɔstru / nɔstra
vwɔstru / vɔstra
miei
twɔi
swɔi
nwɔstri
vwɔstri
Ribera1 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl



nɔstru / nɔstra
vɔstru / vɔstra



nɔstri
vɔstri
Mussomeli1 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mia
tua
sua
nwastru / nwastra
vwastru / vwastra
lɔru (di iddi)
mia
tua
sua
nwastri
vwastri
lɔru (di iddi)
Trapani1331 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
meu / mia
tou / tua
sou / sua
nostru /nostra
vostru / vostra
loru
mei
toi
soi
nostri
vostri
loru
Aidone1 sg
2 sg
3 sg
1 pl
2 pl
3 pl
mia


nɔstrə / nɔstra
vɔstrə / vɔstra
mia


nɔstrə
vɔstrə
Table A4. Nouns.134
Table A4. Nouns.134
LanguageClassSingularPlural
Casalmaggiore135, Parma, Reggio Emilia, Novellara, Correggio-U
-A
-E
-Vl
ragas, gat
ragasa, gata
krus
kaval
kapel
boy, cat
girl.f.sg, cat.f.sg
cross
horse.sg
hat.sg
ragas, gat
ragasi, gati
krus
kavai
kapei
boy, cat
girl.f.pl, cat.f.pl
cross
horse.pl
hat.pl
Savignano s. R.136-U
 
 
 
 
-A
 
 
-E
kavɛstar zriʒ
klɔmb
lamp[-metaph]
kapɛl[-metaph]
kapɔt[-metaph]
fnestra
dʒurneda
kriatura
bikir
kanon
kan[-metaph]
fjor[-metaph]
pɛdar[-metaph]
Halter, cherry tree
dove
lightning.sg
hat.sg
coat.sg
window.f.sg
day.f.sg
person.f.sg
glass
cannon
dog.sg
flower.sg
father.sg
kavɛstar zriʒ
klɔmb
lɛmp[+metaph]
kapel[+metaph]
kapot[+metaph]
fnestri
dʒurnedi
kriatur
bikir
kanon
kɛn[+metaph]
fjur[+metaph]
pedar[+metaph]
halter, cherry tree
dove
lightning.pl
hat.pl
coat.pl
window.f.pl
day.f.pl
person.pl
glass
cannon
dog.pl
flower.pl
father.pl
Teramo137-U
 
 
 
-A
-E
fijjə
vaʃə[-metaph]
lettə[-metaph]
mɔnəkə[-metaph]
fijjə
fulmənə
petə[-metaph]
dulorə[-metaph]
child
kiss.m.sg
bed.m.sg
friar.m.sg
child
thunder
foot.m.sg
pain.m.sg
fijjə
viʃə[+metaph]
littə[+metaph]
munəkə[+metaph]
fijjə
fulmənə
pitə[+metaph]
dulurə[+metaph]
child
kiss.pl
bed.pl
friar.pl
child
thunder
foot.pl
pain.pl
S.M. Capua Vetere, Palma Campania, Amalfi-U
-A
-E
fiʎʎə
fiʎʎə
ʃpitalə
mesə[-metaph]
pɛrə[-metaph]
məlonə[-metaph]
child
child
hospital
month.m.sg
foot.m.sg
melon.m.sg
fiʎʎə
fiʎʎə
ʃpitalə
misə[+metaph]
pjerə[+metaph]
məlunə[+metaph]
child
child
hospital
month.pl
foot.pl
melon.pl
Felitto138-U
-A
-E
fiʎʎu
fiʎʎa
spitale
mese[-metaph]
pɛre[-metaph]
piʃkone[-metaph]
child.m.sg
child.f.sg
hospital.sg
month.m.sg
foot.m.sg
stone.m.sg
fiʎʎi
fiʎʎe/ə
spitali
misi[+metaph]
pjeri[+metaph]
piʃkuni[+metaph]
child.m.pl
child.f.pl
hospital.pl
month.m.pl
foot.m.pl
stone.m.pl
Barletta-U
-A
-E
figgjə
figgjə
spətålə
masə[-metaph]
påtə[-metaph]
waɲɲɔnə[-metaph]
child
child
hospital
month.m.sg
foot.m.sg
boy.m.sg
figgjə
figgjə
spətålə
misə[+metaph]
pitə[+metaph]
waɲɲɔunə[+metaph]
child
child
hospital
month.pl
foot.pl
boy.pl
Bari, Taranto-U
-A
-E
figgjə
figgjə
spətalə
mesə[-metaph]
petə[-metaph]
waɲɲonə[-metaph]
child
child
hospital
month.m.sg
foot.m.sg
boy.m.sg
figgjə
figgjə
spətalə
misə[+metaph]
pitə[+metaph]
waɲɲunə[+metaph]
child
child
hospital
month.pl
foot.pl
boy.pl
Francavilla in Sinni-U
-A
-E
fiʎʎə
fiʎʎə
spətælə
mesə[-metaph]
pedə[-metaph]
waɲɲonə[-metaph]
child
child
hospital
month.m.sg
foot.m.sg
boy.m.sg
fiʎʎə
fiʎʎə
spətælə
misə[+metaph] pjedə[+metaph]
waɲɲunə[+metaph]
child
child
hospital
month.pl
foot.pl
boy.pl
Verbicaro139-U
 
-A
-E
kwatrarə
stəndɛnə
kwatrara
misə
məlunə
child
gut
child.f.sg
month
melon
kwatrarə
stəndɛna
kwatrarə
misə
məlunə
child
gut.pl
child
month
melon
Mesagne140-U
-A
-E
libbru
makina
fukaliri
mesi[-metaph]
peti[-metaph]
kulɔri[-metaph]
book.m.sg
car.f.sg
fireplace
month.m.sg
foot.m.sg
colour.m.sg
libbri
makini
fukaliri
misi[+metaph]
pjeti[+metaph]
kuluri[+metaph]
book.pl
car.pl
fireplace
month.pl
foot.pl
colour.pl
Cellino S. Marco141-U
-A
-E
libbru
makina
mise
pete
kulure
book.m.sg
car.f.sg
month.m.sg
foot.m.sg
colour.m.sg
libbri
makine
misi
pjeti
kuluri
book.m.pl
car.f.pl
month.m.pl
foot.m.pl
colour.m.pl
Botrugno142-U
-A
-E
libbru
makina
mese
pete
kulure
book.m.sg
car.f.sg
month.m.sg
foot.m.sg
colour.m.sg
libbri
makine
mesi
peti
kuluri
book.m.pl
car.f.pl
month.m.pl
foot.m.pl
colour.m.pl
Cutro-U
-A
-E
figgju
figgja
misi
niputi
child.m.sg
child.f.sg
month
nephew
figgji
figgji
misi
niputi
child.pl
child.pl
month
nephew
Nicastro-U
-A
-E
higgju
higgja
misi
niputi
child.m.sg
child.f.sg
month
nephew
higgji
higgji
misi
niputi
child.pl
child.pl
month
nephew
Catanzaro-U
-A
-E
pittʃuliru
pittʃulira
paisa
prɛvita
lutʃa
child.m.sg
child.f.sg
village.sg
priest.sg
light.sg
pittʃuliri
pittʃuliri
paisi
prɛviti
lutʃi
child.pl
child.pl
village.pl
priest.pl
light.pl
Reggio Calabria143-U
-A
-E
figgjɔlu
figgjɔla
misi
pɛri
child.m.sg
child.f.sg
month
foot
figgjɔli
figgjɔli
misi
pɛri
child.pl
child.pl
month
foot
San Filippo del Mela, Ribera-U
-A
-E
karusu
karusa
misi
niputi
child.m.sg
child.f.sg
month
nephew
karusi
karusi
misi
niputi
child.pl
child.pl
month
nephew
Ragusa-U
-A
-E
pittʃwɔttu
pittʃɔtta
misi
niputi
child.m.sg
child.f.sg
month
nephew
pittʃwɔtti
pittʃwɔtti
misi
niputi
child.pl
child.pl
month
nephew
Mussomeli-U
-A
-E
pittʃwattu
pittʃwatta
misi
niputi
child.m.sg
child.f.sg
month
nephew
pittʃwatti
pittʃwatti
misi
niputi
child.pl
child.pl
month
nephew
Trapani-U
-A
-E
pittʃottu
pittʃotta
misi
rendi
child.m.sg
child.f.sg
month
tooth
pittʃotti
pittʃotti
misi
rendi
child.pl
child.pl
month
tooth
Aidone-U
-A
-E
-ng-ə
-z-ə
ddibbrə
makəna
sarturə
tavulingə
karuzə
book
car.f.sg
taylor
table.sg
boy.sg
ddibbrə
makənə
sarturə
tavulij
karuʒə
book
car.f.sg
taylor
table.pl
boy.pl
Table A5. Adjectives.144
Table A5. Adjectives.144
LanguageClassSingularPlural
Casalmaggiore145, Parma, Reggio Emilia, Novellara, Correggio-U
-A
 
