The Morphosyntax of Kinship Terms and Enclitic Possessive Constructions in the Dialect of Ardore Superiore

THE MORPHOSYNTAX OF KINSHIP TERMS AND ENCLITIC POSSESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE DIALECT OF ARDORE SUPERIORE

Sonia Masi University of Western Ontario

Introduction

From a linguistic point of view, Italy is considered one of the most heterogeneous and diverse countries in Europe, as there are still hundreds of regional, non-standard varieties spoken by over half of Italy’s population (Coluzzi 2009). These non-standard varieties (often inaccurately referred to as ‘Italian dialects’) are widely considered to be separate varieties from Standard Italian, despite the fact that they all descended from the Vulgar Latin spoken in Italy during the period of the Roman Empire (Clivio et al. 2011). Thus, it is unsurprising that they differ from one another and from Standard Italian with respect to certain morpho-syntactic phenomena. Significant variation among the dialects can be seen, for instance, in the area of possession, especially in the possession of inalienable nouns (Cardinaletti and Giusti 2018, Trionfera 2018, Ledgeway 2016, etc.). In the dialects spoken in northern Italy (roughly the regions of Valle D’Aosta, Piedmonte, Liguria, Lombardia, Emilia-Romagna, Veneto, Friuli-Venezia Giulia and Trentino-Alto Adige), pre- nominal possessive adjectives are generally used in the possession of kinship nouns, a subclass of inalienable nouns (Cardinaletti and Giusti 2018). Conversely, in the dialects spoken in southern Italy and in parts of central Italy (roughly the regions of Molise, Abruzzo, Campania, Basilicata, Apulia and Calabria), the use of enclitic possessives (henceforth EPs) is widespread and preferred over possessive adjectives in the possession of kinship nouns, especially with 1SG and 2SG possessors (Trionfera 2018). EPs are bound, post-nominal possessive forms that attach almost exclusively to the class of kinship terms, and they are a well-documented phenomenon that does not exist in the dialects of northern Italy, nor in Standard Italian. In this paper, I examine the class of kinship nouns and the syntactic distribution of EPs in an undocumented, emigrated dialect of southern Italy: the dialect of Ardore Superiore (DAS), which is spoken by Italian-Montrealers who were born in the Calabrian town of Ardore Superiore in the early twentieth century and the children of these immigrants. Moreover, I compare these kinship nouns and EPs with those that occur in the EP constructions of the other dialects of central and southern Italy (hereafter the DSI). The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to explain why EPs only attach to a specific subclass of kinship nouns in the DAS by exploring their semantic, morphological and phonological restrictions on this nominal class; second, to discuss the syntactic distribution of EPs in the nominal domain and to evaluate previous syntactic proposals on EP constructions with respect to the EP phenomenon in the DAS. Thus, this paper aims to answer the following research questions:

1. Which kinship nouns belong to the semantic class of kinship nouns that can be enclitically possessed in the DAS? 2. To which of the morpho-phonological forms of these specific kinship terms do EPs in the DAS attach? 3. What is the syntactic position of EPs in the nominal domain? © 2021 Sonia Masi Western Papers in Linguistics / Cahiers linguistiques de Western

4. Do the syntactic analyses of EP constructions in the DSI account for the EP constructions in the DAS? 5. If not, in which areas are these syntactic proposals lacking?

This paper is organized into three major parts (Part I, Part II and Part III). Part I discusses my research methodology and provides an introduction to the topic of inalienable possession in the DSI. Part II and Part III are dedicated to addressing my research questions. Part II explores the semantic and morpho-phonological features of the class of kinship nouns that occur in EP constructions of the DAS. More specifically, in section 4 of Part II, I discuss how the class of kinship nouns is semantically distinct from other sub-classes of inalienable nouns, which is why it is often singled out for special morpho-syntactic treatment in the world’s languages (subsection 4.1). I also discuss the class of kinship nouns from a typological and anthropological perspective (subsections 4.2 and 4.3, respectively). Finally, I explore the DAS-specific definitions of family under which a kinship term in the DAS must fall in order for it to be enclitically possessed (subsection 4.4). In the following section (section 5), I discuss the role that morphology plays in restricting the set of kinship terms to which EPs in the DAS attach (subsection 5.1). I also discuss which kinship nouns in the DAS undergo a change in phonological form in EP constructions and what those phonological changes are (subsection 5.2). Part III examines the syntactic distribution of EPs in the DAS and evaluates the previous syntactic analyses of EP constructions in the DSI. More specifically, in section 6 of Part III, I explore the claim that EPs are in complementary distribution with determiners in the DSI and the DAS. I also demonstrate that determiners are exceptionally excluded with possessive adjectives in Standard Italian when the possessee is an unmodified, singular kinship noun (subsection 6.1). This leads to the discussion on Penello (2002), which addresses why singular, unmodified kinship nouns in Standard Italian behave differently from other kinship nouns with regards to the definite article (subsection 6.2). In the same subsection, I also discuss the limitations of the proposal. Subsequently (in subsection 6.3), I attempt to address these limitations by exploring Longobardi’s influential (1994; 1996) N to D-raising analysis of proper nouns and how it relates to kinship nouns. In section 7, I discuss two syntactic analyses of EP constructions in the DSI: one that adopts Longobardi’s (1994; 1996) N to D-raising analysis and one that argues in favour of a small clause analysis. More specifically, I discuss Fahrnbach’s (2019) syntactic analysis of EP constructions across the DSI (subsection 7.1), followed by D’Alessandro and Migliori’s (2017) small clause analysis of EP constructions in the region of Abruzzo (subsection 7.2). Ultimately, I argue in favour of Fahrnbach’s (2019) analysis for the DAS, as there is insufficient evidence for a small clause analysis. Finally, I provide a conclusion that revisits the main points raised throughout this paper.

Part I: Methodology and Inalienable Possession in the DSI

1. Research Methodology

In this section, I discuss how my research was designed to investigate the EPs and the class of kinship nouns in the DAS, all with the aim of addressing the research questions of this paper.

1.1. Recruitment

For this research, it was necessary to reach out to native speakers of the DAS. This was done through phone calls and house visits. I am a member of the community that includes native speakers

3 of the DAS (my mother is the child of parents who were born and raised in the town of Ardore Superiore before immigrating to Montreal in the 1960s), so I was able to recruit my family members and paesani1 without any recruitment materials. Everyone I reached out to expressed a desire to have their dialect documented, so I did not encounter any issues in the recruitment process.

1.2. Participants

A total of ten native speakers of the DAS participated in this study. The participants live in the Greater Montreal area (specifically the city of Laval and the neighbourhoods of Montreal-Nord and St. Leonard) and belong to roughly the same socio-economic class (upper middle-class or middle-class). There was an equal number of male and female participants, and of the ten total speakers, three of the participants were born in the town of Ardore Superiore, while seven were first generation Italian-Canadians born to these immigrants. The participants were between the ages of 45 and 90 years old; thus, I elicited information from two generations of speakers. The older generation included both monolingual speakers of the DAS and late bilinguals of French (learning French in their twenties and thirties). The younger generation, on the other hand, included only native speakers of the DAS that attained near-native fluency in English and French in early childhood. It is unlikely that there was any transfer from English or French, considering it is usually a speaker’s second or third language that exhibits transfer from the dominant language, which, in this case, would be the DAS (Ard and Homburg 1983). Furthermore, EP constructions do not exist in these other languages. It is important to note that the only criteria that the participants had to meet for this research was native fluency in the DAS and permanent residency in Montreal. I chose the community of speakers in Montreal because it is the only community that I had access to that speaks the DAS fluently outside of Italy.

1.3. Interview Procedure

Twelve interviews were conducted in total; eight participants were interviewed once, and two participants were interviewed twice. The participants that were interviewed twice belonged to different generations. The interviews ranged from 30 minutes long to almost 2 hours. On average, however, the interviews were approximately 45 minutes long. Before the interviews began, I had my participants sign a document that outlined to what they would be consenting by participating in this research. Once consent was established, then I proceeded with my interviews, which were audio-recorded. The participants were asked to give acceptability judgments on EP constructions with different types of kinship nouns. The possessive structures were delivered orally, as the DAS does not have a written tradition. For the most part, they were asked yes/no questions of the type:

1. ‘Do you find this construction grammatical in your dialect? Italian: Pensi tu che questa struttura sia grammaticale in dialetto?2

1 Paesani is a word Italian-Americans and Italian-Canadians who speak a dialect of central or southern Italy use to refer to friends and acquaintances who come from the same village in Italy (Shaffer 2006). 2 The questions were asked in Standard Italian for the three participants who understand very little English and French. My participants are all passive speakers of Italian; they all comprehend it (due to continued exposure to Italian television, radio, etc.), but none have an active command of it. Consequently, none of my participants responded to my questions in Standard Italian during the interview. Considering I am a passive speaker of the DAS and a fluent speaker of Italian, it is expected that I speak Italian to

2. ‘Do you prefer this construction over this one?’ Italian: Preferisci questa struttura o quell’altra?

3. ‘If I replace this noun with this noun, does it change how you feel about the grammaticality of this construction?’

4. Italian: Se sostituisco questo sostantivo con quell’altro, pensi che questa struttura sia ancora grammaticale?

The possessive constructions in question were carefully selected prior to the interview; an interview guide was followed. The possessive constructions differed in the types of nouns, nominal modifiers and determiners that were used or omitted. The participants were also asked open-ended questions about their family life growing up, with the goal of having the participants provide naturalistic data on these EP constructions. The following are some examples of the open-ended questions that my participants were asked:3

1. Do you have an anecdote about your siblings when they were younger that you would like to share? 2. Do you have an anecdote about yourself when you were younger that you would like to share? 3. Can you describe what your daily life was like with your family in Italy? 4. Who belongs to your nuclear/extended/religious family? Which of your family members do not belong to these categories?

In the next section, I introduce the topic of inalienable possession in the DSI, which is the type of possession to which EP constructions in the DAS belong. It is imperative to discuss the alienable/inalienable distinction when researching kinship nouns, EP constructions and other possessive constructions in the DSI (Silvestri 2013, D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017, Fahrnbach 2019, etc.), which is why it is explored in this section.

2. Introduction to Inalienable Possession in the DSI

Possession is expressed in various different ways in the DSI. The most common possessive constructions include, but are not limited to, constructions with tonic possessive adjectives, copular possessive structures, the non-prepositional genitive, the prepositional genitive, and enclitics (Silvestri 2013, D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017, Cardinaletti and Giusti 2018, etc.). For the most part, these possessive constructions occur and pattern similarly across the Romance varieties (van Peteghem 2012). However, possessive constructions with enclitics are quite rare, which is why their syntactic distribution is a topic of interest to Romance linguists who study possession in the DSI (van Peteghem 2012, Silvestri 2013, D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017, Trionfera 2018, Fahrnbach 2019, etc.).

the elders of my community while they respond with the DAS. This is not uncommon, which is why it is unlikely that the use of Standard Italian in this setting caused any interference in the pursuit of documenting the DAS. 3 In the interest of space, I do not include the Italian translations of these questions.

The DSI have the most common binary possessive class system, which means that they distinguish between two types of possession: alienable and inalienable possession (Nichols 2005). Inalienable possession is a type of possession in which the possessed noun has a “permanent or necessary relationship to its possessor” (Crystal 2008: 239). In other words, nouns that are classified as inalienable have an implicit possessor; body parts terms, kinship terms and terms referring to part-whole relations (such as ‘top’) typically belong to this semantic class of nouns (which is further discussed in section 4) (Lichtenberk, Vaid and Chen 2011). Languages with the alienable/inalienable distinction in their possessive systems often reflect this distinction morphologically or syntactically (Nichols 1988), and the DSI are no exception. In the DSI, the non- prepositional genitive, the copular possessive structures and the possessive constructions with enclitics are used exclusively in the possession of inalienable nouns, which means that this distinction is marked syntactically in these dialects. In the following subsections, I describe the non-prepositional genitive and the copular possessive structures. A separate section that follows is dedicated to the EP constructions in the DSI, as they are the focus of this paper.