-E
-Vl
rus
rusa
bɛla
grand
bel
red
red.f.sg
nice.f.sg
big
nice
rus
rusi
bɛli
grand
bei
red
red.f.pl
nice.f.pl
big
nice.pl
Savignano s. R.-U
 
 
-A
 
-E
kativ, furb
elt[-metaph]
amɛr
kativa
elta
grand
afabil[-metaph]
bad, shrewd
tall.m.sg
bitter.m.sg
bad.f.sg
tall.f.sg
big
outgoing.m.sg
kativ, furb
ilt[+metaph]
amer
kativi
elti
grand
afebil[+metaph]
bad, shrewd
tall.m.pl
bitter.m.pl
bad.f.pl
tall.f.pl
big
outgoing.m.pl
Teramo146-U
 
 
-A
 
 
-E
ɲɲutə
bjangə[-metaph]
grossə[-metaph]
ɲɲutə
bjangə[-metaph]
grossə[-metaph]
karnalə[-metaph]
naked
white.sg
big.sg
naked
white.sg
big.sg
carnal.sg
ɲɲutə
bjingə[+metaph]
grussə[+metaph]
ɲɲutə
bjingə[+metaph]
grussə[+metaph]
karnilə[+metaph]
naked
white.pl
big.pl
naked
white.pl
big.pl
carnal.pl
S.M. Capua Vetere, Palma Campania, Amalfi-U
 
 
-A
 
 
-E
vaʃʃə
vjekkjə[+metaph]
grwossə[+metaph]
vaʃʃə
vɛkkjə[-metaph]
grɔssə[-metaph]
grannə
roʃə[-metaph]
fətɛndə[-metaph]
low
old.m
big.m
low
old.f
big.f
big
sweet.sg
stinky.sg
vaʃʃə
vjekkjə[+metaph]
grwossə[+metaph]
vaʃʃə
vɛkkjə[-metaph]
grɔssə[-metaph]
grannə
ruʃə[+metaph]
fətjendə[+metaph]
low
old.m
big.m
low
old.f
big.f
big
sweet.pl
stinky.pl
Felitto-U
 
 
-A
 
 
-E
vaʃʃu
vjekkju[+metaph]
grwossu[+metaph]
vaʃʃa
vɛkkja[-metaph]
grɔssa[-metaph]
mbortande
arotʃe[-metaph]
low.m.sg
old.m.sg
big.m.sg
low.f.sg
old.f.sg
big.f.sg
important.sg
sweet.sg
vaʃʃi
vjekkji[+metaph]
grwossi[+metaph]
vaʃʃe/ə
vɛkkje/ə[-metaph]
grɔsse/ə[-metaph]
mbortandi
arutʃi[+metaph]
low.m.pl
old.m.pl
big.m.pl
low.f.pl
old.f.pl
big.f.pl
important.pl
sweet.pl
Barletta-U
-A
-E
bbellə
bbellə
grɛnnə
ddʒavənə[-metaph]
beautiful
beautiful
big
young.sg
bbellə
bbellə
grɛnnə
ddʒɔuvənə[+metaph]
beautiful
beautiful
big
young.pl
Bari-U
 
 
-A
 
 
-E
vaʃʃə
apirtə[+metaph]
grwɛssə[+metaph]
vaʃʃə
apɛrtə [-metaph]
grɔssə[-metaph]
grannə
dotʃə[-metaph]
fətɛndə[-metaph]
low
open.m
big.m
low
open.f
big.f
big
sweet
stinky
vaʃʃə
apirtə[+metaph]
grwɛssə[+metaph]
vaʃʃə
apɛrtə [-metaph]
grɔssə[-metaph]
grannə
dutʃə[+metaph]
fətində[+metaph]
low
open.m
big.m
low
open.f
big.f
big
sweet.m.pl
stinky.m.pl
Taranto-U
 
 
-A
 
 
-E
vaʃʃə
apirtə[+metaph]
grwɛssə[+metaph]
vaʃʃə
apɛrtə [-metaph]
grɔssə[-metaph]
grannə
doʃə[-metaph]
fətɛndə[-metaph]
low
open.m
big.m
low
open.f
big.f
big
sweet.sg
stinky.sg
vaʃʃə
apirtə[+metaph]
grwɛssə[+metaph]
vaʃʃə
apirtə[+metaph]
grwɛssə[+metaph]
grannə
duʃə[+metaph]
fətində[+metaph]
low
open.pl
big.pl
low
open.pl
big.pl
big
sweet.pl
stinky.pl
Francavilla in Sinni-U
 
 
-A
 
 
-E
vaʃʃə
apjertə[+metaph]
grwossə[+metaph]
vaʃʃə
apɛrtə [-metaph]
grɔssə[-metaph]
grannə
ddʒɔvənə[-metaph]
pəttsendə[-metaph]
low
open.m
big.m
low
open.f
old.f
big
young.sg
scrooge.sg
vaʃʃə
apjertə[+metaph]
grwossə[+metaph]
vaʃʃə
apjertə[+metaph]
grwossə[+metaph]
grannə
ddʒuvənə[+metaph]
pəttsjendə[+metaph]
low
open.pl
big.pl
low
open.pl
old.pl
big
young.pl
scrooge.pl
Verbicaro147-U
 
-A
-E
vaʃʃə
vaʃʃə
vaʃʃa
grannə
ddʒugənə
low
low
low.f.sg
big
young
vaʃʃə
vaʃʃa
vaʃʃə
grannə
ddʒugənə
low
low.pl
low
big
young
Mesagne-U
-A
-E
vaʃʃu
vaʃʃa
krandi
tɔʃi[-metaph]
low.m.sg
low.f.sg
big
sweet.sg
vaʃʃi
vaʃʃi
krandi
tuʃi[+metaph]
low.pl
low.pl
big
sweet.pl
Cellino S. Marco148, Botrugno-U
-A
-E
(v)aʃʃu
(v)aʃʃa
krande
low.m.sg
low.f.sg
big.sg
(v)aʃʃi
(v)aʃʃe
krandi
low.m.pl
low.f.pl
big.pl
Catanzaro-U
-A
-E
vaʃʃu
vaʃʃa
granda
low.m.sg
low.f.sg
big.sg
vaʃʃi
vaʃʃi
grandi
low.pl
low.pl
big.pl
Reggio Calabria-U
-A
-E
vaʃʃu
vaʃʃa
grandi
low.m.sg
low.f.sg
big
vaʃʃi
vaʃʃi
grandi
low.pl
low.pl
big
Cutro, Nicastro, Sicily-U
-A
-E
vaʃʃu
vaʃʃa
(g)ranni
low.m.sg
low.f.sg
big
vaʃʃi
vaʃʃi
(g)ranni
low.pl
low.pl
big
Aidone-U
-A
-E
 
-ng-ə
nuvə
nuva
grannə
ddʒuvənə
bungə
new
new.f.sg
big
young
good.sg
nuvə
nuvə
grannə
ddʒuvənə
bunə
new
new.f.pl
big
young
good.pl

Appendix C. List of Patterns for Data Collection (Bare Nouns)

Table A6. Patterns for data collection.149
Table A6. Patterns for data collection.149
Italian VersionEnglish Translation
Plural object
(1) Ieri zia Maria e zio Giovanni hanno sbucciato fagioli per tutto il pomeriggioYesterday Aunt Maria and Uncle Giovanni peeled beans all afternoon long
(1) Gianni vende patateGianni sells potatoes
(2) Quel negozio vende frigoriferi?Does that shop sell fridges?
(3) L’altro giorno ho trovato formiche nel saloneThe other day I found ants in the living room
Plural object modified by an adjective
(4) Zia Maria e zio Giovanni sbucciano fagioli bianchi da quando erano piccoliAunt Maria and Uncle Giovanni have been peeling white beans since they were young
(5) La polizia ha interrogato Gianni e lui ha raccontato bugie enormiThe police questioned Gianni and he told huge lies
(6) Quella ditta costruisce/ha costruito case grandissimeThat firm builds/built huge houses
(7) Ho comprato pomodori maturi per fare la salsaI bought ripe tomatoes to make the sauce
Mass object
(8) Ho trovato polvere da tutte le partiI found dust everywhere
(9) Hai farina?Do you have flour?
Mass object modified by an adjective
(10) Ieri alla fiera hanno distribuito vino rosso per tuttiYesterday at the fair they distributed red wine for everyone
(11) Hai pesce fresco? Do you have any fresh fish?
Singular object
(12) Ho preparato tortaI prepared a cake
Singular object modified by an adjective
(13) Ho preparato torta buonissimaI prepared a very good cake
Plural subject
(14) Turisti sono arrivati in cittàTourists arrived in town
(15) Foglie sono cadute su tutta la stradaLeaves have fallen all over the road
Plural subject modified by an adjective
(16) Turisti spagnoli sono arrivati in cittàSpanish tourists have arrived in town
(17) Rami secchi sono caduti sulla stradaDead branches have fallen on the road
Mass subject
(18) Polvere piove dappertuttoIt is raining/has rained dust
Mass subject modified by an adjective
(19) Polvere rossa piove dappertuttoIt is raining/has rained red dust
Singular subject
(20) Studentessa è venuta a parlarmiA student came to talk to me
Singular subject modified by an adjective
(21) Studentessa americana è arrivataAn American student came
Plural postverbal subject
(22) Sono arrivati turisti in questo periodoTourists arrived in this period
(23) Sono cadute foglie su tutta la stradaLeaves have fallen all over the road
Plural postverbal subject modified by an adjective
(24) Sono arrivati turisti spagnoli in cittàSpanish tourists have arrived in town
(25) Sono caduti rami secchi sulla stradaDead branches have fallen on the road
Mass postverbal subject
(26) Piove/Ha piovuto polvereIt is raining/has rained dust
Mass postverbal subject modified by an adjective
(27) Piove/Ha piovuto polvere rossaIt is raining/has rained red dust
Singular postverbal subject
(28) È venuta studentessa a parlarmiA student came to talk to me
Singular postverbal subject modified by an adjective
(29) È venuta studentessa americanaAn American student came
Plural subject of existential sentence (with locative coda)
(30) Sul vestito ci sono macchieThere are stains on the dress
Mass subject of existential sentence (with locative coda)
(31) C’è acqua sul tavoloThere is water on the table
Plural subject of existential sentence (with locative coda) modified by an adjective
(32) Sul vestito ci sono macchie nereOn the dress there are black stains
Mass subject of existential sentence (with locative coda) modified by an adjective
(33) C’era aria viziata di làThere was spoiled air over there
Plural subject of existential sentence (with a relative clause as the coda)
(34) Ci sono studenti sfaticati (= esistono studenti che sono sfaticati)There are laggard students (= there exist students who are laggard)
(35) Ci sono bambini spensierati (= esistono bambini che sono spensierati)There are carefree children (= there exist children who are carefree)
(36) Ci sono macchie che non se ne vannoThere are stains that do not fade away
Mass subject of existential sentence (with a relative clause as the coda)
(37) C’è vino che migliora quando invecchiaThere is wine that gets better when it gets old
Singular subject of existential clause
(38) C’è pianta in giardinoThere is a plant in the garden
(39) C’è pianta malataThere is a sick plant
(40) C’è pianta che sta appassendoThere is a plant that’s withering