2.1. The Non-Prepositional Genitive

Like in many Romance varieties, possession can be expressed with the genitive case in the DSI. In these possessive constructions, the possessor is a full DP (a proper name, definite description, etc.), and it is assigned the genitive case by a form of the preposition ‘of’ (D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017):

(1) Abruzzese (the dialect of Abuzzo): la 'makənə də [DPDʒu'wannə] DET.F.SG car(F).SG of Giovanni ‘Giovanni’s car’ (D’Alessandro and Migliori (2017)

In example (1), the possessor Dʒu'wannə ‘Giovanni’ of the noun 'makənə ‘car’ is assigned the genitive case by the preposition də ‘of’ in the dialect of Abruzzo (D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017). This is generally how the genitive case is assigned across the DSI and other Romance varieties (Cardinaletti 1998, van Peteghem 2012). However, unlike some Romance languages, this ‘prepositional’ genitive is used only in the possession of alienable nouns in the DSI. For the class of inalienable nouns, the genitive case is assigned abstractly to the possessor. In other words, the genitive case is assigned without the use of any preposition (D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017). The class of nouns that appears in these constructions includes the DSI terms for ‘house’, body parts (such as in example [2]), kinship terms (such as in example [3]), and place names:

(2) The dialect of Saracena, a town in Cosenza (Calabria): a 'kjand-a a 'manə DET.F.SG palm-F.SG DET.F.SG hand(F).SG ‘the palm of the hand’ (Silvestri 2016)

(3) The dialect of Vebicaro, a town in Cosenza (Calabria): ʊ 'frwatə a mbər'mɛr-a DET.M.SG brother(M).SG DET.F.SG nurse-F.SG ‘the brother of the nurse’ (Silvestri 2016)

In examples (2-3), the genitive case is assigned to the possessors 'manə ‘hand’ and mbər'mɛr- a ‘nurse’ of the nouns kjand-a ‘palm’ and frwatə ‘brother’, respectively. However, unlike in example (1), there is no overt preposition in these constructions, which means that the genitive case has been assigned abstractly (D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017). With that in mind, if a given noun can be the possessee in a non-prepositional genitive possessive construction, then it is considered to be an inalienable noun in that dialect. If that is the case, it is also allowed to occur in copular possessive constructions, which are discussed in the next subsection.

2.2. The Copular Possessive Constructions

In most of the DSI, inalienable possession can also be expressed with two types of copular constructions, one of which is exemplified below (D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017):

(4) The dialect spoken in Castro dei Volsci, a commune in the Lazio region: a. 'sɔngǝ 'fiʎʎ-a a t'te COP.1SG daughter-F.SG to DAT.2SG ‘I am your daughter (Lit: I am daughter to you).’

b. 'Mariǝ t' ɛ 'fiʎʎ-ǝ Mario 2SG.DAT COP.3SG son-M.SG ‘Mario is your son.’ (D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017)

The examples in (4) show that the copular structure can be realized as a type of ‘dative possessive’ (D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017). In (4a), the possessor is marked by the preposition a ‘to’, which often assigns dative case in the DSI and in most of the Romance languages (van Peteghem 2012). In (4b), the possessor is marked by the morpheme t’ , which is a dative-assigning morpheme (D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017). This type of copular construction is used most often with kinship terms, such as 'fiʎʎ-a ‘daughter’ in (4a) and 'fiʎʎǝ ‘son’ in (4b). In the following example, we see the copular structure realized as a type of ‘locative genitive’4 (Silvestri 2013):

(5) The dialect of Verbicaro: jɛ (*lu) 'fiɟɟ-ǝ a Pi'truttsǝ COP.3SG DET.M.SG son-M.SG to Pietruzzo ‘He is the son of Pietruzzo.’ (Silvestri 2013)

In this ‘locative genitive’ copular construction, the possessor is also marked by the preposition a ‘to’. This is illustrated in example (5), where the possessor Pi'truttsǝ is preceded by the preposition a. However, according to Silvestri (2013) and D’Alessandro and Migliori (2017), this preposition assigns genitive (not dative) case to the possessor in these constructions. Both copular constructions express inalienable possession; however, the ‘locative genitive’ copular construction can also be used to express the possession of homes, other types of real-estate property, and even means of transportation, which do not typically belong to the category of inalienable nouns. These nouns are exceptions, however, as the ‘locative genitive’ copular

4 This term is adopted from D’Alessandro and Di Sciullo (2009).

7 construction crucially does not express the possession of other types of alienable nouns, such as ‘book’, ‘chair’, etc. (Silvestri 2016):

(6) The dialect of Verbicaro: *jɛ 'libbr-ǝ a Pi'truttsǝ COP.3SG book-M.SG to Pietruzzo ‘*It’s the book of Pietruzzo.’ (Silvestri 2013)

In the following section, I discuss the final possessive structure that encodes inalienable possession in the DSI: EP constructions. I introduce this topic by exploring where EP constructions are attested in Italy today.

3. Introduction to EP Constructions in the Dialects of Italy

EP constructions are inalienable possessive structures that are most prevalent among the dialects of southern Italy. The phenomenon of EP constructions is generally found in the dialects spoken in the regions of Abruzzo, Molise, Campania, Basilicata, Puglia and northern Calabria (Fahrnbach 2019, Ledgeway 2016, Trionfera 2018, etc.). However, EP constructions are also attested in some central dialects of Italy, namely in those spoken in the regions of Lazio, Marche and Umbria (according to AIS Map 13 [Jaberg and Jud 1928-1940]):

(7) Map of Italian regions where EP constructions are attested:

(Ferrara and Nisticò 2013)

Careful examination of the AIS maps (Jaberg and Jud 1928-1940) reveals that EP constructions are not found in the dialects spoken in southern Calabria, specifically in the dialects spoken in the province of Reggio Calabria, the most southern province of Calabria and of the entire Italian peninsula. Furthermore, they are unattested in the dialects spoken in the province of Potenza in the Basilicata region and in the dialects spoken on the island of Sicily (Ledgeway 2016). With that in mind, the DAS is expected to not have any EP constructions, considering it originates from the town of Ardore Superiore, which is 92 km away from the city of Reggio, the largest city in the province of Reggio Calabria:

(8) Map of Calabria:

(Ferrara and Nisticò 2013)

However, this is not the case; thus, the prevalence of EP constructions in this dialect is, at the very least, interesting to those researching possession in the DSI. The EP constructions in the DAS share many similarities with the EP constructions across the DSI; however, there are some significant differences in both the morphosyntactic behaviour of EPs and the types of inalienable nouns to which these EPs attach. In the next section, I describe the forms of the EPs in the DSI and the types of inalienable nouns that occur in EP constructions.

3.1. EP Constructions in the DSI

EPs in the DSI are atonic (unstressed) possessive forms that attach as suffixes to inalienable nouns to form a unique possessive structure. They are morphologically restricted; these EPs tend to have invariable forms (they do not agree with the noun to which they attach), and they seldom present a full paradigm (not all persons have an EP form). However, there are some exceptions; for instance, in the dialect of Giffoni Montecorvino (spoken in the region of Campania) and the dialect of Mascioni (spoken in the region of Abuzzo), the EPs change their form (specifically their vowels) to indicate that the possessee is plural. The form of the noun to which the EP attaches (the stem) remains the same, regardless of number (Manzini and Savoia 2005):

(9) The dialect of Giffoni Montecorvino: a. fiʎʎə-me/-te son(M)[.SG]-1SG/2SG.SG.POSS ‘my/your son’

b. ˈfiʎʎə-mi/-ti son(M)[.PL]-1SG/2SG.PL.POSS ‘my/your sons’ (Manzini and Savoia 2005)

The dialect of Amandola (spoken in the region of Marche) is another exception to this generalization. In this dialect, both the noun and the EP that attaches to it change form; crucially, the EP always agrees with the gender and number features of the stem:

(10) The dialect of Amandola: a. ˈfijju-mu/ˈfijji-mi son(M).SG-1SG.M.SG.POSS/son(M).PL-1SG.M.PL.POSS ‘my son/my sons’

b. ˈfijja-ma/ˈfijje-me daughter(F).SG-1SG.F.SG.POSS/daughter(F).PL-1SG.F.PL.POSS ‘my daughter/my daughters’ (Fahrnbach 2019)

In most cases, however, the EPs in the DSI are syncretic (the masculine-singular form is the same as the feminine-plural form, etc.). Thus, the local syntactic context (e.g. adjectival agreement, verbal agreement, etc.) is usually responsible for indicating the number (and sometimes the gender) of the possessee. In cases where the local syntactic context fails to indicate the gender and number of the noun (for instance when the features of the modifying adjectives are not overt either), the discourse context is then responsible (Fahrnbach 2019). In terms of the paradigms of EPs, they are often incomplete; there are generally only forms for 1SG and 2SG possessors. For the remaining persons (3SG, 1/2/3PL), post-nominal, tonic possessive adjectives that agree in gender and number with the possessee are used (Silvestri 2016):

(11) The dialect of Verbicaro: a. ˈpatrə/zɪjə-ma father(M).SG/aunt(F).SG-1SG.POSS ‘my father/aunt’

b. ˈpatrə/zɪjə-ta father(M).SG/aunt(F).SG-2SG.POSS ‘your father/aunt’ (Silvestri 2013)

c. u ˈpatrə suva/nuəst(r)ə/vuəst(r)ə/lòrə DET.MSG father(M).SG his;her/our/your(PL)/their.M.SG “his/her/our/your(pl)/their father’ (Silvestri 2016)

There are also adjectival forms for the 1SG and 2SG; however, the use of EPs is more widespread for these persons (D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017, Cardinaletti and Giusti 2018, Sotiri 2007, Silvestri 2013; 2016, etc.). Although most DSI only have invariable EP forms for the 1SG and 2SG, the dialects of Salento, Gallipoli and of central Calabria also have an invariable EP form for the 3SG (Sotiri 2007):

(12) The dialect of Gallipoli: ˈfrau-ma/ta/sa brother(M).SG-1SG/2SG/3SG.POSS ‘My/your/his/her brother’ (Sotiri 2007)

Like for the 1SG and 2SG, the use of the 3SG EP form in these dialects is more prevalent than the use of a 3SG possessive adjective (Sotiri 2007).

According to Silvestri (2013), EPs in the DSI display a hierarchical and implicational ordering. Considering most of the DSI only have EPs for the 1SG and 2SG, and that the use of the 2SG form is more widespread (in discourse), Silvestri (2013) suggests that, if a dialect were to only have one EP form, it would be for the 2SG. Moreover, if a dialect has an EP form for the 3SG, then it necessarily has EP forms for the 1SG and 2SG. In very few DSI, the 1SG, 2SG and 3SG EP forms can be interpreted as EP forms for the 1PL, 2PL and 3PL, respectively. This is especially true for the 3SG EP. In order for this interpretation to occur, however, the definite article must be included in the EP construction:

(13) The dialect of Verzino (a commune in the region of Calabria): a. a tsiə-sa DET.F.SG aunt(F)[.SG]-3PL.F.SG.POSS ‘*his/*her/their aunt’

b. tsiə-sa aunt(F)[.SG]-3SG.F.SG.POSS ‘his/her/*their aunt’ (Fahrnbach 2019)

In other DSI, there are distinct EP forms for the 1PL and 2PL. They are considered to be reduced forms of the 1PL and 2PL possessive adjectives nostro and vostro, respectively (Fahrnbach 2019):

(14) The dialect of Sonnino (a comune in the region of Lazio): nepute-no/-vo grandson(M)[.SG]-1PL/2PL.POSS ‘our/your(PL) grandson’ (Fahrnbach 2019)

In terms of the classes of nouns to which EPs in the DSI attach, it is generally the case that EPs only attach to a particular sub-set of inalienable nouns: kinship terms. However, there are some exceptions. First, there are some DSI that allow EPs to attach to the term for ‘hand’ (Rohlfs 1968, D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017), which fall under the inalienable class of body part terms:

(15) Pugliese (spoken in the region of Apulia): 'manə-sə hand(F).SG-3SG.POSS ‘his/her hand (Rohlfs 1968)

According to Rohlfs (1968), these EP constructions are rare across the DSI. Furthermore, no other body part term can be enclitically possessed (these EP constructions are also unattested in Manzini and Savoia’s [2005] survey of 75 DSI). Second, many DSI allow the term ‘house’ to be enclitically possessed, even though the term generally belongs to the class of alienable nouns (Rohlfs 1968):

(16) The dialect of Castro dei Volsci: 'kasə-m-a casa(F).SG-1SG.F.POSS ‘my house’ (Rohlfs 1968)

The term for ‘house’ seems to be the only exception to the rule that EPs in the DSI must attach to inalienable nouns. Fahrnbach (2019) argues that there are anthropological reasons5 for why certain dialects treat the term ‘house’ as inalienable. In any case, as an inalienable noun in these DSI, they behave just like canonical inalienable nouns in possessive constructions. There is diachronic evidence that shows that EP constructions in the DSI and in Old Sicilian were also once used as a polite form of address or to refer to a lord. This is also not considered to be inalienable possession (Fahrnbach 2019):

(17) Old Sicilian: cara-ma dear(F).SG-1SG.F.SG.POSS ‘my dear’ (Fahrnbach 2019)

(18) Old Tuscan: signor-so lord(M).SG-his/her.M.SG ‘his/her lord’ (Fahrnbach 2019)

This, however, is unattested in the modern DSI (Manzini and Savoia 2005, Fahrnbach 2019). Thus, it is also unlikely to be attested in the DAS. In the next section, I give a brief introduction to the EP constructions in the DAS. More specifically, I compare the paradigm and forms of the EPs in the DAS with the paradigms and forms of the EPs in the rest of the DSI. Moreover, I discuss whether the DAS belongs to the group of dialects that allows terms such as ‘hand’ and ‘house’ to be enclitically possessed, in addition to kinship nouns. A detailed discussion on which nouns constitute the semantic class of nouns that can occur with EPs in the DAS begins in section 4.

3.2. Introduction to EP Constructions in the DAS

Like most of the DSI, the EPs in the DAS have invariable forms; they do not agree with the possessee. However, unlike most of the DSI, the DAS has an EP form for the 3SG, which means that the paradigm for EPs in the DAS is similar to those found in the dialects of Salento, Gallipoli and central Calabria. The following is a comprehensive chart of the EPs in the DAS:

(19) Paradigm for enclitic possessives in the dialect of Ardore Superiore: Person Enclitic Possessive Person Enclitic Possessive 1SG -mə 1PL N/A 2SG -tə 2PL N/A 3SG -sə 3PL N/A

5 In most Italian communities, homes necessarily belong to a multi-generational family unit. Few new homes are constructed in many parts of southern Italy, and these homes are often passed down to the next generation. The transfer of housing wealth and property is usually meant to solidify the family unit, which is why homes are rarely sold to those outside that family unit (Filandri and Bertolini 2016).

As the chart in (19) shows, there are no distinct forms for the 1PL and 2PL, which means that the DAS is unlike the DSI that have 1PL and 2PL EP forms that derive from the 1PL and 2PL possessive adjectives nostro and vostro. Furthermore, unlike the dialect of Verzino in (13), there are no cases in which the 1SG, 2SG and 3SG EPs in the DAS can be interpreted as EPs for the 1PL, 2PL and 3PL. For instance, unlike the example in (13a), including the definite article in an EP construction does not change the original interpretation of the EP:

(20) The DAS: *a sore-sa DET.F.SG sister(F).SG-3SG.POSS ‘*their sister’

The interpretation of the 3SG EP in (20) does not change to 3PL when the definite article is included. In fact, including the definite article renders the EP construction completely ungrammatical (see section 6 for the discussion on the syntactic distribution of EPs in the DAS). With regards to the semantic classes of nouns to which the EPs in the DAS attach, it appears that the EPs in the DAS are more restricted than the EPs in the majority of the DSI. The EPs cannot, for instance, attach to body part terms, such as the term for ‘hand’:

(21) The DAS: *'manə-mə/tə/sə hand(F).SG-1SG/2SG/3SG.POSS ‘my/your/his/her hand’

Moreover, they cannot attach to the term for ‘house’ (or any other term that refers to personal property), despite the fact that it is quite common for EPs to attach to these terms in the rest of the DSI:

(22) The DAS: *'kasə-mə casa(F).SG-1SG.POSS ‘my house’

Thus, it appears that the EPs in the DAS are restricted to the class of kinship nouns, like the majority of the DSI:

(23) The DAS: a. fratə-mə/tə/se brother(M).SG-1SG/2SG/3SG.POSS ‘my/your/his/her brother’

b. mugghierə-mə/tə/sə wife(F).SG-1SG/2SG/3SG.POSS ‘my/your/his/her wife’

In the next section, I explore what separates the class of kinship nouns from other subclasses of inalienable nouns from a semantic point of view. The aim is to provide a possible semantic explanation for why this particular class of inalienable nouns is marked distinctly from other subclasses of inalienable nouns in the morpho-syntax of the DSI and the DAS.

Part II: The Semantics and Morphophonology of Kinship Nouns in the DAS

4. Introduction to the Semantic Class of Kinship Nouns

In semantics, the class of kinship nouns is defined as a group of lexical items that express personal relationships within the immediate and extended family (Crystal 2008). Kinship nouns are different from other inalienable nouns primarily because the relations they express necessarily “involve two participants, one defined with respect to the other” (Aikhenvald 2012:8). Thus, kinship nouns are inherently grouped into kinship noun pairs, such as brother/sister, brother/brother, cousin/cousin, aunt/niece, uncle/nephew, etc. Crucially, the kinship nouns within these pairs have a converse relationship with one another. For instance, the term ‘uncle’ is considered the converse of the term ‘nephew’ (or ‘niece’). More importantly, any member of the kinship noun pair presupposes the existence of the other member (Crystal 2008). For instance, a statement such as, ‘My cousin Alana hates broccoli’, not only presupposes that there is a person named Alana who is my cousin and that I have a cousin whose name is Alana; it presupposes that I am the cousin of this Alana as well. This type of semantic dependence does not exist in other classes of inalienable nouns. For instance, the body part term ‘mouth’ does not have a converse body part term, nor does it presuppose the existence of any other body part term. Thus, the relational aspect of kinship terms ultimately distinguishes the class of kinship nouns from other inalienable noun classes. Another important semantic difference between body part nouns and kinship nouns is that body part nouns denote a part of their possessor, while kinship nouns denote a full person. Thus, kinship nouns are animate, while body part terms are inanimate. According to Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001) and Lødrup (2014), the fact that these two subclasses of inalienable nouns have different [+/-animate] features has significant consequences on their syntactic representation and discourse status. Crucially, their possession is likely to be different in many of the world’s languages. With that in mind, the DAS and most of the DSI likely belong to the group of languages that must differentiate between the class of kinship nouns and the class of body part terms in possessive constructions, which is why kinship nouns can be enclitically possessed and body part terms cannot. In this section, I provided some semantic motivation for the recognition of the class of kinship nouns as a separate sub-class of inalienable nouns. I also explored a possible explanation for why EPs in the DSI attach exclusively to kinship nouns. In the next section, I discuss the typology of kinship nouns and how the typology may explain why only specific kinship nouns appear in EP constructions in the DAS. EPs cannot attach to the entire set of kinship nouns, and this is discussed throughout Part II.

4.1. The Typology of Kinship Terms

According to Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001), some important terminology for possessive constructions with kinship terms includes ‘anchor’, ‘ego’6, ‘referent’, ‘ascending kinship terms’, ‘horizontal kinship terms’ and ‘descending kinship terms.’ In this section, I first explore the terms ‘anchor’, ‘ego ’ and ‘referent’ and how these terms are important in determining the possible uses and functions of kinship terms in a given sentence. Last, I explore the terms ‘ascending kinship terms’, ‘horizontal kinship terms’ and ‘descending kinship terms’, and discuss their significance in this paper. In every possessive construction that involves kinship terms, the ego is the possessor, while the referent is the possessee (Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001); for instance, in the possessive construction ‘John’s mother’, ‘mother’ is the referent, while ‘John’ is the ego. The term ‘mother’ is considered the referent because the entire possessive construction refers to her. Conversely, the proper name ‘John’ is considered the ego because the term ‘mother’ is only considered the referent based on her relation to the term ‘John’. In these types of possessive constructions, the referent is always present; the ego, on the other hand, may only be implicitly known (Dahl and Koptjevskaja- Tamm 2001). Going back to my example, the ego is explicitly known to be ‘John’. However, in an example such as ‘Mom is sick’, no ego is explicitly expressed; nevertheless, the utterance is still implicitly understood to refer to the speaker’s mother (unless otherwise indicated) (Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001). According to Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001), there are five ways that speakers use kinship terms in a given discourse context. In the classification of each use, ‘the identity of the anchor’ is essential (Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001:2):

(24) Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm’s (2001) ‘taxonomy of uses’

a. Egocentric use: a kinship noun is used egocentrically whenever the speaker is the anchor. The anchor can also include the listener in this use (consider the case where someone’s sister says to them: ‘Are mom and dad coming?’). b. Non-egocentric use: a kinship noun is used non-egocentrically whenever the speaker is not the anchor. In other words, the speaker refers to a different anchor in the utterance (consider the case where a husband says to his wife: ‘Are grandma and grandpa coming?’; in this case, the anchor is their children). c. In-family use: an ‘in-family’ kinship noun is used whenever the speaker, the listeners and the anchor of the kinship noun belong to the same family. d. Out-of-family use: an ‘out-of-family’ kinship noun is used whenever the speaker, the listeners and the anchor of the kinship noun do not belong to the same family. e. Proper name-like use: a kinship noun is used like a proper name whenever it has a unique referent in the discourse context (e.g. Gianni Romeo’s mother likes cheese). (Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001:2)

With regards to the EP constructions in the DAS, it appears that all five uses of kinship nouns can be expressed:

6 The term ‘ego’ is synonymous with the term ‘anchor’, so I use these terms interchangeably.

(25) The ‘taxonomy of uses’ in the DAS:

a. Egocentric use: fratə-mə vaya sə kurkə. brother(M).SG-1SG.POSS go.3SG.PRS 3SG.REFL sleep.3SG.PRS ‘My brother is going to bed.’

b. Non-egocentric use: fratə-sə vaya sə kurkə. brother(M).SG-3SG.POSS go.3SG.PRS 3SG.REFL sleep.3SG.PRS ‘His/her brother is going to bed.’

c. In-family use: Warda che fitʃə fidʒə-tə! Look.IMP what did.3SG.PST son/daughter(M/F).SG-2SG.POSS ‘Look what your son/daughter did!’

d. Out-of-family use: sɔrə-sə non mangiə carne sister(F)[.SG]-3SG.POSS not eat.3SG.PRS meat(F) ‘His sister doesn’t eat meat.’

e. Proper name-like use: patrə-mə me volə bene father(M)[.SG]-1SG.POSS me want.3S.PRS well ‘My father loves me.’

In example (25a), fratə ‘brother’ is used egocentrically, as the speaker of the utterance is the anchor of the kinship noun (this is indicated by the 1SG EP -mə ‘my’). In example (25b), on the other hand, the same kinship noun is used non-egocentrically, as the speaker is not the anchor of the kinship noun (this is indicated by the 3SG EP -sə ‘his/her’). The example in (25c) expresses an ‘in- family use’ of the kinship term fidʒə ‘son/daughter’, if the discourse context is that the speaker is still referring to their own son/daughter, although their son/daughter’s other parent (the listener) is the anchor (this is indicated by the 2SG EP -tə ‘your’). Conversely, the example in (25d) expresses an ‘out-of-family’ use, if the anchor of the kinship term sɔrə ‘sister’ is not a member of the speaker’s family. Finally, the example in (25e) expresses a ‘proper-name like’ use of the kinship term patrə ‘father’, as the EP construction denotes a unique referent in the discourse context. What is important to note about Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm’s (2001) ‘taxonomy of uses’ is that a kinship noun can be used in more than one way in the same utterance. For instance, the example in (25a) can be classified as ‘an out-of-family use’, in addition to ‘an egocentric use’, if the listener is not a member of the speaker’s family. Furthermore, according to Penello (2002), specific kinship nouns are always minimally used like proper nouns in possessive constructions, and this is reflected in their syntactic representation. This possibility is discussed in further detail in subsection 6.2 of Part III. In addition to these ‘taxonomy of uses’, Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001) distinguish three functions that a kinship term can have in a given discourse context. The notion of the ‘referent’ is essential here:

(26) Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm’s (2001) functions of kinship nouns a. vocative function (e.g. ‘Where are you, Daddy?’) b. referential function (e.g. ‘Where is Daddy?’) c. predicative function (e.g. ‘He is my daddy) (Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001:2)

In vocative contexts, kinship nouns necessarily have second-person referents (2SG or 2PL). In predicative contexts, kinship nouns necessarily have third-person referents (3SG or 3PL). In referential contexts, on the other hand, kinship nouns may have first, second, or third person referents (singular or plural) (Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001). This is also true of kinship nouns in EP constructions in the DAS, except that these kinship nouns can never denote plural referents; in vocative and predicative contexts, kinship nouns necessarily have 2SG and 3SG referents, respectively, while in referential contexts, kinship nouns necessarily have 1SG, 2SG or 3SG referents:

(27) The functions of kinship nouns in EP constructions in the DAS: a. vocative use: (i) Che facistə, cuginə-mə? What do.3SG.PST cousin(M/F)[.SG]-1SG.POSS ‘What did you do, cousin of mine?’

(ii) *Che ficeru, cuginə-mə? What do.3PL.PST cousin(M/F)[.PL]-1SG.POSS ‘What did you do, cousins of mine?’

b. referential use: (i) a und’ estə sɔrə-tə? to where be.3SG.PRS sister(F)[.SG]-2SG.POSS ‘Where is your sister?’