Notes

1
Concerning the relation between the representation of (morphological and semantic) Number and the realization and meaning of bare nouns, see also, among many others, at least Cheng and Sybesma (1999), Munn and Schmitt (2002, 2005), Zamparelli (2000), Dayal (2001), Déprez (2005), Heycock and Zamparelli (2005, p. 234), Tsoulas (2009), Stark (2016), Pinzin and Poletto (2022), and literature therein.
2
Except for the class of nouns ending in -al (plural -aux) and few other lexical instances. The suffix -s is only pronounced under liaison. We refer to Massot (2014, pp. 1837–40) for a list of the environments where visible traces of number morphology appear on nominal items in French.
3
wm in the gloss.
4
5
See also Maiden (1991), Fanciullo (1995), Loporcaro (2011) and literature therein.
6
See, on this same topic, recent work by Pinzin and Poletto (2022).
7
The data were collected from native speakers and, when possible, double-checked against the existing literature. A description of the areas under investigation, with the relevant literature, can be found at http://www.parametricomparison.unimore.it/site/home/projects/prin-2017/documents-and-materials.html (accessed on 18 August 2022; the content of this section is regularly updated as work progresses). For a discussion of their classification and major features, we refer to Pellegrini (1977), Maiden and Parry (1997), Cortelazzo et al. (2002), Manzini and Savoia (2005), Loporcaro (2009), Ledgeway and Maiden (2016), among many others.
8
9
10
Bernini (1942), De Marchi (1976), Michelini (2017). Data collected by C. Guardiano.
11
Foresti (1987); Ferretti (2016). Data collected by M. Bagni.
12
Malagoli (1910–1913). Data collected by B. Ferrari.
13
Foresti (1988), Hajek (1997), Badini (2002). Data collected by G. Roversi and C. Guardiano.
14
Schürr (1974), Pelliciardi (1977). Data collected by C. Guardiano.
15
Savini (1881); Mantenuto (2015a, 2015b, 2016). Data provided by I. Mantenuto.
16
Avolio (1989), Del Puente and Fanciullo (2004). Data collected by G. Silvestri (Santa Maria Capua Vetere), V. Stalfieri (Amalfi) and I. della Corte (Palma Campania).
17
Rohlfs (1937), Cerullo (2018, 2021) and literature therein. Data collected by V. Stalfieri.
18
Andriani (2017). Data provided by G. Andriani.
19
Valente (1975), Tarantino (1992). Data collected by R. Colavito and V. Stalfieri.
20
De Vincentis (1872), Peluso (1985), Gigante (1986, 2002). Data collected by V. Stalfieri.
21
Lausberg (1939), Stalfieri (2021). Data collected by V. Stalfieri.
22
Martino (1991), Silvestri (2013). Data provided by G. Silvestri.
23
Mancarella (1975, 1981, 1998), Urgese (2003). Data provided by F. Fanciullo (Cellino San Marco) and collected by V. Stalfieri (Mesagne and Botrugno).
24
25
Anastasio (2022). Data collected by A. Anastasio.
26
Data collected by V. Stalfieri.
27
Cotronei (1895), Sorrenti (2005). Data collected by V. Stalfieri.
28
Falcone (1976). Data collected by C. Guardiano and V. Stalfieri.
29
Ruffino (1984, 1991, 1997), Leone (1995), Trovato (2002). Data collected by V. Stalfieri (Trapani), M. Cambria (Ribera and San Filippo del Mela), C. Guardiano (Ragusa). The data from Mussomeli were provided by S. Cruschina.
30
Peri (1959), Varvaro (1981), Trovato (1998, 2013), Raccuglia (2003), Trovato and Menza (2020). For a recent survey, see also Costa (2020). These dialects are assumed to originate from migrations from northern Italy which took place starting from the Norman Conquest of Sicily (1061–1091). Our data were provided by F. Ciantia.
31
32
Rohlfs (1966, §§ 141–47), Loporcaro (2009, p. 80), see Cangemi et al. (2010, Section 2) for a discussion and for the literature.
33
In the transcriptions of the examples, we mark only the allophones which are relevant for the purposes of our description, are peculiar of individual dialects, or oppose different dialects. To signal such phonetic peculiarities, we adopted conventional IPA symbols (https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/ipa-chart, accessed on 3 May 2022), with one exception: the symbol <å> signals the low-mid central vowel (allophone of /a/ in open stressed syllable) found in Barletta and Taranto (Mancarella 1998). Vowel length and stress are generally not marked, with the exception of stressed final vowels. Geminates are signalled by the repetition of the relevant symbol. As for affricates, only the occlusive moment is duplicated (e.g., ts → tts). The examples taken from the literature, unless otherwise specified, are reproduced in their original form.
34
35
See also Idone and Silvestri (2018, Section 2), to which we also refer for a description (and examples) of the conditions on metaphony in Verbicarese.
36
Metaphony has different manifestations across the Romance dialects of Italy. We refer to the literature for more detailed typologies and examples, e.g., among many others, Rohlfs (1966, 1968, 1969), Calabrese (1984–1985, 1998, 2008), Maiden (1991), Fanciullo (1994), De Blasi and Fanciullo (2002), Russo (2007), Barbato (2008), Loporcaro (2016), and literature therein. We also refer to Savoia and Maiden (1997) for a detailed survey of the internal variability concerning these phenomena in the Romance dialects of Italy. For the purposes of the present paper, we want to stress the role of metaphony, originally a phonetic/phonological phenomenon, in preserving morphological number alternations on nominal structures; this, in turn, has consequences on the realization of bare nouns in argument position, i.e., a syntactic process. For this reason, in what follows, we mostly refer to those dialects (especially group (4b) and Savignano sul Rubicone, (4a)), where metaphony impacts the morphological realization of Number.
In some dialects, root vowel alternations superficially matching singular vs. plural interpretation also result from propagation (Rizzi and Savoia 1993). Manzini and Savoia (2016, p. 221) describe propagation as “the result of the spreading of [U] properties from an unstressed nucleus to the stressed nucleus (or [a] vowel) immediately to the right”. Phenomena of this type are visible for instance on the stressed vowel of nouns preceded by the masculine singular form of the definite article (e.g, u lwibbrə ‘the book’ vs. i libbrə ‘the books’ in Verbicaro; see also Idone and Silvestri 2018).
37
Yet, in some dialects (e.g., Francavilla in Sinni, Taranto: see Table A4 and Table A5) adjectives ending in -u/-a developed a different paradigm: in the masculine (-u/-i), as expected, the combination of metaphony and weakening of final -u/-i generated one item undistinguished for singular and plural (e.g., nwo < novu(m) and novi); in the feminine, the expected form nɔ (< nova(m) and novae) is only used in the singular, while the plural analogically generalizes nwovə.
38
Detailed descriptions of these parameters and their internal dependencies, which are summarized in (12), can be found in Longobardi et al. (2013, Appendix) and Crisma and Longobardi (2020). The updated list of their manifestations can be found in Crisma et al. (2020, Supplementary Material).
39
For a recent description of the featural composition of the head D, see Crisma and Longobardi (2020).
40
For a typological analysis of Number systems across languages, see Corbett (2000).
41
For the representation of parameter dependencies and implications, see Longobardi and Guardiano (2009), Guardiano and Longobardi (2017), Roberts (2019), and literature therein.
42
We also refer to Manzini and Savoia (2005, vol. III, chp. 8) for a detailed list of examples.
43
44
See also Bari (Andriani, p.c.): stu pumədo da ʃəttà (‘this tomato must be thrown away’) vs. sti puməduso da ʃəttà (‘these tomatoes must be thrown away’).
45
46
In the languages of the sample, nouns and adjectives display very similar patterns concerning number marking. In some dialects, metaphony affects the representation of gender on adjectives (on the strict relation between Gender and Number in these dialects see also note 49 below). Here, we focus on nouns only. Examples of number marking on adjectives in the dialects of the sample are reported in Table A5. See also Manzini and Savoia (2005, vol. III, pp. 574–660).
47
However, items exhibiting both strategies are found across Italy (cf. Foresti 1988): see, for instance, fjore vs. fjiuri ‘flower/s’ in Padova (Trumper 1972, pp. 13–18), lɛpre vs. lepri ‘hare/s’ in Macerata (Biondi 2012 cited in Fanciullo 2015, p. 130), fɔrte vs. fuerti ‘strong.sg/pl’ in Central Salento (Fanciullo 1994, p. 574).
48
49
But see Manzini and Savoia (2005, vol. III, pp. 642–60) and Pescarini (2020). The literature on Romance nominal systems has shown that the realization of Number on nouns is strongly related to that of Gender: “the assignment of grammatical Number depends on the assignment of a formal class to a linguistic category” (Picallo 2008, p. 47). We refer to Picallo (2008), and to work by (e.g., Manzini and Savoia 2005, 2017, 2018, 2019) and Pinzin and Poletto (2021, 2022) for a discussion and a summary of the literature. To account for the relation between Number, Gender and inflectional Class, and for their morphosyntactic realization, the hypothesis of a “layered view of plural” (Manzini 2020, p. 6), suggesting multiple Number positions, has been variously explored in the literature (see, e.g., Wiltschko 2008; Landau 2016; Manzini 2020 and literature therein).