(ii) *a unde suni sɔrə-tə to where be.3PL.PRS sister(F)[.PL]-2SG.POSS ‘Where are your sisters?’

c. predicative use: (i) Ѐ fratə-mə be.3SG.PRS brother(M)[.SG]-1SG.POSS ‘He is my brother.’

(ii) *Suni fratə-mə be.3PL.PRS brother(M)[.PL]-1SG.POSS ‘They are my brothers.’

The fact that kinship nouns in EP constructions in the DAS can never denote a plural referent is also further discussed in Part III, as it must be reflected in the syntactic representations of these constructions.

With regards to Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm’s (2001) ‘ascending kinship terms’, ‘descending kinship terms’ and ‘horizontal kinship terms’, their relevance to the analysis of kinship terms in the DAS can be described in the following way. The referent and the ego in a given possessive construction can be from the same or from different generations. In the latter case, the referent either belongs to the category of ascending kinship terms (e.g. ‘father’, ‘mother’, ‘grandfather’ etc.), as the generation of the referent precedes that of the ego, or to the category of descending kinship terms (e.g. ‘son’, ‘daughter’, ‘grandchild’ etc.), as the generation of the referent follows that of the ego. In the former case, the referent and the ego both belong to the category of horizontal kinship terms (e.g. ‘sister’, ‘brother’, ‘cousin’ etc.) (Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001). The direction of kinship relations is illustrated with the following schema:

(28) Direction of kinship relations:7

(Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001)

According to Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001), the most important difference between ascending kinship terms, descending kinship terms and horizontal kinship terms is that ascending kinship terms often have unique referents within a family, while descending kinship terms and horizontal kinship terms often do not. For instance, there can be multiple brothers/sisters (horizontal kinship terms) within a family, but there is usually only one mother and father (ascending kinship terms). It is possible for descending kinship terms and horizontal kinship terms to have unique referents and for ascending kinship terms to have multiple referents, however. For instance, the descending kinship term ‘son’ can simply refer to one person in a family unit, while the ascending kinship term ‘grandmother’ can refer to both the mother of the ego’s mother and the mother of the ego’s father. In any case, this terminology is necessary to define for this work because a given kinship noun is more likely to be used in an EP construction in the DSI if it denotes an ascending relation (e.g. ‘mother’ rather than ‘daughter’), if it refers to a unique referent within the family (e.g. ‘mother’ rather than ‘aunt’) and if the anchor is no more than one generation away from the referent (e.g. ‘mother’ rather than ‘grandmother’) (Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001, Trionfera 2018).8 In other words, kinship terms that do not refer to a unique referent and denote a descending or horizontal relation (such as ‘granddaughter’, etc.) are least likely to be used in an EP construction in the DSI. This terminology is also important for this paper because ascending kinship terms are more likely to undergo phonological changes in EP constructions than descending or horizontal kinship nouns (Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001, Trionfera 2018). This is further discussed in subsection 5.2. In the next section, I discuss the class of kinship terms in anthropology, which leads to a discussion on which definitions of family (or kinship) are relevant for restricting the semantic class of kinship nouns that occur in EP constructions in the DAS.

7 This schema is meant to be understood in the following way: ascending kinship terms to the ego include the terms ‘mother’, ‘father’, ‘grandparents’, etc. The starting point is always the possessor (Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001). 8 The quantitative data that supports Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm’s (2001) claim can be found in Trionfera (2018), with the help of the AIS atlas (Jaberg and Jud 1928-1940).

4.2. The Class of Kinship Nouns in Anthropology

From an anthropological point of view, the nuclear family (sometimes called the elementary family or conjugal family [Sussman 1988]) appears to be a universal notion in every kinship and social system. As such, terms associated with the nuclear family are often morpho-syntactically distinct from other kinship nouns across the world’s languages (Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001, Fahrnbach 2019). The DSI and the DAS are no exception; the kinship terms associated with the nuclear family are more likely to occur in EP constructions than other kinship terms (the quantitative data that supports this claim can be found in Fahrnbach 2019). However, despite this universal fact, the DSI and the DAS do not have the same set of kinship terms to which EPs can attach. This is primarily because the DSI differ as to which kinship terms constitute the nuclear family (Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001, Fahrnbach 2019). This is also because the DSI differ as to whether the set should include kinship terms that are associated with the extended family or other definitions of kinship. For instance, in some DSI, (such as the dialect of Leverano), all kinship terms have equal morpho-syntactic status, which ultimately means that all kinship nouns are compatible with EPs. In other dialects, the set is much more restricted; only kinship nouns that belong under the dialect-specific definition of the nuclear family can belong to the set (Fahrnbach 2019). For instance, in the dialect of Vagli di Sopra (spoken in the region of Tuscany), EPs can only attach to the terms mammə ‘mommy’ and babbə ‘dad’:

(29) The dialect of Vagli di Sopra: a. babbə-tɜ dad(M)[.SG]-2SG.[M.]SG.POSS ‘your dad’

b. ˈmammə-tɜ mum(F)[.SG]-2SG.[F.]SG.POSS ‘your mommy’ (Fahrnbach 2019)

The EPs are not attested with any of the other kinship nouns in this dialect, which means that the nuclear family is likely defined only by the terms associated with the terms ‘mother’ and ‘father’ in this dialect.9 In the following section, I explore which kinship terms are associated with the notion of the nuclear family in the DAS, and whether the set of kinship terms to which EPs in the DAS attach also includes terms associated with other definitions of kinship.

4.3. The Semantic Class of Kinship Nouns in EP Constructions in the DAS

The nuclear family is defined in the DAS as a family unit consisting of a married couple and their biological and/or adopted children from wedlock.10 The notion of the nuclear family contrasts with that of the extended family (also known as the consanguineous family11, which includes aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc. [Sussman 1988]), the religious family (which is defined by the

9 This definition of the nuclear family was proposed most recently by Wierzbicka (1992). 10 The participants of this study define the nuclear family in this way. This information is taken from the interviews. 11 Any person who has a common ancestor or is married to someone who has a common ancestor with somebody from the nuclear family is a member of the consanguineous family.

Roman Catholic Church12) and the blended family (also known as the step-family, reconstituted family or complex family [Sussman 1988]), which is defined by my participants as a family unit that necessarily includes a married couple and at least one biological and/or adopted child from a previous relationship. All the biological and/or adopted children that the married couple has during their marriage is also included in this family unit. These notions of family are important to define in this work because the EPs in the DAS seem to not only attach to kinship terms associated with members of the nuclear family as defined above; they also attach to kinship terms that refer to members of the extended and religious family. They cannot, however, attach to the kinship terms that refer exclusively to members of a blended family:

(30) Semantic restrictions on the set of kinship terms in the DAS:

a. Nuclear family: (i) 'patrə-mə father(M)[.SG]-1SG.POSS ‘my father’

(ii) 'sɔrə-tə sister(F)[.SG]-2SG.POSS ‘your sister’

b. Extended family: (i) cu'ginə-tə cousin(M/F)[.SG]-2SG.POSS ‘your cousin

(ii) 'ziə-sə uncle(M)/aunt(F)[.SG]-3SG.POSS ‘his/her uncle/aunt’

c. Religious family: (i) cum'mare-sə godmother/goddaughter(F)[.SG]-3SG.POSS ‘his/her godmother/goddaughter’ (ii) cum'patrə-mə godfather(M)[.SG]-1SG.POSS ‘my godfather’

12 According to the Catholic Church, the religious family includes godfathers, godmothers and godchildren. A godparent is somebody (not necessarily blood-related) who bears witness to the christening of an infant (their godchild) and who is committed to help this child in their catechesis (basic Christian religious education) , as well as their lifelong spiritual journey. A godparent is often chosen by the parents. If a person accepts the title of godparent, they are morally (in some countries even legally) obligated to be involved in their godchild's upbringing and to claim legal guardianship of the child if anything happens to the parents. A godchild (godson or goddaughter) may only have one godparent, or may have both a godfather and a godmother (Marty 1962).

d. Blended family: (i) *matriɲə-tə stepmother(F)[.SG]-2SG.POSS ‘your stepmother’

(ii) *patriɲə-sə stepfather(M)[.SG]-3SG.POSS ‘his/her stepfather’

With that in mind, the following is a comprehensive chart of the kinship terms that can appear in EP constructions in the DAS:

(31) Kinship nouns that can occur in EP constructions in the DAS:

Nuclear family Extended family Religious family patrə(M) cuginə(M/F) cummarə(F) (‘father’) (‘cousin’) (‘godmother/daughter’) mammə(F) ziə(M/F) cumpatrə(M) (‘mommy’) (‘uncle/aunt’) (‘godfather/son’) mugghierə(F) neputə(M/F) (‘wife’) (‘nephew/niece/grandson/daughter’) maritə(M) nanə(F) (‘husband’) (‘grandma’) fidʒə(M/F) papua(M) (‘son/daughter’) (‘grandpa’) fratə(M) cuɲatə(M/F) (‘brother’) (‘brother/sister in-law’) sɔrə(F) suocerə(M/F) (‘sister’) (‘father/mother in-law’)

It is possible that the kinship terms associated with members of the blended family cannot occur in EP constructions simply because these terms are seldom used,13 even in other possessive structures. A few of my participants have shared that, although the terms for ‘step-mother’, ‘stepfather’, ‘step-son/daughter’, etc. exist in the DAS, step-siblings, half-brothers/sisters and step- parents are often simply referred to as siblings and parents, respectively, by speakers in almost all conversational contexts (vocatively and designatively14). In other words, a step-sister is considered to be just as much of a sister to the speaker as a full biological sister, especially if they have spent most of their childhood living together under the same roof. As such, a speaker of the DAS is likely to refer to their step-sister simply as their sister, sɔrə-mə (lit: ‘my sister’). In fact, even close family friends can be referred to as ‘brother’, ‘sister’, ‘uncle’, ‘godfather’, etc. in the DAS, even if that is not their official relationship to the speaker. This is not uncommon in the world’s languages; kinship terms are often used with people who are, sometimes quite obviously, not kin by any of the criteria usually employed (Warhaugh 2011). This is true, for instance in Vietnamese and Chinese, where the kinship terms equivalent to ‘sister’, ‘brother’, ‘uncle’, and ‘aunt’ are used to designate

13 This is according to my participants. 14 In this case, to refer to a person by a certain kinship term when speaking to someone else.

21 various different social relationships, in addition to the canonical ones (Wu 1990, Wardhaugh 2011). In the next section, I discuss how the set of kinship terms to which EPs in the DAS attach is restricted to kinship terms that not only belong to the DAS-specific definitions of the nuclear, extended and religious family, but that have specific morpho-phonological forms.

5. The Morphophonology of Kinship Nouns in EP Constructions in the DSI and DAS

In this section, I discuss the role that morphology and phonology play in restricting the class of kinship terms that are compatible with EPs in the DAS. I begin this section by exploring the morphological complexity of these kinship nouns, and I end it by highlighting the phonological changes that some of these nouns undergo in EP constructions.

5.1. The Morphology of Kinship Terms in the DAS

A large number of kinship terms in the DAS are bare roots; some examples include the terms fratə ‘brother’, sɔrə ‘sister’, patrə ‘father’, etc. However, there are also many kinship terms that have diminutives and/or inflectional affixes attached to them:

(32) Morphologically complex kinship terms in the DAS: a. frate -ceʎu brother(M).SG -DIM.M.SG ‘little brother’

b. cum- patrə godfather(M).SG ‘godfather’

c. cummar -eʎə goddaughter(F).SG -DIM.F[.SG] ‘(young)15 goddaughter’

In example (32a), a masculine-singular diminutive suffix (in this case -ceʎu) is attached to the stem frate ’brother’, creating the kinship term frateceʎu ‘little brother’. In (32b), the inflectional prefix cum- (which roughly translates to ‘god’) is attached to the stem patrə ‘father’, creating the kinship term cumpatrə ‘godfather’. Finally, in (31c), both the inflectional prefix cum- ‘god’ and a feminine- singular diminutive (in this case -eʎə) are attached to the stem mar (roughly ‘mother’), creating the kinship term cummareʎə ‘(young) goddaughter’. Some other kinship terms that have diminutives and/or inflectional affixes attached to them include matr-iɲə ‘step-mother’, patr-iɲə ‘step-father’, cugin-eʎə ‘little cousin(F)’, frate-lastrə ‘step-brother’, nipu-teʎa ‘(young) granddaughter’, etc. Some of these ‘modified’ kinship terms (for instance, all of the examples in [32]) belong to the semantic categories of kinship nouns that can occur in EP constructions (nuclear family, extended family and religious family kinship terms). Thus, they are also expected to occur in EP constructions, just like the bare root kinship terms. However, it appears that EPs in the DAS can only attach to kinship nouns that do not already have suffixes attached to them, even if these kinship

15 I’ve translated this as ‘young’ because speakers only use the term in (32c) if the goddaughter is still a child.

22 terms belong to the semantic class of kinship terms that can occur in EP constructions. Conversely, EPs in the DAS can attach to kinship nouns with prefixes already attached to them:

(33) Morphological restrictions on the kinship terms in EP constructions in the DAS: a. *frate -ceʎu -mə/-tə/-sə brother(M).SG -DIM.M.SG -1SG/-2SG/-3SG.POSS ‘my/your/his/her little brother’

b. cum- patrə -mə/-tə/-sə godfather(M).SG -1SG/-2SG/-3SG.POSS ‘my/your/his/her godfather’

c. *cummar -eʎə -mə/-tə/-sə goddaughter(F).SG -DIM.F[.SG] -1SG/-2SG/-3SG.POSS ‘(young) goddaughter’

As the examples in (33) illustrate, EPs in the DAS can attach to kinship nouns with prefixes like cum- ‘god’, but they cannot attach to kinship terms with suffixes like the masculine-singular and feminine-singular diminutives -eʎu and -eʎə, respectively. As for the morphological forms of the kinship nouns in the rest of the DSI, it appears that the majority of the DSI also do not allow kinship terms with suffixes to occur in EP constructions:

(34) The dialect of Verzino: a. *fratell -inə -ta brother(M).SG -DIM[.M].SG -2SG.POSS ‘your little brother’

b. *tsi -etto -ta uncle(M).SG -DIM.M.SG -2SG.POSS ‘your little uncle’ (Fahrnbach 2019)

However, this is not always the case. In the Calabrian dialects of the communes of Serrastretta, Centrache, Acri and Saracena, for instance, the terms for ‘cousin’ surface as the diminutive forms of the terms ‘brother’ and ‘sister”, and these terms can occur in EP constructions in these dialects:

(35) The dialect of Saracena: a. 'frati -ta brother(M).SG -2SG.[M.]SG.POSS ‘your brother’

b. frat -iddə -mu brother(M).SG -DIM[.SG] -1SG.M.SG.POSS ‘my cousin(M)’

c. 'surtə -ta sister(F).SG -2SG[.F].SG.POSS ‘your sister’

d. sur -eddi -ma sister(F).SG -DIM[.SG] -1SG.F.SG.POSS ‘my cousin(F)’ (Fahrnbach 2019)

With that in mind, morphology plays an important role in restricting the class of kinship terms that can occur with EPs in the DAS, but it does not necessarily play a crucial role in this respect for the rest of the DSI. In the next subsections, I discuss which kinship terms change their phonological form in EP constructions in the DAS and why some of these changes necessarily occur.

5.2. The Phonology of Kinship Terms in EP Constructions in the DSI

Some kinship nouns that can occur in EP constructions have two different phonological forms (allomorphs) in the DSI, depending on whether they surface as a bare root or as the stem of an EP. These changes in phonological form are determined by dialect-internal phonological rules. Consider the following examples in the dialect of Agnone (Manzini and Savoia 2005):

(36) The dialect of Agnone (a commune in the region of Molise): a. ru 'pɔtrə DET.M.SG father(M).SG ‘the father’

b. 'patrə-mə father(M).SG-1SG.POSS ‘my father’

c. la 'seurə DET.F.SG sister(F).SG ‘the sister’

d. 'sɔr-da sister(F).SG-2SG.POSS ‘your sister’ (Manzini and Savoia 2005)

In (36b), only the vowel of the first syllable of the kinship noun ([ɔ]) changes once the EP is attached . In (36d), on the other hand, there is a deletion of the word-final vowel ([ə]), in addition to a change in the nucleus of the first syllable of the kinship noun once the EP is attached. These exact phonological changes are unique to the dialect of Agnone, and the phonological changes that occur to kinship terms in EP constructions in other DSI are usually unique to those dialects as well (Manzini and Savoia 2005). Thus, it appears that there are no universal phonological rules that dictate the surface forms that kinship nouns take when EPs attach to them. One of the only patterns that emerge across the DSI is that only ascending kinship terms generally undergo a phonological change in EP constructions (as previously mentioned in

24 subsection 4.1). The DAS is no exception; the only kinship terms that undergo phonological changes are the terms associated with ‘mother’ and ‘grandfather’. In the following subsection, I describe the unique changes in phonological form that each of these terms undergo in the EP constructions of the DAS.

5.3. The Phonology of Kinship Terms in EP Constructions in the DAS

With regards to the ascending kinship term ‘mother’, only the hypocoristic16/vocative term mammə ‘mommy’ is used in EP constructions in the DAS; there are no EP constructions that use the neutral form madrə ‘mother’ instead. Conversely, only the neutral form patrə ‘father’ is used in EP constructions instead of the hypocoristic/vocative pappà ‘daddy’. The DAS is not unique in this respect; this also seems to be the case across the DSI (Manzini and Savoia 2005). There are only a few dialects, such as the ones spoken in Bellona (a commune in the region of Campania) and San Fili (a commune in the region of Calabria), that use both the vocative and neutral forms for the terms ‘mother’ and ‘father’ in EP constructions:

(37) The dialect of Bellona: a. 'patə-te father(M).SG-2SG.POSS ‘your father’

b. 'tatə-tə daddy(M).SG-2SG.POSS ‘your daddy’ (Manzini and Savoia 2005)

(38) The dialect of San Fili: a. 'maʈri-ta mother(F).SG-2SG.F.SG.POSS ‘your mother’

b. 'mamma-ta mommy(F).SG-2SG.F.SG.POSS ‘your mommy’ (Manzini and Savoia 2005)

Going back to the DAS, all three EPs can attach to the neutral form patrə without the form undergoing any phonological changes:

(39) The DAS: patrə-mə/-tə/-sə father(M).SG-1SG/2SG/3SG.POSS ‘My/your/his/her father’

However, only the 2SG and 3SG EPs -tə and -sə, respectively, can attach to the vocative term mammə without the form undergoing any phonological changes. Once the 1SG EP -mə is attached, the form mammə is reduced to ma:

16 A term used in linguistics to describe a pet name or nickname (e.g. Harry for Harold) (Crystal 2008).

(40) The DAS: a. *'mam.mə-mə mommy(F)[.SG]-1SG.POSS ‘my mommy’

b. ma-mə mommy(F)[.SG]-1SG.POSS ‘my mommy’

c. 'mam.mə-tə/-sə mommy(F).SG-2SG/-3SG.POSS ‘your/his/her mommy’

For the example in (40a), it is possible that the second syllable of the stem ([mə]) and the 1SG EP –mə undergo a special case of dissimilation known as a haplology, whereby one of the two identical syllables is deleted. This is a DAS-internal phonological rule, as some DSI do not undergo this process of dissimilation for the term ‘mommy’ (Manzini and Savoia 2005). Consider the following example:

(41) The dialect of Arielli (a commune spoken in the region of Abruzzo): 'mammə-mə mother(F)-1SG.POSS ‘my mother’ (Ledgeway 2016)

The DAS also uses the hypocoristic/vocative terms for ‘grandmother’ and ‘grandfather’ in EP constructions. The neutral terms for ‘grandmother’ and ‘grandfather’ are nonna and nonno, while the hypocoristic/vocative terms are nanə and papua, respectively. The term nanə does not undergo any stem changes once an EP is attached to it; however, the term papua becomes the stem papo- for all three of the EPs in the DAS:

(42) The DAS: a. *'nonna-mə/-tə/-sə grandmother(F).SG-1SG/-2SG/3SG.POSS ‘my grandmother’

b. 'nanə-mə/-tə/-sə grandmother(F).SG-1SG/-2SG/3SG.POSS ‘my grandmother’

c. *'nonno-mə/-tə/-sə grandfather(M).SG-1SG/-2SG/3SG.POSS ‘my grandfather’

d. *'papua-mə/-tə/-sə grandfather(M).SG-1SG/-2SG/3SG.POSS ‘my grandfather’

e. pa'po-mə/-tə/-sə grandfather(M).SG-1SG/-2SG/3SG.POSS ‘my grandfather’

For the EP constructions involving the vocative term for ‘grandfather’, it is likely that the change in phonological form is simply a case of lexically-conditioned allomorphy. Summing up, in Part II, I discussed some important semantic and morphophonological features that define the class of kinship terms that can occur in EP constructions in the DAS. I also compared this class of kinship terms with the ones that occur in EP constructions in the rest of the DSI, highlighting the most important similarities and differences. In the next section, I discuss the syntactic distribution of EPs in the DSI and the DAS. This discussion begins Part III, which is entirely dedicated to the syntax of EP constructions.

Part III: The syntactic distribution of EPs in the DAS

6. EPs in the Nominal Domain of the DSI

One of the most important observations on the syntactic behaviour of EPs in the DSI is that EPs are in complementary distribution with determiners in the nominal domain (Silvestri 2013, Ledgeway 2016, D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017). This observation is illustrated with the following examples:

(43) The dialect of Bari (a port city on the Adriatic Sea): a. (*u) marite-me/-te (*DET.M.SG) husband(M).SG-1SG.POSS/-2SG.POSS ‘my/your husband’

b. (*la) cass’-te (*DET.F.SG) house(F).SG-2SG.POSS ‘your house’ (Ledgeway 2016)

As the examples in (43) show, EP constructions in the dialect of Bari become ungrammatical if a definite article (the masculine-singular u in [43a] and the feminine-singular la in [43b]) occurs with any of the EPs (-me and -te). The fact that EPs are in complementary distribution with determiners has led some researchers to posit that EPs occupy the same syntactic position as determiners in the DSI (Silvestri 2013, Ledgeway 2016, D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017, etc.). In an attempt to illustrate this claim, they show that EPs precede all nominal modifiers, just like determiners in the DSI. Nominal modifiers also include possessive adjectives, which can co-occur with EPs for emphasis:

(44) The dialect of Arielli: a. La 'zie bbella DET.F.SG aunt(F).SG beautiful(F).SG ‘the beautiful aunt’

b. *bbella la 'zie beautiful(F).SG DET.F.SG aunt(F).SG ‘the beautiful aunt’

c. 'zie-ma bbella aunt(F).SG-1SG.POSS beautiful(F).SG ‘my beautiful aunt’

d. *bbella 'zie-ma beautiful(F).SG aunt(F).SG-1SG.POSS ‘my beautiful aunt’ (Ledgeway 2016)

(45) The dialect of San Leucio del Sannio (spoken in the region of Campania): a. 'pai-to tujo father(M).SG-2SG.POSS your.M.SG ‘YOUR father’ (Ledgeway 2016)

b. *tujo 'pai-to your.M.SG father(M).SG-2SG.POSS ‘YOUR father’ (Ledgeway 2016)

As the examples (44a) and (44c) show, the adjective bbella ‘beautiful’ occurs post-nominally in the dialect of Arielli; adjectives cannot precede nouns that have an EP attached to them (as illustrated in 44d), which is also the case for nouns that are licensed by a determiner (as illustrated in 44b) (Ledgeway 2016). Similarly, as illustrated in (45), possessive adjectives occur post- nominally in the dialect of Bari and cannot precede nouns that have an EP attached to them. Despite these observations, there are counter-examples, which ultimately challenge the claim that EPs occur in the same syntactic position as determiners. First, there are some DSI that allow EPs to occur with definite articles in EP constructions. For instance, according to the AIS maps (Jaberg and Jud 1928-1940), the dialects of Bellante and Scanno (both spoken in the central Italian region of Abruzzo) have obligatory definite articles in EP constructions with singular kinship terms:

(46) The dialect of Bellante: *(lu) 'fəyyə-mì DET.M.SG son(M)[.SG]-1SG.POSS ‘my son’ (AIS Map 608)

(47) The dialect of Scanno: *(la) 'sourə-te DET.F.SG sister(F)[.SG]-2SG.POSS ‘your sister’ (AIS Map 656)

According to Fahrnbach (2019), the AIS is the only source that shows that some dialects spoken in the Abruzzo region allow EPs to occur with determiners in the possession of singular kinship terms (this is unattested in Manzini & Savoia (2005), etc.). Thus, considering the data from the AIS was collected almost a hundred years ago and it is unattested in the modern dialects (including the ones spoken in Abruzzo), Fahrnbach (2019) claims that the generalization that EPs cannot occur with determiners in the possession of singular kinship terms still holds. Although the occurrence of definite articles in EP constructions with singular kinship terms is unattested in the modern DSI, the occurrence of definite articles in EPs constructions with plural kinship nouns is actually quite common, especially in the dialects spoken in the regions of Abruzzo and Puglia (Ledgeway 2016):