50
In some dialects of Sicily, a plural ending -a is visible on nouns ending in -u in the singular: stu rrɔddʒu (this.m.sg clock.m.sg), sti rrɔddʒa (this.pl clock.pl) [Ribera]; u libbru bbɛllu (the.m.sg book.m.sg beautiful.m.sg), i libbra bbɛlli (the.pl book.pl beautiful.pl) [Mussomeli, Ragusa]. Also, some nouns ending in -i (< -E(M)) take the plural affix -a: u prufissuri pittʃwɔttu (the.m.sg professor.m.sg young.m.sg), i prufissura pittʃwɔtti (the.pl professor.pl young.pl). These -a plurals are well-known to the literature: we refer to Rohlfs (1968, § 368) and Sornicola (2010) for an overview.
51
Manzini and Savoia (2005, vol. III, pp. 590–99) suggest that -a is to be analyzed as a noun class morpheme, while -i is a “quantificational denotation morpheme” (“morfema a denotazione quantificazionale”, 596), denoting both plural number and feminine gender. In other items, such as demonstratives and quantifiers, -i would only express quantificational information (i.e., plural number, 596–597). See also Pescarini (2020). It is not unreasonable that the plural suffix -i instantiates an innovation probably introduced after the loss of final -I, -U, and -E. The origin of this suffix is unclear. Rohlfs (1968, § 363) suggests it to be an analogical creation based on Latin feminine nouns ending in -ĬAE (such as in BESTĬAE > bestij), where final -i was reanalyzed as a plural feminine morpheme. Reasonably, the creation of plural -i happened after the loss of final vowels.
52
There are exceptions: for example, like in French (see note 2), masculine nouns ending in -al/-el in the singular take the suffix -ai/-ei in the plural (kaval/kavai, ‘horse.sg, horse.pl’; kavel/kavei ‘hair.sg, hair.pl’).
53
See, for a discussion of these systems, Manzini and Savoia (2005, vol. III, pp. 637–42). As it can be seen in the examples (23) and (24), gender alternations are maintained on (some) adjectives.
54
The form bbwellə results from propagation (see note 36).
55
56
For a discussion of similar phenomena in other Romance dialects of Southern Italy, see Manzini and Savoia (2016, Section 3).
57
In Francavilla in Sinni, most adjectives are only post-nominal; by contrast, the adjective bbellə (along with few additional others) can be realized either pre- or post-nominally.
58
See Table A4 and Table A5 for a list of examples of number alternations on nouns and adjectives in the dataset.
59
60
In several dialects of Campania, the plural form of the definite determiner triggers Rafforzamento Fonosintattico (Fanciullo 1997; Loporcaro 1997) in the feminine: a fiʎʎə ~ e ffiʎʎə ‘the daughter ~ the daughters’ vs. o fiʎʎə ~ e fiʎʎə ‘the son ~ the sons’. On the relation between RF and morphosyntactic structures, see also D’Alessandro and Scheer (2013).
61
62
63
Kinship expressions are exceptional: when a possessive modifies a kinship noun in the singular, and the latter refers to a unique individual, it does not co-occur with any determiner and has a “definite” reading only: mio padre (lit. ‘my father’) vs. *il mio padre (lit. ‘the my father’). In some dialects of our sample (e.g., Salentino, Santa Maria Capua Vetere), when occurring with a kinship noun in the singular, with the interpretation described above, possessives are realized as enclitic (D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017 and literature therein; Manzini and Savoia 2005, vol. III, pp. 660–749).
64
Il mio libro (lit. ‘the.m.sg my.m.sg book.m.sg’) vs. i miei libri (lit. ‘the.m.pl my.m.pl book.m.pl’), la mia macchina (lit. ‘the.f.sg my.f.sg car.f.sg’) vs. le mie macchine (lit. ‘the.f.pl my.f.pl car.f.pl’).
65
In several dialects, adnominal possessives display “weaker” morphophonological structure as compared to pronominal ones (Cardinaletti 1998; Cardinaletti and Starke 1994, 1999; Manzini and Savoia 2005, vol. III, pp. 570–74, a.o.). In Table A3, for each dialect, we list the pronominal forms, whose paradigms are more variable than those of articles and demonstratives with respect to the realization of number alternations.
66
67
For some dialects (e.g., those used in Guardiano et al. 2016), data concerning the distribution of bare nouns had been collected during previous fieldwork. These data were integrated with novel ones, with the exception of two dialects: Santa Maria Capua Vetere (because the speaker was no more available) and Teramo. For the latter, we found extensive material in the literature, especially Mantenuto (2015a, 2015b, 2016), and the data found in the TerraLing group SSWL (http://test.terraling.com/groups/7, accessed on 3 August 2022; Koopman and Guardiano 2014–2018): properties O 01 1_Indef mass_can be bare to O 09 5_PN+A_Order PN A and S01_Existential constructions to S 04 3_Indef Pl Ns (Subj) must have an article.
68
The sentences provided by the speakers for each dialect can be found here: http://www.parametricomparison.unimore.it/site/home/projects/prin-2017/documents-and-materials.html; accessed on 18 August 2022 (the content of this section is regularly updated as work progresses).
69
On the relation between the morphological exponence of gender and number and the realization of nominal determination systems in Romance, see at least Stark (2007, 2016); for a recent analysis of the alternation between bare nouns and partitive articles, Pinzin and Poletto (2021).
70
Both variants waɲɲunə and waʎʎunə are found in Francavilla.
71
For older varieties, see also Ugolini (1959, p. 120).
72
A difference between Italian and the dialects where bare nouns are grammatical concerns the acceptability of bare plurals/mass modified by an adjective, a PP or a relative clause as preverbal subjects. These are grammatical in Italian while they are only marginally accepted in the dialects.
73
All the paradigms listed in the tables have been provided by our informants and double-checked against the available literature, including Manzini and Savoia (2005, chp. 8). For each dialect, we mention at least one bibliographical source.
74
75
Dialects of Emilia: Badini (2002), Foresti (1988, p. 579), Hajek (1997), Rohlfs (1968, pp. 104–5). Reggio Emilia: Ferretti (2016, p. 10); Parma: Bernini (1942), Michelini (2017).
76
77
78
Dialects of Campania: Rohlfs (1968, p. 106); Ledgeway (2009, p. 167), a.o.
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Dialects of Sicily: Rohlfs (1968, p. 106); Leone (1995, p. 30), Ruffino (1991, 1997).
91
92
Dialects of Emilia: Badini (2002), Foresti (1988, p. 581). Reggio Emilia: Ferretti (2016, p. 10); Parma: Bernini (1942), Michelini (2017).
93
94
95
Dialects of Campania: Rohlfs (1968, pp. 207–8); Ledgeway (2004, 2009, pp. 195–212), a.o.
96
Cerullo (2018, p. 165) for distal demonstratives. Cerullo (p.c.) for proximal and medial demonstratives.
97
98
99
100
Lausberg (1939, p. 143) lists some paradigms of various dialects of the area, which slightly differ from those of Francavilla.
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
The references for this table are the same as those for table S2/A, unless otherwise specified.
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
Dialects of Emilia: Badini (2002), Foresti (1988, pp. 580–81). Reggio Emilia: Ferretti (2016, p. 35); Parma: Bernini (1942), Michelini (2017).
119
120
121
Dialects of Campania: Ledgeway (2009, p. 247).
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
Dialects of Sicily: Rohlfs (1968, p. 123); Ruffino (1991, 1997). Trapani: Trovato (2002, p. 844).
134
The table provides a selection of examples which show the number marking strategies visible on different noun classes in the dialects of the sample.
135
136
137
138
In Felitto several nouns have both root vowel alternations and suffixes.
139
Loporcaro and Silvestri (2015, pp. 69–72). The suffix -a in the word stəndɛna is a residual of the neuter Latin suffix -A.
140
Mancarella (1998, pp. 89–92, 106–7, 147–48). In Mesagne, final -E and final -I are both realized as -i (Mancarella 1998, pp. 106–7). Thus, there is no suffix alternation between singular and plural on nouns originally ending in -E. In some such nouns, number alternations are realized through metaphonetic alternations of the root vowel, as shown in the examples. This sets a difference with the two other dialects of Salento (Botrugno and Cellino San Marco), where the alternation -E/-I was mantained.
141
142
143
144
The table provides a selection of examples which show the number marking strategies visible on different adjective classes in the dialects of the sample.
145
146
147
Loporcaro and Silvestri (2015, pp. 69–72). The suffix -a in the word vaʃʃa is a residual of the neuter Latin suffix -A.
148
149
Sentences 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 29, 30, 39, 40, 41 are ungrammatical in Italian. Sentences 17, 18 and 20 are marginally accepted by some speakers of Italian.