(48) The dialect of Arielli: li 'frite-me DET.M.PL brother(M).[PL]17-1SG.POSS ‘my brothers’ (Ledgeway 2016)

According to Ledgeway (2016), EP constructions like the one exemplified in (48), in which an EP (in this case the 1SG -me) attaches to a plural kinship noun (in this case fríte ‘brothers’) and co- occurs with a definite article (in this case the masculine-singular li), are also not considered to true counter-examples to the observation that determiners and EPs are in complementary distribution because they are extremely rare. Furthermore, these EP constructions cannot be extended to all plural kinship nouns, only the ones where the term can apply to more than one person, generally masculine (such as ‘brother’ or ‘grandchild’). Finally, in these EP constructions, the determiner is optional:

(49) The dialect of Bari: (i) ne'pude-me (DET.M.PL) grandchild(M).[PL]-1SG.POSS ‘my grandchildren’ (Ledgeway 2016)

Considering the occurrence of definite articles in EP constructions, like in (48-49), is rare and always optional, many agree that the claim that EPs are in the determiner position accurately captures the distribution of EPs within the nominal domain, especially since possessives in many Romance varieties (namely in French and Spanish) are also believed to occupy the same syntactic position as determiners (D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017, Silvestri 2013, Ledgeway 2016, Cardinaletti 1998, van Peteghem 2012, etc.). The main difference between these Romance possessives and EPs in the DSI is where they surface in the word order. Romance possessives surface pre-nominally, just like determiners. EPs, on the other hand, surface post-nominally (considering they are nominal suffixes):

17 fríte is glossed as ‘brother(M).[PL]’ here, even though this is also the masculine-singular surface form of the noun, because it is preceded by a definite article that is clearly morphologically marked as masculine-plural. In most of the DSI, the endings of nouns and adjectives, which clearly showed gender and number features in the past, were neutralized in the modern dialects (deleted or neutralized to a schwa or [e]), which is why the syntactic context (in this case, the form of the determiner) is now responsible for indicating the gender and number features of the noun (Maiden 2018).

(50) Spanish: a. El libro DET.M.SG book(M).SG ‘the book’

b. Mi libro my.SG book(M).SG ‘my book’

(51) French: a. la robe. DET.F.SG dress(F).SG ‘the dress’

b. ta robe your.F.SG dress(F).SG ‘your dress’

(52) A Pugliese dialect: a. u ka'naddə DET.M.SG brother-in-law(M).SG ‘the brother-in-law’

b. *ka'naddə u brother-in-law(M).SG DET.M.SG Lit: ‘*brother-in-law the’ ‘the brother-in-law’

c. 'kanaddə-mə brother-in-law(M).SG-1SG.POSS ‘my brother-in-law’

d. *-mə 'kanaddə 1SG.POSS brother-in-law(M).SG ‘my brother-in-law’ (Sotiri 2007)

This crucial syntactic difference must be accounted for before the claim can be accepted for EPs in the DSI and the DAS. This will be discussed in subsections 6.2 and 6.3. In the next subsection, I discuss the omission of definite articles in the EPs constructions of the DAS. I also discuss how this omission is likely the result of certain formal syntactic properties of the specific kinship nouns to which EPs attach.

6.1. EPs in the Nominal Domain of the DAS

Just like what is observed in the rest of the DSI, EPs in the DAS are in complementary distribution with determiners:

(53) The DAS: a. sɔrə-mə sister(F)[.SG]-1SG.POSS ‘my sister

b. a/na sɔrə DEF/INDF.F.SG sister(F)[.SG] ‘the/a sister’

c. *a sɔrə-mə DEF.F.SG sister(F)[.SG]-1SG.POSS ‘*the my sister’

d. *na sɔrə-mə INDF.F.PL sister(F)[.SG]-1SG.POSS ‘*a my sister’

The examples (53c-d) illustrate that EP constructions in the DAS cannot include definite articles (the feminine-singular a in [53c]) or indefinite articles (the feminine-singular na in [53d]). Thus, EPs and determiners cannot co-occur in EP constructions. Unlike the dialect of Arielli in (48) and the dialect of Bari in (49), this is always the case in the DAS; for instance, determiners also cannot occur in EP constructions involved in the possession of plural nouns:

(54) The DAS: a. *le sɔrə-mə DET.F.PL sister(F)[.PL] ‘*the my sisters’

b. *i fratə-mə DET.M.PL brother(M)[.PL]-1SG.POSS ‘*the my brothers’

However, this is also because there are no EP constructions that involve the possession of plural nouns in the DAS; like in the majority of the DSI, EPs only attach to singular kinship nouns in the DAS:

(55) The DAS: a. a sɔrə DET.F.SG sister(F)[.SG] ‘the sister’

b. le sɔrə DET.F.PL sister(F)[.PL] ‘the sisters’

c. sɔrə-mə sister(F)[.SG]-1SG.POSS ‘my sister’ ‘*my sisters’

d. u fratə DET.M.SG brother(M)[.SG] ‘the brother’

e. i fratə DET.M.PL brother(M)[.PL] ‘the brothers’

f. fratə-mə brother(M).[SG]-1SG.POSS ‘my brother’ ‘*my brothers’

Similar to a large number of DSI (as mentioned in Footnote 18), it is likely18 that the endings of nouns and adjectives in the DAS used to show gender and number features in the past. In any case, they do not in the modern DAS; thus, the discourse context is often responsible for indicating whether a given noun is singular or plural, especially if the syntactic context fails to do so. According to my participants, there is no context in which kinship nouns denote plural referents in EP constructions. For instance, if someone were to say sɔrə-mə (like in 55c), the entire EP construction would have to refer to only one sister. Thus, EPs in the DAS attach only to singular kinship terms. With that in mind, it appears that EPs may occur in the same syntactic position as determiners in the DAS, considering determiners and EPs are always incompatible within the same DP. This observation is considered in the evaluation of the previous syntactic analyses of EP constructions (which is discussed in subsections 7.1 and 7.2). At this point in the discussion on the syntactic distribution of EPs in the DAS, it is important to highlight the fact that it is specifically singular kinship nouns that cannot occur with determiners whenever an EP is present. This peculiar syntactic behaviour of singular kinship nouns is also present in Standard Italian, namely in constructions with possessive adjectives:

(56) Standard Italian: a. *(il) mio libro DET.M.SG my.M.SG book(M).SG ‘my book’

b. *(i) miei libri DET.M.PL my.M.PL book(M).PL ‘my books’

18 There is diachronic evidence that shows that it was not always the case that the modern DSI had endings that did not indicate the gender and number of nouns/adjectives (Maiden 2018). Thus, I assume that this is the same case for the DAS.

c. (*il) mio fratello DET.M.SG my.M.SG brother(M).SG ‘my brother’

d. *(i) miei fratelli DET.M.PL my.M.PL brother(M).PL ‘my brothers’

As the examples in (56) show, tonic possessive adjectives in Standard Italian (in these examples, mio/miei ‘my.M.SG/PL’) occur with determiners in almost all cases. The only exception seems to be morphologically unmodified singular kinship terms (as illustrated in [56c]). Singular kinship terms modified by adjectives, diminutives and other types of suffixes are, thus, not included in this exception:19

(57) Standard Italian: a. *(il) mio fratell-ino DET.M.SG my.M.SG brother(M).SG-DIM.M.SG ‘my little brother’

b. *(il) mio bello fratello DET.M.SG my.M.SG beautiful.M.SG brother(M).SG ‘*the my handsome brother’

Thus, it appears that singular, unmodified kinship nouns have special syntactic properties that disallow the occurrence of determiners whenever a possessive is present. This is one of the most important observations from this subsection, which is why it is also taken into account in the evaluation of the previous syntactic analyses of EP constructions in subsections 7.1 and 7.2. There are several syntactic analyses that discuss whether the formal properties of specific nouns are responsible for the presence or absence of determiners in DPs. In the following subsections, I explore two of these analyses: Penello (2002) and Longobardi (1994; 1996). Penello (2002) claims that a specific feature of the class of proper nouns is responsible for the absence of determiners in DPs, while Longobardi (1994; 1996) proposes that the absence of determiners is due to a head movement that is triggered by ‘object-referring expressions’. Ultimately, I reject Penello’s (2002) analysis and adopt key elements of Longobardi’s (1994; 1996) analysis for the EP constructions in the DAS.

6.2. Penello (2002): An Analysis of the Syntactic Behaviour of Singular Kinship Nouns

Following Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001), Penello (2002) assumes that kinship nouns in Standard Italian share formal and semantic properties with proper nouns and common nouns, depending on the type of the kinship noun and the syntactic context in which the kinship noun occurs. The most relevant feature of these noun classes for this discussion is [+/- definite]; proper nouns are [+definite], while common nouns are [-definite]. Proper nouns are considered to be [+definite] because they denote a unique referent in a given discourse context, while common

19 The 3PL possessive adjective loro in Standard Italian always requires a definite article, regardless of whether the possessee is singular and unmodified. This is not discussed in this paper.

33 nouns are [-definite] because they do not. With that in mind, Penello (2002) claims that, if a kinship noun is singular, unmodified (without any diminutives or other types of suffixes) and in the presence of a possessive, it necessarily belongs to the class of proper nouns. Consequently, that means that, just like proper nouns, these kinship nouns are [+definite] and cannot co-occur with definite articles in the same DP:

(58) Standard Italian: a. (*Il) Pietro mangia mele. DET.M.SG Pietro eat.3SG.PRS apple(F).PL ‘(*The) Pietro eats apples.’

b. (*Il) mio fratello mangia mele. DET.M.SG my.M.SG brother(M).SG eat.3SG.PRS apple(F).PL ‘(*The) my brother eats apples.’

Conversely, if a kinship noun is plural or modified in the presence of a possessive, then it belongs to the class of common nouns, which ultimately means that it is [-definite] and must co-occur with a definite article in the same DP:

(59) Standard Italian: a. *(Le) mele sono deliziose. DET.F.PL apple(F).PL be.3PL.PRS delicious.F.PL ‘The apples are delicious’

b. *(I) miei fratelli mangiano mele. DET.M.PL my.M.PL brother(m).SG eat.3PL.PRS apple(F).PL ‘*The my brothers eat apples.’

Definite articles are usually responsible for making DPs refer to a unique referent (Penello 2002). DPs with proper nouns and singular kinship nouns (like the ones in [58]) do not include definite articles because they inherently denote unique referents, which means definite articles are unnecessary and redundant. For instance, in (58b), the DP with the possessive adjective refers to a specific brother (the one that is salient in a given discourse). This is just like the proper name DP in (58a), which refers to a specific Pietro. Conversely, definite articles are included in DPs with common nouns and plural or modified kinship nouns (like the ones in [59]) because these DPs do not inherently denote unique referents; the definite articles are necessary for the DPs to denote a specific set (in [59a], a specific set of apples; in [58b], a specific set of brothers). If I adopt Penello’s proposal for the EP constructions in the DAS, the assumption would be that definite articles are always omitted because these constructions only involve ‘proper name- like’ nouns (singular kinship nouns that do not have any suffixes). However, there are several cases where proper nouns do occur with determiners in Standard Italian and in the DSI, which is why I do not accept her proposal as it currently stands. For instance, place names (geographical locations) always require definite articles:

(60) Standard Italian: a. *(l') Europa DET.F.SG Europe(F).SG Lit: ‘(*the) Europe’ ‘Europe’

b. *(l’) Italia DET.F.SG Italy(F).SG Lit: ‘(*the) Italy’ ‘Italy’

c. *(La) Sicilia è una regione DET.F.SG Sicily(F).SG be.3SG.PRS a.F.SG region(F).SG autonoma. autonomous.F.SG ‘(*The) Sicily is an autonomous region.’

Furthermore, definite articles are often used with the last names of famous people (e.g. La Petrarca, Il Manzoni, etc.). In the dialects of Tuscany and other central Italian regions, it is also common to have definite articles used before first names, especially female proper names (e.g. La Franca, La Giulia, La Maria etc.) (Trionfera 2018). These definite articles even contract with preceding prepositions (as illustrated in [61]), just like definite articles in DPs with common nouns in Standard Italian (as illustrated in [62]). Consequently, this means that proper nouns appear no different than common nouns in the syntax of these types of constructions:

(61) Fiorentino (the dialect of Florence): è arrivato i fratello della Maria. is arrived DET.M.SG brother(M).SG of-DET.F.SG Maria ‘The brother of (the) Maria arrived.’ (Trionfera 2018)

(62) Standard Italian: è arrivato la figlia del cuoco. is arrived DET.F.SG daughter(F).SG of-DET.M.SG cook.M.SG ‘The daughter of the cook arrived.’

With that in mind, the role of the [+/-definite] feature in the omission of the definite article in possessive constructions needs to be further explored, as it is unclear whether it is actually a feature of proper nouns, or even a feature that blocks or prevents the realization of a definite article in possessive constructions (assuming it is a feature of proper nouns). I do not discuss the [+/- definite] feature in further detail in this paper. In the next subsection, I discuss how Longobardi’s (1994; 1996) N to D-raising analysis accounts for all of the points raised in this subsection (the presence/absence of determiners with certain proper nouns, etc.). Following that discussion, I explore how Fahrnbach (2019) argues in favour of this analysis for EP constructions in the DSI.

6.3. Longobardi’s (1994; 1996) N to D-Raising Analysis

To account for the absence of definite articles in DPs with proper nouns, Longobardi (1994) proposes a theory of head movement under the Government and Binding theoretical framework (Chomsky 1981).20 More specifically, he proposes that certain nouns must raise from N° to the higher functional head D°, which is why there are no determiners in DPs with these nouns (unless the determiners are expletive). This applies uniquely to nouns that denote unique referents (‘object- referring expressions’ [Longobardi 1996]); for other nouns that surface without determiners (‘kind- referring expressions’), Longobardi (1994) proposes that there are null determiners in S-structure. Consider the following example from Standard Italian (Longobardi 1994):

(63) Standard Italian: Bevo vino e mangio patate drink.1SG.PRS wine(M).SG and eat.1SG.PRS potato(F).PL ‘I drink wine and I eat potatoes.’ (Longobardi 1994)

In example (63), there are two bare nouns (nouns that occur without determiners): the common nouns vino ‘wine’ and patate ‘potatoes’. Despite the fact that determiners are absent, these nouns still represent full DPs in the syntax, since they are arguments of the verb (realizations of the theme θ-roles for the verbs bevo ‘drink’ and mangio ‘eat’, respectively) (Longobardi 1994). According to Longobardi (1994) these bare common nouns cannot occur in D°, primarily because they belong to the category of kind-referring expressions, and the position for kind-interpretation is in the NP layer of the DP projection (Longobardi 1994):

(64) In order to refer to a kind (…), a noun must head the N position at S-structure. (Longobardi 1994: 637)

Given the fact that these bare common nouns are both arguments to the verb and kind-referring expressions that must occur in N°, Longobardi (1994) concludes that the NP layer for these nouns has a DP layer above it that is headed by a null determiner that has a default existential interpretation. Following Alexiadou, Haegeman, and Stavrou (2008), I represent the empty determiner with the symbol ‘e’:

(65) Standard Italian: a. bevo [DP [D e] [NP [N vino]]] b. mangio [DP [D e] [NP [N patate]]] (Alexiadou, Haegeman, and Stavrou 2008)

These null determiners are restricted to mass or plural nouns; proper nouns that occur without articles do not have null determiners (Longobardi 1994). This is mainly because, as rigid designators (nouns that designate the same object in every world in which that object possibly exists [Devitt 2005]), proper nouns fail to receive an existential reading. Thus, to account for the lack of articles in DPs with proper nouns, Longobardi (1994) proposes that they move to D°, consequently eliminating both the null D° and existential interpretation already at S-structure:

20 Longobardi (1996) recasts his (1994) N to D-raising analysis into one that follows principles of Chomsky’s (1995) Minimalist Program.

(66) Standard Italian: [DP [D Pietroi] [NP ti]] mangia mele.

To account for DPs such as the ones in (60), where proper nouns occur with definite articles, Longobardi (1994) assumes that the determiners are expletive and that they establish a CHAIN with proper nouns:

(67) Standard Italian: [DP Lai] [NP [N Siciliai]]] è una regione autonoma.

Longobardi (1994) asserts that reference is already inherently associated with object-referring expressions such as proper nouns, which is why definite articles are semantically empty (expletive) when they occur with proper nouns. Going back to DPs that lack definite articles with proper nouns, Longobardi (1994) supports his N to D-raising analysis with the following sentences in Standard Italian:

(68) Standard Italian: a. Il mio Gianni ha finalmente telefonato. DET.M.SG my.M.SG Gianni have.3SG.PRS finally call.PTCP ‘(*The) my Gianni has finally called

b. *Mio Gianni ha finalmente telefonato. my.M.SG Gianni have.3SG.PRS finally call.PTCP ‘My Gianni has finally called’

c. Gianni mio ha finalmente telefonato. Gianni my.M.SG have.3SG.PRS finally call.PTCP ‘My Gianni has finally called’ (Longobardi 1994)

Whenever the expletive definite article fails to occur in sentences with possessive adjectives and proper nouns (like in [68b-c]), the proper noun (in this case Gianni) must precede the possessive adjective (in this case mio ‘my’). Assuming possessive adjectives occupy a specifier position between D° and NP (Cardinaletti 1998, Alexiadou, Haegeman and Melita Stavrou 2008, etc.), the surface word order suggests that the proper noun has moved leftward. According to Longobardi (1994), it has specifically moved to D°:

(69) Standard Italian: a. [DP [D il] [FP mio [NP [NGianni]]]] b. [DP [DGiannii] [FP mio [NP [N ti]]]] (Longobardi 1994)

The idea here is that, once the proper noun raises to D°, it plays the role of the definite article, so that the whole phrase can be interpreted as if the definite article were present. Going back to the discussion on whether kinship nouns belong to the class of proper nouns or common nouns, unmodified singular kinship nouns and proper nouns behave similarly with respect to possessive adjectives in Standard Italian. Unmodified singular kinship nouns can precede possessive adjectives, just like the proper name Gianni in (68c):

(70) Standard Italian: Zio mio è venuto. uncle(M).SG my.M.SG is.3SG.PRS come.PTCP ‘My uncle came.’ (Alexiadou, Haegeman, and Stavrou 2008)

In light of this fact (which is illustrated in [70]), many researchers agree that unmodified singular kinship nouns belong to the category of nouns in Standard Italian that can raise to D° (Alexiadou, Haegeman and Melita Stavrou 2008, Silvestri 2013, Trionfera 2018, etc.), which is why Longobardi’s (1994; 1996) N to D-raising analysis has been adopted in some syntactic analyses of EP constructions in the DSI (Silvestri 2013, Fahrnbach 2019, etc.). In the next section, I discuss two analyses of EP constructions that discuss Longobardi (1994; 1996): Fahrnbach (2019) and D’Alessandro and Migliori (2017). Ultimately, I adopt most of the syntactic structure proposed by Fahrnbach (2019) for the EP phenomenon in the DAS.

7. Previous Syntactic Analyses of EP Constructions in the DSI

To account for the fact that EPs are in complementary distribution with determiners despite being post-nominal, many syntactic analyses of EP constructions in the DSI adopt Longobardi’s (1994; 1996) N to D-raising analysis of proper nouns (Silvestri 2013, Fahrnbach 2019, etc.). Other syntactic analyses argue against it and propose a small clause analysis that can account for all inalienable possessive constructions in the DSI instead (D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017). In the following subsections, I discuss Fahrnbach’s (2019) syntactic analysis of EP constructions, which attempts to capture the variation in the EP constructions of the DSI following Longobardi (1994; 1996). Subsequently, I discuss D’Alessandro and Migliori’s (2017) small clause analysis of EP constructions.

7.1. Fahrnbach (2019): Following Longobardi (1994; 1996) & den Dikken (2015)

According to Fahrnbach (2019), the following syntactic structure captures the phenomenon of EP constructions in all of the DSI; the surface differences between EP constructions depend on the features of certain projections and whether a specific movement is considered necessary:

(71) The syntax of EP constructions:

(Fahrnbach 2019)

Fahrnbach (2019) begins her discussion on the syntactic structure in (71) by exploring the upper part of the structure: DP and PossP. This is where Longobardi’s (1994; 1996) N to D-raising comes into play. According to Longobardi (1994), N to D-raising occurs in Romance varieties in two possible ways. The first is by adjunction; this can be seen in Romanian, where nouns left- adjoin to enclitic definite articles (the ‘clitic’ status of the definite articles is ultimately responsible for triggering this movement) (Grosu 1988). The second is by substitution; this is the case for proper nouns in Standard Italian (which was discussed above). Longobardi (1994) states that N to D-raising never occurs via adjunction in western Romance varieties; however, Fahrnbach (2019) asserts that this is the case for kinship nouns in EP constructions in the DSI. According to Fahrnbach (2019), EPs originate in Poss°, a position from which they attract the kinship nouns in N°.21 As a result, kinship nouns left-adjoin to the EPs in Poss°. The resulting complex head then raises up to D°, which is why definite articles cannot lexicalize in this position:

(72) The dialect of Verzino: a. tsiə-ta uncle(M)[.SG]-2SG.POSS ‘your uncle’

(Fahrnbach 2019)

For the dialects that allow definite articles to occur in EP constructions, Fahrnbach (2019) assumes that the second movement simply does not occur (hence the dotted arrow in [71]), which is why definite articles can lexicalize in this position. As for the lower part of the structure in (71) (NumP and RP), Fahrnbach (2019) adopts den Dikken’s (2015) analysis of inalienable possession, particularly for RP (Relator Phrase). Based on the fact that EPs cannot attach to plural kinship nouns in the majority of the DSI, Fahrnbach (2019) argues for a NumP projection in EP constructions. This projection not only assigns a singular or plural feature to the kinship noun; it also contains another feature ([+/-active]), which either allows or blocks the movement of the kinship noun to Poss°. If the feature in NumP is [+active], then an EP construction can be realized (the kinship noun can left-adjoin to an EP in Poss°); if it is [-active], then an EP construction cannot be realized, as the feature blocks any further movement of the kinship noun from this projection:

(73) The role of NumP in EP constructions:

(Fahrnbach 2019)

21 Kinship nouns do not originate in this position; they originate much lower in the structure. This is discussed later on.

With that in mind, Fahrnbach (2019) assumes that NumP is a parameterized position; each dialect independently determines whether NumP is [+/-active]. As previously mentioned, kinship nouns are inherently relational (this was discussed in the semantics section [section 3]). In light of this semantic fact, Fahrnbach (2019) claims that the relator phrase projection (RP) is necessary for the syntactic structure of EP constructions, following den Dikken’s (2015) analysis of possessive constructions. According to den Dikken (2015), the possessor and the possessee in any given possessive construction display a predicative relation. More specifically, the possessee is the subject, the possessor is the predicate, and they are related to one another through a RELATOR, the head of the RP projection. If a given possessive construction expresses alienable possession, then the predicate is in the complement position of the RELATOR. Conversely, if a given possessive construction expresses inalienable possession, then the subject is in the complement position of the RELATOR:

(74) Th realtor phrase (RP): a. Alienable possession:

(den Dikken 2015)

b. Inalienable possession:

(den Dikken 2015)

Considering EP constructions in the DSI express inalienable possession, Fahrnbach (2019) adopts den Dikken’s (2015) predication structure in (74b):

(75) RP in EP constructions:

(Fahrnbach 2019)

Fahrnbach (2019) argues that kinship nouns are subjects, considering they represent the possessee in EP constructions. Thus, they occupy the head position of NP, which is the projection in complement position of R°. As mentioned earlier, EPs occupy Poss°; however, they also license a pro in the specifier position of RP, so that the predicative relation between the kinship noun and the EP can be expressed. This pro moves from its position in RP to the specifier position of PossP in order to get its features from Poss°. She assumes this movement occurs because this is how subject and object clitics behave in the dialects of Italy (following Cardinaletti and Repetti 2008).

Going back to kinship nouns, they move first to R° (their closest potential landing site) before they move to Num°, where they get assigned their number feature and where further movement is possibly blocked, depending on whether NumP is [+/-active]. Assuming NumP is [+active], they left-adjoin to the EP in Poss°, and then they move to D°. This completes Fahrnbach’s (2019) analysis of EP constructions in the DSI. I adopt Fahrnbach’s (2019) syntactic structure for the EP constructions in the DAS, with the following modification. There should be structure responsible for blocking the realization of EP constructions with plural kinship nouns in the DAS, considering they never occur; however, Fahrnbach’s (2019) NumP projection does not effectively block or allow the realization of certain EP constructions as it currently stands. Depending on whether NumP is [+/-active] in the DAS, it either under- or over-generates possible EP constructions. If I assume that the DAS has a [-active] NumP, then EP constructions are not at all possible (under-generalization). On the other hand, if I assume that it is [+active], then all EP constructions are possible, even EP constructions with plural kinship nouns (over-generalization). To capture the phenomenon of EP constructions in the DAS more accurately, the assignment of the singular feature in NumP should entail that NumP is [+active], while the assignment of the plural feature should entail that NumP is [-active]. That way, only EP constructions with singular kinship nouns can be realized. The only problem with this amendment is that it would still generate EP constructions that are impossible in the DAS, such as EP constructions involved in the possession of singular kinship nouns with suffixes. Thus, the role of the projection NumP in EP constructions in the DAS still needs to be explored before it can be fully accepted. This issue is set aside for future research.