References

  1. Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008. Lexical Plurals. A Morpho-Semantic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2011. Plural Mass Nouns and the Morpho-syntax of Number. In Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Edited by Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer and Barbara Tomaszewicz. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 33–41. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anastasio, Alessandra. 2022. I sintagmi nominali nel dialetto di Cutro. Bachelor’s thesis, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. [Google Scholar]
  4. Andriani, Luigi. 2017. The Syntax of the Dialect of Bari. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. [Google Scholar]
  5. Avolio, Francesco. 1989. Il limite occidentale dei dialetti lucani nel quadro del gruppo «altomeridionale», con considerazioni a proposito della linea Salerno–Lucera. L’Italia dialettale 52: 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  6. Badini, Bruna. 2002. L’Emilia Romagna. In I dialetti italiani. Storia, struttura, uso. Edited by Manlio Cortelazzo, Carla Marcato, Nicola De Blasi and Gianrenzo P. Clivio. Torino: UTET, pp. 375–413. [Google Scholar]
  7. Barbato, Marcello. 2008. Metafonia napoletana e metafonia sabina. In I dialetti italiani meridionali tra arcaismo e interferenza. Edited by Alessandro De Angelis. Palermo: CSFLS, pp. 275–89. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernini, Ferdinando. 1942. Il dialetto parmigiano come linguaggio neo-latino. Quaderni de “La giovane montagna” Volume 19. Available online: https://books.google.co.jp/books/about/Il_dialetto_parmigiano_come_linguaggio_n.html?id=-a9wnQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y (accessed on 18 August 2022).
  9. Bernstein, Judy. 1997. Demonstratives and reinforcers in Romance and Germanic languages. Lingua 102: 87–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Biondi, Adriano. 2012. Vocabolario. Il dialetto di San Severino Marche confrontato con altri dialetti marchigiani arcaici e contemporanei. San Severino Marche: Hexagon Group. [Google Scholar]
  11. Calabrese, Andrea. 1984–1985. Metaphony in Salentino. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 9–10: 3–140. [Google Scholar]
  12. Calabrese, Andrea. 1998. Metaphony revisited. Rivista di Linguistica 10: 7–68. [Google Scholar]
  13. Calabrese, Andrea. 2008. Metaphony. Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053600/http://homepages.uconn.edu/~anc02008/Papers/METAPHONY.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2022).
  14. Cangemi, Francesco, Rachele Delucchi, Michele Loporcaro, and Stephan Schmid. 2010. Vocalismo finale atono “toscano” nei dialetti del Vallo di Diano (Salerno). In Parlare con le persone, Parlare alle Macchine. Edited by Francesco Cutugno, Pietro Maturi, Renata Savy, Giovanni Abete and Iolanda Alfano. Torriana: EDK, pp. 477–90. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cardinaletti, Anna. 1998. On the deficient/strong opposition in possessive systems. In Possessors, Predicates, and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Edited by Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 17–53. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1994. The typology of structural deficiency: On the three grammatical classes. Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 41–109. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Edited by Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 145–233. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cerullo, Mariangela. 2018. La variazione fonetica degli esiti di -LL- in Cilento: Processi di retroflessione (e deretroflessione) e rotacizzazione in alcuni punti della Val Calore Lucano. Master’s thesis, Università degli studi di Napoli "Federico II", Napoli, Italy. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cerullo, Mariangela. 2021. I processi di retroflessione come conservazione/costruzione dell’identità cilentana. Areté 7: 13–34. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cheng, Lisa, and Rint Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not so bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Corbett, Greville. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cornips, Leonie, and Cecilia Poletto. 2005. On standardising syntactic elicitation techniques (part 1). Lingua 115: 939–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cortelazzo, Manlio, Carla Marcato, Nicola De Blasi, and Gianrenzo P. Clivio. 2002. I dialetti italiani. Storia, struttura, uso. Torino: UTET. [Google Scholar]
  24. Costa, Gabriele. 2020. Il Dialetto Gallo-Italico di Sperlinga: Un’analisi SOCIOLINGUISTICA. Master’s thesis, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy. [Google Scholar]
  25. Cotronei, Raffaele. 1895. Vocabolario del dialetto catanzarese. Sala Bolognese: Forni Editore. [Google Scholar]
  26. Crisma, Paola, Cristina Guardiano, and Giuseppe Longobardi. 2020. Syntactic parameters and language learnability. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 58: 99–130. [Google Scholar]
  27. Crisma, Paola, Cristina Guardiano, and Giuseppe Longobardi. Forthcoming. Toward a uniform theory of case form and case meaning. Genitives and parametric syntax. In On the Place of Case in Grammar. Edited by Christina Sevdali, Elena Anagnostopoulou and Dionysios Mertyris. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Crisma, Paola, and Giuseppe Longobardi. 2020. The parametric space associated with D. In The Oxford Handbook of Determiners. Edited by Solveiga Armoskaite and Martina Wiltschko. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. D’Alessandro, Roberta, and Tobias Scheer. 2013. Modular PIC. Unpublished manuscript. Leiden University and University of Nice. [Google Scholar]
  30. D’Alessandro, Roberta, and Marc Van Oostendorp. 2014. La metafonia ariellese tra fonologia e lessico. Quaderni di lavoro ASIt 17: 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  31. D’Alessandro, Roberta, and Laura Migliori. 2017. Sui possessivi (enclitici) nelle varietà italo-romanze meridionali non estreme. In Di tutti i colori. Studi linguistici per Maria Grossmann. Edited by Roberta D’Alessandro, Gabriele Iannàccaro, Diana Passino and Anna Maria Thornton. halshs-02060688. Available online: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02060688/file/Di_tutti_i_colori.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2022).
  32. Dayal, Veneeta. 2001. Number Marking and (In)definiteness in Kind Terms. Unpublished manuscript. Rutgers University. [Google Scholar]
  33. De Blasi, Nicola. 2006. Profilo linguistico della Campania. Roma: Laterza. [Google Scholar]
  34. De Blasi, Nicola, and Franco Fanciullo. 2002. La Campania. In I dialetti italiani. Storia, struttura, uso. Edited by Manlio Cortelazzo, Carla Marcato, Nicola De Blasi and Gianrenzo P. Clivio. Torino: UTET, pp. 628–78. [Google Scholar]
  35. Déchaine, Rosa-Marie, Raphael Girard, Calisto Mudzingwa, and Martina Wiltschko. 2014. The Internal Syntax of Shona Class Prefixes. Language Sciences 43: 18–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Delfitto, Denis, and Jan Schroten. 1991. Bare plurals and the number affix in DP. Probus 3: 155–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Del Puente, Patrizia, and Franco Fanciullo. 2004. Per una Campania dialettale. In Dialetti e non solo. Edited by Franco Fanciullo. Alessandria: Edizioni Dell’Orso, pp. 149–75. [Google Scholar]
  38. De Marchi, Angelo. 1976. Il dialetto di Parma. Parma: Strada Romea. [Google Scholar]
  39. Déprez, Viviane. 2005. Morphological Number, semantic Number and bare nouns. Lingua 115: 857–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. De Vincentis, Domenico Ludovico. 1872. Vocabolario del dialetto tarantino in corrispondenza della lingua italiana. Taranto: S. Latronico. [Google Scholar]
  41. Di Domenico, Elisa. 1998. Per una teoria del genere grammaticale. Padova: UniPress. [Google Scholar]
  42. Digaeta, Pietro. 1985. Elementi di grammatica del vernacolo barlettano. San Casciano val di Pesa: F.lli Stianti. [Google Scholar]
  43. Falcone, Giuseppe. 1976. Calabria. Pisa: Pacini. [Google Scholar]
  44. Fanciullo, Franco. 1986. Syntactic reduplication and the Italian dialects of the Centre-South. Journal of Italian Linguistics 8: 67–104. [Google Scholar]
  45. Fanciullo, Franco. 1988. Lukanien/Lucania. In Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Band IV, Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch. Edited by Gunter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin and Christian Schmitt. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 669–88. [Google Scholar]
  46. Fanciullo, Franco. 1994. Morfo-metafonia. In Miscellanea in onore di Walter Belardi, vol. II. Edited by Palmira Cipriano, Paolo Di Giovine and Marco Mancini. Roma: Il Calamo, pp. 571–92. [Google Scholar]
  47. Fanciullo, Franco. 1995. Un caso salentino di mutamento fonetico sotto condizioni lessicali. In Scritti linguistici e filologici in onore di Tristano Bolelli. Edited by Roberto Ajello and Saverio Sani. Alessandria: Edizioni Dell’Orso, pp. 225–39. [Google Scholar]
  48. Fanciullo, Franco. 1997. Raddoppiamento sintattico e ricostruzione linguistica nel Sud italiano. Pisa: ETS. [Google Scholar]
  49. Fanciullo, Franco. 2015. Prima lezione di dialettologia. Roma: Laterza. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ferrari, Franco. 2005. A Syntactic Analysis of the Nominal Systems in Italian and Luganda: How Nouns Can Be Formed in the Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, New York, NY, USA. [Google Scholar]
  51. Ferretti, Denis. 2016. Grammatica del dialetto reggiano. Reggio Emilia: Corsiero Editore. [Google Scholar]
  52. Finamore, Gennaro. 1882. Tradizioni popolari abruzzesi. Lanciano: Carabba. [Google Scholar]
  53. Foresti, Fabio. 1987. Il dialetto. In Storia illustrata di Reggio Emilia. Edited by Maurizio Festanti and Giuseppe Gherpelli. Avellino: Sellino, pp. 1073–104. [Google Scholar]
  54. Foresti, Fabio. 1988. Emilia e Romagna. In Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Band IV, Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch. Edited by Gunter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin and Christian Schmitt. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 569–92. [Google Scholar]
  55. Gigante, Nicola. 1986. Dizionario critico etimologico del dialetto tarantino. Manduria: Piero Lacaita Editore. [Google Scholar]
  56. Gigante, Nicola. 2002. Dizionario della parlata tarantina. Storico critico etimologico. Taranto: Mandese Editore. [Google Scholar]
  57. Giuliani, Mariafrancesca. 2001. Sul raddoppiamento fonosintattico nel barese: Osservazioni in margine alla morfologia nominale e verbale. L’ Italia Dialettale 62: 7–52. [Google Scholar]
  58. Guardiano, Cristina. 2014. Fenomeni di contatto sintattico in Italia meridionale? Alcune note comparative. Quaderni di lavoro ASIt 18: 73–102. [Google Scholar]
  59. Guardiano, Cristina, and Giuseppe Longobardi. 2005. Parametric Comparison and Language Taxonomy. In Grammaticalization and Parametric Variation. Edited by Montserrat Batllori, Maria Lluisa Hernanz, Carme Picallo and Francesc Roca. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 149–74. [Google Scholar]
  60. Guardiano, Cristina, Dimitris Michelioudakis, Andrea Ceolin, Monica Alexandrina Irimia, Giuseppe Longobardi, Nina Radkevich, Giuseppina Silvestri, and Ioanna Sitaridou. 2016. South by Southeast. A syntactic approach to Greek and Romance microvariation. L’italia Dialettale 77: 95–167. [Google Scholar]
  61. Guardiano, Cristina, and Giuseppe Longobardi. 2017. Parameter theory and parametric comparison. In The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar. Edited by Ian Roberts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 377–98. [Google Scholar]
  62. Guardiano, Cristina, Dimitris Michelioudakis, Guido Cordoni, Monica Alexandrina Irimia, Nina Radkevich, and Ioanna Sitaridou. 2018. Parametric comparison and dialect variation. Insights from Southern Italy. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14. Selected Papers from the 46th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Stony Brook, NY. Edited by Lori Repetti and Francisco Ordonez. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 103–33. [Google Scholar]
  63. Guardiano, Cristina, and Melita Stavrou. 2020. Dialectal syntax between persistence and change. The case of Greek demonstratives. L’Italia Dialettale 81: 119–55. [Google Scholar]
  64. Hajek, John. 1997. Emilia-Romagna. In The Dialects of Italy. Edited by Martin Maiden and Mair Parry. London: Routledge, pp. 271–78. [Google Scholar]
  65. Harris, James W. 1991. The Exponence of Gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 27–62. [Google Scholar]
  66. Heycock, Caroline, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2005. Friends and colleagues: Plurality, coordination and the structure of DP. Natural Language Semantics 13: 201–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Idone, Alice, and Giuseppina Silvestri. 2018. Verbicarese, University of Zurich. Available online: http://www.dai.uzh.ch/new/#/public/overviews (accessed on 20 January 2022).
  68. Koopman, Hilda. 2020. Notes on Double Plurals and Diminutives: Dutch and Breton. Unpublished Manuscript. UCLA. [Google Scholar]
  69. Koopman, Hilda, and Cristina Guardiano. 2014–2018. From O 01 1_Indef mass_can be bare to O 09 5_PN+A_Order PN A and from S01_Existential Constructions to S 04 3_Indef Pl Ns (Subj) Must Have an Article. Available online: https://www.terraling.com/groups/7/properties/467; https://www.terraling.com/groups/7/properties/500; https://www.terraling.com/groups/7/properties/728; https://www.terraling.com/groups/7/properties/741 (accessed on 20 January 2022).
  70. Kramer, Ruth. 2015. The Morphosyntax of Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  71. Krefeld, Thomas. 2007. Variazione Morfosintattica in Calabrese: I Possessivi al Microscopio. Available online: http://www.asica.gwi.uni-muenchen.de/downloads/poss-calab.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2022).
  72. Lacalendola, Adamo. 1972. Frasario del dialetto di Bari. Palo del Colle: Liantonio. [Google Scholar]
  73. Lampitelli, Nicola. 2014. The Romance Plural Isogloss and Linguistic Change: A Comparative Study of Romance Nouns. Lingua 140: 158–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Landau, Idan. 2016. DP-Internal Semantic Agreement: A Configurational Analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 975–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lausberg, Heinrich. 1939. Die Mundarten Südlukaniens. Halle: Niemeyer. [Google Scholar]
  76. Lausberg, Heinrich. 1971. Linguistica romanza. 2 vol. Fonetica, Morfologia. Milano: Feltrinelli. [Google Scholar]
  77. Ledgeway, Adam. 2004. Lo sviluppo dei dimostrativi ne dialetti centromeridionali. Lingua e Stile XXXIX: 65–112. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ledgeway, Adam. 2007. La posizione dell’aggettivo nella storia del napoletano. In Sui dialetti italoromanzi. Saggi in onore di Nigel B. Vincent. Edited by Delia Bentley and Adam Ledgeway. Norfolk: Biddles, pp. 104–25. [Google Scholar]
  79. Ledgeway, Adam. 2009. Grammatica diacronica del napoletano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ledgeway, Adam, and Martin Maiden, eds. 2016. The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  81. Leone, Alfonso. 1995. Profilo di sintassi siciliana. Palermo: Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani. [Google Scholar]
  82. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2021. Romance beyond Romance. Paper presented at Unimore, Microwebinars, March 22. [Google Scholar]
  83. Longobardi, Giuseppe, and Cristina Guardiano. 2009. Evidence for Syntax as a Signal of Historical Relatedness. Lingua 119: 1679–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Longobardi, Giuseppe, Cristina Guardiano, Giuseppina Silvestri, Alessio Boattini, and Andrea Ceolin. 2013. Toward a syntactic phylogeny of modern Indo-European languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3: 122–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Loporcaro, Michele. 1988. Grammatica storica del dialetto di Altamura. Pisa: Giardini. [Google Scholar]
  86. Loporcaro, Michele. 1997. L’origine del raddoppiamento fonosintattico: Saggio di fonologia diacronica romanza. Basel and Tuebingen: Francke Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  87. Loporcaro, Michele. 2009. Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani. Bari: Laterza. [Google Scholar]
  88. Loporcaro, Michele. 2011. Syllable, segment and prosody. In The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, vol. I, Structures. Edited by Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith and Adam Ledgeway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 50–108. [Google Scholar]
  89. Loporcaro, Michele. 2016. Metaphony and dipthongization in southern Italy: Reconstructive implications from sound change in early Romance. In Approaches to Metaphony in the Languages of Italy. Edited by Francesc Torres-Tamarit, Kathrin Linke and Marc van Oostendorp. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 55–88. [Google Scholar]
  90. Loporcaro, Michele, and Giuseppina Silvestri. 2011. Vocalismo finale atono e morfosintassi participiale in due varietà generazionali del dialetto di Verbicaro (provincia di Cosenza). Revue de Linguistique Romane 75: 325–56. [Google Scholar]
  91. Loporcaro, Michele, and Giuseppina Silvestri. 2015. Accordo al neutro plurale nel dialetto di Verbicaro (Cosenza). L’Italia Dialettale 76: 63–81. [Google Scholar]
  92. Maddalon, M. 2016. Suddivisioni dialettali della Calabria, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia—Università della Calabria. Available online: http://clt.unical.it/dialettologia.htm (accessed on 27 January 2022).
  93. Maiden, Martin. 1991. Interactive Morphonology: Metaphony in Italy. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  94. Maiden, Martin, and Mair Parry. 1997. The Dialects of Italy. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  95. Malagoli, Giuseppe. 1910–1913. Studi sui dialetti reggiani con uno schizzo cartografico del comune di Novellara. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 17: 29–197. [Google Scholar]
  96. Mancarella, Giovan Battista. 1975. Salento. Pisa: Pacini. [Google Scholar]
  97. Mancarella, Giovan Battista. 1981. Distinzioni Morfologiche nel Salento. Bari: Ecumenica Editrice. [Google Scholar]
  98. Mancarella, Giovan Battista. 1998. Salento. Monografia regionale della “Carta dei Dialetti Italiani”. Lecce: Edizioni del Grifo. [Google Scholar]
  99. Mantenuto, Iara. 2015a. A Syntactic Analysis of Epenthetic-[a] in Teramano. Term Paper. Los Angeles: UCLA. [Google Scholar]
  100. Mantenuto, Iara. 2015b. Vowel Raising in Teramano. Term Paper. Los Angeles: UCLA. [Google Scholar]
  101. Mantenuto, Iara. 2016. Demonstratives in Teramano. Master’s thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
  102. Manzini, Maria Rita. 2020. The morphosyntactic structure of number in Italian and Albanian. High and low plurals. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 19: 127–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Manzini, Maria Rita, and Leonardo Maria Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa. Alessandria: Edizioni Dell’Orso. [Google Scholar]
  104. Manzini, Maria Rita, and Leonardo Maria Savoia. 2016. Which syntactic information gets interpreted by phonosyntactic processes? Evidence from /u/ propagation in Southern Italian dialects. In Approaches to Metaphony in the Languages of Italy. Edited by F. Torres-Tamarit, K. Linke and Marc van Oostendorp. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 221–58. [Google Scholar]
  105. Manzini, Maria Rita, and Leonardo Maria Savoia. 2017. Gender, Number and Inflectional Class in Romance: Feminine/Plural -a. In Language Use and Linguistic Structure. Edited by Joseph Emonds and Markéta Janebova. Olomouc: Palacky University Olomouc, pp. 263–82. [Google Scholar]
  106. Manzini, Maria Rita, and Leonardo Maria Savoia. 2018. N inflections and their interpretation: Neuter -o and plural -a in Italian varieties. In From Sounds to Structures: Beyond the Veil of Maya. Edited by Roberto Petrosino, Pietro Cerrone and Harry van der Hulst. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 361–94. [Google Scholar]
  107. Manzini, Maria Rita, and Leonardo Maria Savoia. 2019. N Morphology and its interpretation. Romance feminine singular/plural -a. In Italian Dialectology at the Interfaces. Edited by Silvio Cruschina, Adam Ledgeway and Eva-Maria Remberger. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 257–93. [Google Scholar]
  108. Manzini, Maria Rita, Leonardo Maria Savoia, and Benedetta Baldi. 2020. Microvariation and macrocategories. Differential Plural Marking and Phase theory. L’Italia Dialettale 81: 188–212. [Google Scholar]
  109. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don’t try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 201–25. [Google Scholar]
  110. Martino, Paolo. 1991. L’area Lausberg: Isolamento e arcaicità. Roma: Dipartimento di Studi Glotto-antropologici dell’Università di Roma La Sapienza. [Google Scholar]
  111. Massot, Benjamin. 2014. De la fumée sans feu. Le -s de pluriel des noms français, ni un s, ni un pluriel. SHS Web of Conferences 8: 1837–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Michelini, Guido. 2017. Il dialetto di Parma: Il sistema linguistico. Parma: Silva. [Google Scholar]
  113. Munn, Alan, and Cristina Schmitt. 2002. Bare nominals and the morphosyntax of number. In Current Issues in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 29th Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages. Edited by Teresa Satterfield, Christina Tortora and Diana Cresti. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 225–39. [Google Scholar]
  114. Munn, Alan, and Cristina Schmitt. 2005. Number and Indefinites. Lingua 115: 821–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Pellegrini, Giovan Battista. 1977. Carta dei dialetti d’Italia. Pisa: Pacini. [Google Scholar]