7.2. D’Alessandro and Migliori’s (2017) Small Clause Analysis

D’Alessandro and Migliori (2017) explore EP constructions in several DSI spoken in the region of Abruzzo. Their main claim is that all possessive constructions that are used exclusively in the possession of inalienable nouns (including the noun ‘house’) within a given dialect have the same, underlying predicative syntactic structure. More specifically, they claim that the non-prepositional genitive construction, the two copular structures and EP constructions (all discussed in section 2) derive from Moro’s (1995) small clause structure in (76):

(76) Moro’s (1995) small clause structure:

(Moro 1995)

For EP constructions, D’Alessandro and Migliori (2017) claim that kinship nouns are base- generated in the subject DP position in (76), while EPs are base-generated in the predicate position:

(77) The dialect of Arielli: 'mammə-mə [SC possessee possessor] [SC mammə -mə] (D’Alessandro and Migliori 2017:62f)

According to D’Alessandro an Migliori (2017), the assumptions that 1) the possessor and the possessee of a given EP construction are base-generated within a small clause and 2) the underlying syntactic structure of the other possessive constructions that encode inalienable possession is that

41 of a small clause, ultimately lead to the conclusion that the non-prepositional genitive construction and the two copular structures can be reduced to an EP construction. They also lead to the conclusion that the different surface realizations of these possessive structures are, thus, morpho- phonological, not syntactic. D’Alessandro an Migliori (2017) argue that there is a single, underlying syntactic structure for these possessive constructions because their coexistence within a given dialect is systematically anchored in the grammar; if EP constructions exist in a variety, then so do the non-prepositional genitive and the copular possessive structures. Taking that into consideration, D’Alessandro and Migliori (2017) argue against Longobardi’s (1994; 1996) N to D-raising analysis because it would treat EP constructions as an isolated syntactic phenomenon within the DSI. With regards to the EP constructions in the DAS, I do not adopt D’Alessandro and Migliori’s (2017) small clause analysis for the following reasons. First, it cannot account for why singular kinship terms can occur in EP constructions, but plural ones cannot; D’Alessandro and Migliori (2017) do not address the fact that the set of kinship nouns to which EPs attach is syntactically restricted. Second, D’Alessandro and Migliori (2007) do not explicitly say whether the small clause structure of EP constructions allows determiners to occur; if it doesn’t, then the features of the small clause that are responsible for this must be explained and made explicit. If it does, then the small clause structure must be amended for the DAS to block this possibility. Last, the non- prepositional genitive and the copular possessive constructions do not exist in the DAS:

(78) The DAS: The non-prepositional genitive: a. *u 'fratə u pretə DET.M.SG brother(M).SG DET.M.SG priest(M).SG ‘The brother of the priest’

b. u 'fratə du pretə DET.M.SG brother(M).SG of-DET.M.SG priest(M).SG ‘The brother of the priest’

The ‘dative’ copular structure: c. *'suni 'fidʒə a te COP.1SG child(M/F).SG to DAT.2SG Lit: I am son/daughter to you. ‘I am your son/daughter.’

d. *'Luigi t' ɛ 'fidʒə Luigi 2SG.DAT COP.3SG child[.M].SG ‘Luigi is your son.’

The ‘locative genitive’ copular structure: e. *ɛ 'fidʒə a Luigi COP.3SG child(M/F).SG to Luigi ‘It’s the son/daughter of Luigi.’

Thus, despite the fact that the non-prepositional genitive and the two copular structures are often involved in inalienable possession in the rest of the DSI, a syntactic analysis of EP constructions

42 in the DAS does not also have to account for these possessive constructions, as they simply do not exist in this dialect.

8. Conclusion

In this paper, I explored the morpho-syntactic phenomenon of EPs in the DAS, an emigrated dialect of southern Italy spoken by Italian-Canadians living in the Greater Montreal area. First, I showed that there is variation in the paradigms and forms of the EPs in the DSI; the DAS belongs to the small group of DSI that has invariable EP forms for the 1SG, 2SG and 3SG. Second, I showed that EPs in the DAS only attach to a specific class of inalienable nouns: kinships nouns that are semantically, morphologically, phonologically and syntactically restricted. This class of nouns is DAS-specific; the similarities and differences between the classes of nouns to which EPs can attach in the DSI is summarized below:

1. EPs occur exclusively with kinship nouns in the DAS, despite the fact that a large number of the DSI also allow EPs to attach to the term ‘house’ (and sometimes the term ‘hand’) (semantic restriction). 2. EPs in the DAS can only attach to kinship nouns that fall under the DAS-specific definitions of the nuclear, extended and religious family. Some DSI only allow EPs to attach to kinship nouns that fall under the dialect-specific definition of the nuclear family, while others attach to all kinship nouns (semantic restriction). 3. EPs in the DAS can only attach to kinship nouns that do not have suffixes already attached to them. EPs in other DSI are not necessarily restricted in this way (morphological restriction). 4. Only the hypocoristic terms mammə ‘mommy’ and papua ‘grandfather’ undergo a change in phonological form in the EP constructions of the DAS. In the rest of the DSI, other ascending kinship terms are most likely to undergo phonological changes (phonological restriction). 5. EPs in the DAS are restricted to singular kinship terms. This is the case across most of the DSI; however, there are some DSI which allow EPs to attach to plural kinship nouns as well. These EP constructions with plural kinship nouns often trigger an obligatory determiner (syntactic restriction).

Third, I adopted Fahrnbach’s (2019) syntactic structure for the EP constructions in the DAS (with the exception of the NumP projection) because it captures an important fact about the syntactic distribution of EPs in the DAS with Longobardi’s (1994; 1996) N to D-raising: EPs in the DAS are in complementary distribution with determiners in the nominal domain, despite the fact that EPs are post-nominal and determiners are pre-nominal. I determined that Fahrnbach’s (2019) NumP projection cannot be adopted for the EP phenomenon in the DAS because it ultimately allows EP constructions to be over- or under-generated. However, I did suggest that Fahrnbach’s (2019) NumP can be amended to complete an analysis of the EP constructions in the DAS. I also determined that D’Alessandro and Migliori’s (2017) small clause analysis cannot be adopted as the full analysis of EP constructions in the DAS, as the small clause analysis does not explicitly account for the fact that determiners and plural kinship nouns cannot occur in EP constructions. Furthermore, considering the non-prepositional genitive construction and the two copular structures (which encode inalienable possession in the rest of the DSI) do not exist in the DAS, they do not have to be accounted for in a syntactic analysis of EP constructions in the DAS.

In short, future analyses of the morpho-syntax of EP constructions in the DAS can only be fully accepted if they account for the observations on the syntactic distribution of EPs explored in this paper.

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2012. Possession and Ownership: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. In Possession and Ownership, ed. Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and Robert M. W. Dixon, 1-64. Oxford: Oxford University Press. AIS = Jaberg, Karl and Jakob Jud. 1928–1940. Sach- und Sprachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz. Zofingen: Ringier. Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman and Melita Stavrou. 2008. Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Ard, Josh, and Taco Homburg. 1983. Verification of language transfer. In Language transfer in language learning, ed. Susan M. Gass and Larry Selinker, 157-176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Cardinaletti, Anna. 1998. On the deficient/strong opposition in possessive systems. Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase 22: 17-53. Cardinalettia, Anna, and Giuliana Giusti. 2018. Micro-variation in the Possessive Systems of Italian Dialects. linco o, 137-154. Cardinaletti, Anna and Lori Repetti. 2008. Preverbal and postverbal subject clitics in Northern Italian dialects: Phonology, syntax and cross-linguistic variation. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 523–563. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press Clivio, Gianrenzo P., Marcel Danesi and Sara Maida-Nicol. 2011. An introduction to Italian dialectology. Munich: Lincom Europa. Coluzzi, Paolo. 2009. Endangered minority and regional languages (‘dialects’) in Italy. Modern Italy, 14(1): 39-54. Crystal, David. 2008. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell. Dahl, Osten, and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm. 2001. Kinship in grammar. Typological studies in language 47: 201-226. D’Alessandro, Roberta and Anna Maria Di Sciullo. 2009. Proper subset relation and concord: agreement in Abruzzese possessive copular constructions. Proceedings of North Eastern Linguistic Society 38: 217-230. D'Alessandro, Roberta, and Laura Migliori. 2017. Sui possessivi (enclitici) nelle varietà italo-romanze meridionali non estreme. Di tutti i colori 55. Devitt, Michael. 2005. Rigid application. Philosophical Studies 125(2): 139-165. den Dikken, Marcel. 2015. The morphosyntax of (in)alienably possessed noun phrases: The Hungarian contribution, In Approaches to Hungarian, ed. Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi and Éva Dékány, 121–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Fahrnbach, Eugenia. 2019. Variation in Enclitic Possessive Constructions in Southern Italian Dialects: A Syntactic Analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Goethe University Frankfurt. Ferrara, Antonella Rita and Rosanna Nisticò. 2013. Well-being indicators and convergence across Italian regions. Applied Research in Quality of Life 8(1): 15-44. Filandri, Marianna and Sonia Bertolini. 2016. Young people and homeownership in Europe. International Journal of Housing Policy 16(2): 144–164. Grosu, Alex. 1988. On the distribution of genitive phrases in Rumanian. Linguistics 26: 931–120. Ledgeway, Adam. 2016. The dialects of southern Italy. In The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, ed. Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden, 246-269. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lichtenberk, Frantisek, Jyotsna Vaid, and Hsin-Chin Chen. 2011. On the interpretation of alienable vs. inalienable possession: A psycholinguistic investigation. Cognitive Linguistics 22 (4): 659–689. Lødrup, Helge. 2014. Split possession and the syntax of kinship nouns in Norwegian. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17(1): 35-57. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-Movement in Syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 25(4): 609-665. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1996. The Syntax of N-raising: a minimalist theory. OTS working papers 96(5): 1-55. Maiden, Martin. 2018. Interactive morphonology: metaphony in Italy. Abingdon: Routledge. Manzini, Maria Rita and Leonardo Maria Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. In Morfosintassi generativa. Alessandria: Edizione dell’Orso. Marty, Martin E. 1962. Baptism: A User's Guide. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. Moro, Andrea. 1995. Small Clauses with predicative nominals. In Small Clauses, ed. Anna Cardinaletti and Maria Teresa Guasti, 109-135. New York: Academic Press. Nichols, Johanna 1988. On alienable and inalienable possession. In Shipley, 475-521. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nichols, Johanna and Balthasar Bickel. 2005. Possessive classiﬁcation and obligatory possessive inﬂection. In The world atlas of language structures, ed. Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie, 242-245. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Penello, Nicoletta. 2002. Possessivi e nomi di parentela in alcune varietà italiane antiche e moderne. Verbum 4(2): 327-348.

van Peteghem, Marleen. 2012. Possessives and grammaticalization in Romance. Folia Linguistica 46(2), 605-634. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1968. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Torino: Einaudi. Shaffer, Thomas L. 2006. The Democratic Virtues, Our Common Life and the Common School: Trust in Democracy: Anabaptists, Italian Americans, and Solidarity. Journal of Law and Religion 21(2) : 413-425. Silvestri, Giuseppina. 2013. The nature of Genitive Case. Doctoral dissertation, Università di Pisa. Silvestri, Giuseppina. 2016. Possessivi e partitivi nei dialetti italo-romanzi dell'Area Lausberg. La lingua italiana 12(12): 127-144. Sotiri, Marinela. 2007. Possessivi e nomi di parentela. Osservazioni sui dialetti della Puglia. Quaderni di lavoro dell’Atlante Sintattico D’Italia, 7: 1-10. Sussman, Marvin B. 1988. The isolated nuclear family: Fact or fiction. In Family and support systems across the life span, 1-10. Boston: Springer. Trionfera, Cristiana. 2018. The morphosyntax of kinship terms in Italian dialects. Master's thesis, Università Ca'Foscari Venezia. Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2011. An introduction to sociolinguistics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1992. Semantics, Culture and Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press. Wu, Yongyi. 1990. The usages of kinship address forms amongst non‐kin in mandarin Chinese: The extension of family solidarity. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 10(1): 61-88.