  116. Pelliciardi, Ferdinando. 1977. Grammatica del dialetto romagnolo. Ravenna: Longo. [Google Scholar]
  117. Peluso, Giacinto. 1985. Ajère e ôsce. Alle radici del dialetto tarantino. Bari: Edizioni Bnd. [Google Scholar]
  118. Pescarini, Diego. 2020. L’accordo asimmetrico nel Grigioni italiano. Convergenze morfologiche e divergenze sintattiche. L’Italia Dialettale 81: 213–43. [Google Scholar]
  119. Peri, Illuminato. 1959. La questione delle colonie «lombarde» in Sicilia. Bollettino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino 57: 253–80. [Google Scholar]
  120. Picallo, Maria Carme. 2008. Gender and number in Romance. Lingue e Linguaggio 7/1: 47–66. [Google Scholar]
  121. Pinzin, Francesco, and Cecilia Poletto. 2021. Indefinite objects in micro-variation. A cross-linguistic analysis of the distribution of Partitives Articles, Bare Nominals and definite determiners in Northern Italy. Studia Linguistica 76: 13–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Pinzin, Francesco, and Cecilia Poletto. 2022. An indefinite maze: On the distribution of partitives and bare nouns in the Northern Italian dialects. Isogloss 8: 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Raccuglia, Sandra. 2003. Vocabolario del dialetto galloitalico di Aidone. Palermo: Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani. [Google Scholar]
  124. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1993. Where’s Gender? Linguistic Inquiry 24: 795–803. [Google Scholar]
  125. Rizzi, Luigi, and Leonardo Maria Savoia. 1993. Conditions on /u/ propagation in southern Italian dialects: A locality parameter for phonosyntactic processes. In Syntactic Theory and the Dialects of Italy. Edited by Adriana Belletti. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier, pp. 252–318. [Google Scholar]
  126. Roberts, Ian. 2019. Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  127. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1937. Mundarten und Griechentum des Cilento. Zeitschrift der romanische Philologie 57: 421–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1962. Le due Calabrie (Calabria greca Calabria latina). Almanacco Calabrese, 59–71. [Google Scholar]
  129. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1966. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, Fonetica. Torino: Einaudi. [Google Scholar]
  130. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1968. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, Morfologia. Torino: Einaudi. [Google Scholar]
  131. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1969. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Torino: Einaudi. [Google Scholar]
  132. Ruffino, Giovanni. 1984. Isoglosse siciliane. In Tre millenni di storia linguistica della Sicilia. Edited by Adriana Moreschini Quattordio. Pisa: Giardini. [Google Scholar]
  133. Ruffino, Giovanni. 1991. Dialetto e dialetti di Sicilia. Palermo: CUSL. [Google Scholar]
  134. Ruffino, Giovanni. 1997. Sicily. In The Dialects of Italy. Edited by Martin Maiden and Mair Parry. London: Routledge, pp. 365–75. [Google Scholar]
  135. Russo, Michela. 2007. La metafonia napoletana: Evoluzione e funzionamento sincronico. Bern: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]
  136. Savini, Giuseppe. 1881. La grammatica ed il lessico del dialetto Teramano. Torino: Loescher. [Google Scholar]
  137. Savoia, Leonardo Maria, and Martin Maiden. 1997. Metaphony. In The Dialects of Italy. Edited by Martin Maiden and Mair Parry. London: Routledge, pp. 15–25. [Google Scholar]
  138. Schürr, Friedrich. 1974. La voce della Romagna. Profilo linguistico letterario. Ravenna: Girasole. [Google Scholar]
  139. Schwarzschild, R. 2015. Excess baggage. Paper presented at UCLA Colloquium, Los Angeles, CA, USA, October 9. [Google Scholar]
  140. Silvestri, Giuseppina. 2013. The Nature of Genitive Case. Ph.D. thesis, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy. [Google Scholar]
  141. Silvestri, Giuseppina. 2016. Possessivi e partitivi nei dialetti italo-romanzi dell’Area Lausberg. In La Lingua Italiana. Storia, strutture, testi 12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 89–118. [Google Scholar]
  142. Silvestri, Giuseppina. 2020. Possessives in indefinite nominal phrases: A comparison between Italo-Romance and Daco-Romance. Modern Språk 114: 161–97. [Google Scholar]
  143. Sornicola, Rosanna. 2010. I dialetti meridionali e la sorte del neutro: Alcune riflessioni su una varietà siciliana. In Actes du XXVe CILPR Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes (Innsbruck 3–8 Septembre 2007), tome II. Edited by Maria Iliescu, Heidi Siller-Runggaldier and Paul Danler. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, pp. 547–63. [Google Scholar]
  144. Sorrenti, Vittorio. 2005. Dizionario della lingua catanzarese con grammatica. Catanzaro: La Rondine Edizioni. [Google Scholar]
  145. Stalfieri, Vincenzo. 2021. La morfologia verbale nel dialetto di Francavilla in Sinni. L’Italia Dialettale 82: 225–60. [Google Scholar]
  146. Stark, Elisabeth. 2007. Gender, number, and indefinite articles. About the «typological inconsistency» of Italian. In Nominal Determination. Typology, Context Constraints, and Historical Emergence. Edited by Elisabeth Stark, Werner Abraham and Elisabeth Leiss. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 49–71. [Google Scholar]
  147. Stark, Elisabeth. 2016. Nominal morphology and semantics—Where is gender (and partitive articles) in Gallo-Romance? In Proceedings of the VII Nereus International Workshop. Edited by Susann Fisher and Mario Navarro. Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz, pp. 131–49. [Google Scholar]
  148. Stehl, Th. 1988. Puglia e Salento. In Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Band IV, Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch. Edited by Gunter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin and Christian Schmitt. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 695–716. [Google Scholar]
  149. Tagliavini, Carlo. 1972. Le origini delle lingue neolatine, 6th ed. Bologna: Pàtron. First published 1949. [Google Scholar]
  150. Tarantino, Nicola. 1992. Dizionario del dialetto barlettano: Norme grammaticali, nomi e soprannomi, strutture urbane e contrade, modi di dire e proverbi. Barletta: Rotas. [Google Scholar]
  151. Trovato, Salvatore C. 1998. Galloitalische Sprachkolonien. I dialetti galloitaliaci della Sicilia. In Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Band VI. Kontakt, Migration und Kunstsprachen. Kontrastivität, Klassifikation und Typologie. Edited by Gunter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin and Christian Schmitt. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 538–56. [Google Scholar]
  152. Trovato, Salvatore C. 2002. La Sicilia. In I dialetti italiani. Storia, struttura, uso. Edited by Manlio Cortelazzo, Carla Marcato, Nicola De Blasi and Gianrenzo P. Clivio. Torino: UTET, pp. 834–97. [Google Scholar]
  153. Trovato, Salvatore C. 2013. Lingue alloglotte e minoranze. In Lingue e Culture in Sicilia. Edited by G. Ruffino. Palermo: Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, pp. 275–304. [Google Scholar]
  154. Trovato, Salvatore C., and Salvatore Menza. 2020. Vocabolario del dialetto galloitalico di Nicosia e Sperlinga. Palermo: Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani. [Google Scholar]
  155. Trumper, John. 1972. Il gruppo dialettale padovano-polesano. La sua unità, le sue ramificazioni. Padova: Rebellato. [Google Scholar]
  156. Trumper, John. 1997. Calabria and Southern Basilicata. In The Dialects of Italy. Edited by Martin Maiden and Mair Parry. London: Routledge, pp. 355–64. [Google Scholar]
  157. Tsoulas, George. 2009. On the Grammar of Number and Mass Terms in Greek. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 56: 131–46. [Google Scholar]
  158. Ugolini, Francesco A. 1959. Testi volgari abruzzesi del Duecento. Torino: Rosenberg e&Sellier. [Google Scholar]
  159. Urgese, Tommaso. 2003. Grammatica del dialetto del Salento Settentrionale. Mesagne: Regione Puglia. [Google Scholar]
  160. Valente, Vincenzo. 1975. Puglia. Pisa: Pacini. [Google Scholar]
  161. Van Craenenbroek, Jeroen, Mario van Koppen, and Antal van den Bosch. 2019. A quantitative- theoretical analysis of syntactic microvariation. Word order in Dutch verb clusters. Language 95: 333–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Varvaro, Alberto. 1981. Lingua e storia in Sicilia. Dalle guerre puniche alla conquista normanna. Palermo: Sellerio. [Google Scholar]
  163. Vezzosi, Martina. 2019. Le strutture nominali del casalasco: Analisi di comparazione parametrica. Bachelor’s thesis, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. [Google Scholar]
  164. Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 639–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Definite and bare kind-denoting Noun Phrases. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory. Selected Papers of Going Romance 2000. Edited by Claire Beyssade, Reineke Bok-Bennema, Frank Drijkoningen and Paola Monachesi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 305–43. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Number and gender distinctions on definite articles.
Table 1. Number and gender distinctions on definite articles.
Languagem.sgf.sgm.plf.pl
Casalmaggiore, Savignanoal, ellaili
Parma, Reggio Emilia, Novellara, Correggioallaial
Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Amalfi, Palma Campania60oae[-RF]e[+RF]
Botrugnouaie
Teramo, Felitto, Cellino San Marco, Mesagne, Reggio Calabrialulali
Bari (BA), Taranto (TA)ula (BA)
a (TA)
Barletta, Francavilla in Sinni, Verbicaro, Cutro, Nicastro, Catanzaro, Sicily (incl. Aidone)uai
Table 2. Number marking on N and bare nouns.
Table 2. Number marking on N and bare nouns.
Number on NBare Nouns
(1)CasalmaggioreS/0NO
(2)ParmaS/0NO
(3)Reggio EmiliaS/0NO
(4)NovellaraS/0NO
(5)CorreggioS/0NO
(6)Savignano sul RubiconeS/0/MNO
(7)Teramoə/MNO*
(8)Santa Maria Capua Vetereə/MNO*
(9)Amalfiə/MYES
(10)Palma Campaniaə/MNO*
(11)FelittoSYES
(12)Bariə/MNO*
(13)Barlettaə/MNO*
(14)Tarantoə/MYES
(15)Francavilla in Sinniə/MYES
(16)VerbicaroS/əYES
(17)Cellino San MarcoSYES
(18)MesagneSYES
(19)BotrugnoSYES
(20)CutroSYES
(21)NicastroSYES
(22)CatanzaroSYES
(23)Reggio CalabriaSYES
(24)San Filippo del MelaSYES
(25)RagusaSYES
(26)RiberaSYES
(27)MussomeliSYES
(28)TrapaniSYES
(29)AidoneS/əYES
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Guardiano, C.; Cambria, M.; Stalfieri, V. Number Morphology and Bare Nouns in Some Romance Dialects of Italy. Languages 2022, 7, 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7040255

AMA Style

Guardiano C, Cambria M, Stalfieri V. Number Morphology and Bare Nouns in Some Romance Dialects of Italy. Languages. 2022; 7(4):255. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7040255

Chicago/Turabian Style

Guardiano, Cristina, Michela Cambria, and Vincenzo Stalfieri. 2022. "Number Morphology and Bare Nouns in Some Romance Dialects of Italy" Languages 7, no. 4: 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7040255

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop