# On the setting of scales in the diachrony of differential object marking

Monica Alexandrina Irimia, Anna Pineda

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

► To cite this version:

Monica Alexandrina Irimia, Anna Pineda. On the setting of scales in the diachrony of differential object marking. Journal of Historical Syntax, 2021, 5 (1-13). hal-03127106

HAL Id: hal-03127106

https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-03127106

Submitted on 1 Feb 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
ON THE SETTING OF SCALES IN THE DIACHRONY
OF DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING*

MONICA ALEXANDRINA

IRIMIA¹

University of Modena and Reggio Emilia

ANNA PINEDA₂

Sorbonne University

ABSTRACT The focus of this paper is a generally ignored counterexample to animacy/person scales (Hale 1972, Silverstein 1976, Aissen 2003, a.o.), which are often assumed to be universal (Kiparsky 2008, a.o.). Drawing from Old Romance differential object marking (DOM) data, we analyse various scale reversals in Old Catalan and Old Romanian. We notice that, contrary to what the scales would predict, i) 3rd person pronouns surface with DOM to the exclusion of 1st and 2nd persons, and ii) proper names take DOM to the exclusion of pronouns. We propose to derive these unexpected patterns by evaluating i) micro-parameters in the composition of Romance DPs and pronouns, and ii) the presence of more than one licensing strategy for arguments. Scale reversals result from the introduction of a novel argument-licensing strategy based on animacy in languages where an older strategy for 1st/2nd persons was still active.

# 1 SCALES AND SOME OF THEIR PROBLEMS

Many languages exhibit differential object marking (DOM), a phenomenon
which signals certain classes of direct objects morpho-syntactically (Bossong

<footnote>*We would like to thank Paola Crisma, Giuseppe Longobardi, Virginia Hill, András Bárány, Cristina Guardiano, M. Teresa Espinal, Adam Ledgeway, Rita Manzini, the audiences at DiGS 20 (York), Going Romance 32 (Utrecht), LSA 2019 Annual Meeting, and IGG 45 (Pavia), as well as several anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. All errors and mistakes are our own. Funding: First author: the ERC grant # 295733 LanGeLin (PI Giuseppe Longobardi) and a research grant offered by the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. Second author: the postdoctoral research fellowship Juan de la Cierva-*incorporación* and the research project FFI2014-56968-C4-1-P (IJCI-2016-30474, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Spanish Government).</footnote>
1991, Torrego 1998, Aissen 2003, López 2012, a.o.). A typical illustration comes from Romance varieties, where animate direct objects need to carry a preposition, especially if they are also interpreted as specific. Modern Spanish provides a clear exemplification; as seen in (1a), definite animates must be introduced by a preposition which is homophonous with the dative. Inanimates in (1b), on the other hand, do not permit the same marking.

(1) a. *He encontrada* *(a)* **la** **niña**.
have.1sg found DAT=DOM DEF.F.SG girl
'I have found the girl.' (Modern Spanish)

b. *He encontrado* (*a*) **el libro**.
have.1sg found DAT=DOM<fnref n="1" /> DEF.M.SG book
'I have found the book.'

(Modern Spanish; Ormazabal & Romero 2013: ex.1a, b)

Beyond Romance languages, these types of splits can be regulated by other semantic features such as definiteness, specificity or topicality (Comrie 1989, Bossong 1991, Torrego 1998, Lazard 2001, Aissen 2003, López 2012, a.o.).

A relevant cross-linguistic observation is that languages tend to have privileged categories which must be differentially marked, such as personal pronouns or proper names. This has supported the conclusion that the special marking is sensitive to well-established semantic hierarchies or rankings, known as scales and informally illustrated in (2). The latter have received extensive attention, for example in Hale's (1972), Silverstein's (1976), Comrie's (1989), Dixon's (1994) or Aissen's (2003) detailed works. Within these accounts, the higher an object is on the scale, the higher the differential marking probability (Silverstein 1976, Lambrecht 1994, Lazard 2001, Aissen 2003, Næss 2004, Dalrymple & Nikolaeva 2011, a.o.). Thus, these generalizations predict that if differential marking is seen on *human* DPs in the language, then it must also show up on pronouns, as the latter are higher on the animacy/person scale.<fnref n="2" /> In this paper, we will mainly focus on the

<footnote n="1">¹Abbreviations: ACC = accusative, ANIM = animate, AOR = aorist, CL = clitic, COND = conditional, DAT = dative, DEF = definite, DOM = differential object marking, DU = dual, F = feminine, FUT = future, IMP = imperative, IPFV = imperfect(ive), INF = infinitive, M = masculine, NOM = nominative, OBJ = objective (conjugation), PCC = Person Case Constraint, PL = plural, PST = past, REFL = reflexive, REL = relative, SE = Romance se pronoun (arbitrary, reflexive, passive), SG = singular, SBJV = subjunctive, 1 = 1st person, 2 = 2nd person, 3 = 3rd person.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²One common explanation for this state of affairs, stemming from Dixon (1979), as well as Comrie (1989), presents a functionalist reasoning: animate DPs or 1st/2nd persons are more canonical agents than patients. This entails that the objects that encode these specifications via differential marking are, in a sense, upgraded or re-ranked, becoming more similar to</footnote>
*animacy/person scale* and to a lesser degree on the *specificity/definiteness scale*.

(2) Types of scales (Comrie 1989, Aissen 2003, a.o.)

a. *Animacy/person*: 1/2 > 3 > proper name > human > animate > inanimate

b. *Specificity/definiteness*: pronoun > name > definite > specific indefinite > non-specific

Importantly, scales (of the type in (2)) have also been shown to have significant diachronic import. For example, they have been claimed to regulate patterns of language change (see Kiparsky 2008, or von Heusinger, Klein & de Swart 2008, a.o.). For Romance diachrony, research has overwhelmingly claimed that DOM started with objects higher on the scales (e.g. 1st and 2nd personal pronouns, proper names, human DPs) and then progressively extended to those lower down. With respect to pronouns more narrowly, 1st/2nd personal pronouns are systematically assumed to be the strongest DOM triggers (Rohlfors 1971, 1973, Roegiest 1979, Sornicola 1997, 1998, Bossong 1998, Leonetti 2003, 2008, a.o.). It is precisely this latter issue that we address in this paper. More specifically, we analyse important counterexamples to scales of the type in (2) and put forward an explanation for them. The rarely discussed pattern we examine creates non-trivial DOM differences between Old Spanish (OS), on the one hand, and Old Catalan (OC)/Old Romanian (OR), on the other. The problem resides with OC/OR, where classes lower down the hierarchy show DOM to the exclusion of higher ones, contrary to what the scales in (2) would predict. In particular, in OC/OR, 3rd person pronouns and proper names show DOM to the exclusion of 1st/2nd person, leading to what we can call *scale reversals*.

With respect to pronouns, we show that such counterexamples cannot simply be linked to the absence of overt case morphology on 3rd person tonic pronouns. We instead present an analysis which connects DOM to a licensing condition beyond (abstract) Case.<fnref n="3" /> Our proposal is that scale reversals with 3rd person in Old Romance arose as a result of: i) the co-existence of two structural configurations for pronouns in transitional grammars; ii) the introduction of a novel licensing strategy for arguments, based on animacy; iii) the co-occurrence of an older licensing strategy in Old Romance,

<footnote>prototypical subjects; therefore, they need to be signalled by special morphology so they can be correctly identified and parsed as objects, as opposed to subjects.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Following standard notation (Chomsky 1981), we indicate the abstract licensing condition with a capital (Case vs. case – the latter reserved just for the overt morphological output). (The result of) Case might not necessarily be reflected in the morphology via overt case morphology.</footnote>
which was not based on animacy, but was sensitive to features such as
[SPEAKER]/[HEARER]. As the novel licensing strategy based on animacy (i.e.
prepositional DOM) became active, it initially isolated just the animates,
and not the [SPEAKER]/[HEARER], whose features are different from animacy
per se. However, for 3rd person pronouns (as well as other nominals), the
animacy split is important as these categories can be either animate or
inanimate. 1st/2nd person pronouns, on the other hand, could preserve an
older licensing strategy, which, as said above, was rather based on signalling
discourse participants ([SPEAKER]/[HEARER]), and not necessarily animacy.
But as 1st/2nd person pronouns are animate, they were ultimately affected
by DOM too (and, in fact, in most modern Romance varieties are no longer
possible without DOM).

The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we present data
from OC and OR as counterexamples to the above-mentioned scales, focusing
on the presence of DOM with 3rd person pronouns and its absence with
1st/2nd person pronouns. Section 3 explores an explanation for scale reversals
in terms of morphology, underlining some non-trivial problems. In Section 4,
we argue that the data from both OC and OR support the strong conclusion
that the problem is not the absence of overt case morphology on 3rd person
pronouns, but rather the 3rd person animate category itself. We explore a
solution based on the existence of multiple structural sources for (1st and 2nd
person) pronouns and the relevance of animacy and of discourse participants
to argument-licensing strategies. Section 5 provides similar scale reversal
patterns that go beyond Romance, as well as some remarks on the (non)
universality of scales. Section 6 contains the conclusions.

2 OLD CATALAN AND OLD ROMANIAN COUNTEREXAMPLES

In order to better frame the discussion and understand the scale reversal
problems, we first discuss OS, as an example of a language where DOM
appears to have evolved according to the scales. The general pattern obtained
from OS texts is that personal pronouns were systematically differentially
marked from the very beginning, with no exception, as shown in (3) and (4).
This has been noted by several authors (Pensado 1995: 19, Company 2002:
207–208, von Heusinger & Kaiser 2005: 35–36, 41, Laca 2006: 426, 469, a.o.).
In the examples included below, we note the differential marking preposition
with 1st person, in (3 a), 2nd person, in (3 b) and 3rd person pronouns, in (4).<fnref n="4" />

<footnote n="4">⁴As well as (specific) animate DPs more generally, such as *nuestros amigos* ('our friends') in (3b).</footnote>
(3) a. *e ssi fuéredes vençidos, non rebtede a* and if *be.COND.2PL* defeated not *blame.IMP.2PL DOM nós*
us

‘but if you are defeated you are not to blame us’

(12th century, Cid, 3566, apud von Heusinger & Kaiser 2005)

b. *Dios salve a nuestros amigos e a vós*
God save.SBJV.3SG DOM our friends and DOM you
más, señor
more lord

‘May God save our friends and you above all, my lord’

(12th c., Cid, 3038, apud Ramsden 1961: 49)

(4) a. *ellos comdes gallizanos a él tienen por señor*
they counts Galicians DOM he have.3PL as lord
‘they, Galician counts, have him as lord’

(12th c., Cid, 2926, apud Ramsden 1961: 48)

b. *todos a él guardavan.*
all DOM he observe.IPFV.3PL
‘They all observed him.’

(13th c., Poema de Fernán González, 553b, apud Ramsden 1961: 48)

In OC, however, it does not seem to be the case that DOM consolidated first with 1st/2nd person, subsequently extending to 3rd person<fnref n="5" /> (for a full picture on the emergence and expansion of DOM in the diachrony of Catalan, see Pineda to appear). We have examined various texts from the 11th to the 16th centuries. In (5) we provide some examples from the chivalric novel *Curial e Güelfa*, where 3rd person pronouns tend to show DOM, as in (5a), (5b), whereas 1st and 2nd pronouns generally lack it, as in (5c), (5d).

(5) a. *vós havets honrat a ell.*
you.2PL have.2PL honoured DOM he
‘You have honoured him.’

(Curial e Güelfa, 15th century)

b. *ell e un companyó seu combatrían a ell.*
he and a companion his fight.COND.3PL DOM he
‘You and a mate of his would fight him.’

(Curial e Güelfa, 15th century)

<footnote n="5">⁵See also Irimia & Pineda (2019) and Irimia & Pineda to appear.</footnote>
c. ¿què ha mogut **tu** e **ton** companyó **a**...?
what has moved you and your companion to
‘What compelled you and your mate to ...’
(Curial e Güelfa, 15th century)

d. aquella senyora, qui mira nosaltres...
that lady who look.3sg we
‘That lady, who watches us ...’ (Curial e Güelfa, 15th century)

In fact, an overview of the occurrences of DOM in this novel shows that the contrast is quite robust. This is seen in Table 1.<fnref n="6" />

<table><caption>**Table 1** Curial e Güelfa, 15th century. First 30,000 words</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>NO DOM</th><th>DOM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup>/2<sup>nd</sup><br>sg/pl</td><td>4<br>(44.4%)</td><td>5<br>(55.5%)</td></tr><tr><td><b>3<sup>rd</sup> sg/pl</b></td><td>1<br>(16.7%)</td><td><b>5</b><br><b>(83.3%)</b></td></tr></tbody></table>

A similar pattern is found in other works from the 14th and 15th centuries. From the late 15th century onwards, DOM becomes systematic with all strong (personal) pronouns, that is, the setting seen in Modern Catalan (MC), as illustrated later in the paper in example (13).

<table><caption>**Table 2** Filla, 14th century.
Entire text (9,000 words)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>NO<br>DOM</th><th>DOM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup>/2<sup>nd</sup><br>sg/pl</td><td>2<br>(100%)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> sg/pl</td><td>6<br>(66.7%)</td><td>3<br>(33.3%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 3** Clams e crims, 14th century. First 30,000 words</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>NO<br>DOM</th><th>DOM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup>/2<sup>nd</sup><br>sg/pl</td><td>3<br>(100%)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> sg/pl</td><td>0</td><td>2<br>(100%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="6">⁶Note that although the number of pronoun occurrences might be low, due to the nature of the texts, what is important are the systematic tendencies in the marking of direct object pronouns. See also the observations in Irimia & Pineda (2019).</footnote>
On the setting of scales in the diachrony of DOM

<table><caption>**Table 4** *Epistolari I, 14th century. First 30,000 words*</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>NO<br>DOM</th><th>DOM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup>/2<sup>nd</sup><br>sg/pl</td><td>9<br>(64.3%)</td><td>5<br>(35.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> sg/pl</td><td>1<br>(20%)</td><td>4<br>(80%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 5** *Epistolari II, 15th century. First 30,000 words*</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>NO<br>DOM</th><th>DOM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup>/2<sup>nd</sup><br>sg/pl</td><td>9<br>(75%)</td><td>3<br>(25%)</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> sg/pl</td><td>0</td><td>2<br>(100%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

These types of data indicate that an account in terms of scales faces some challenges in explaining the evolution of Catalan DOM. Scales would predict 1st and 2nd person pronouns to be stronger DOM triggers than 3rd person pronouns, but we see exactly the opposite in OC. An explanation is needed for this pattern.

## 2.1 Old Romanian DOM

The Catalan situation is replicated in Old Romanian, where differential objects were normally introduced by the preposition *pe*,<fnref n="7" />,<fnref n="8" /> as seen in the example below from a 16th century text:<fnref n="9" />

<footnote n="7">⁷The same marker, which is homophonous with a locative preposition (*on*), is used in Modern Romanian (MR). We include here a locative preposition context. Later in the paper we will see examples of *pe* DOM in MR. The MR data come from the first author's judgments as a native speaker.</footnote>

<footnote>(i) A *pus cartea pe masă*. has put book.DEF.F.SG on table 'S/he has put the book on the table.'</footnote>

<footnote>MR</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Note that, when it comes to Romanian, there are differences between the use of *pe* in texts written in the first part of the 16th century and texts written towards the end (after 1580). There are also differences between translations and original OR texts (Pușcariu 1921–1922, Rosetti 1978, Hill 2013, Mardale 2015, Pană-Dindelegan 2016, Avram & Zafiu 2017, Hill & Mardale 2019, to appear, a.o.).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹A few notes are in order about OR corpora, which are attested much later than their OS and OC counterparts. The agreed-upon parametrization of OR is as follows (see also Pană-Dindelegan 2016, a.o., for discussion). The first period of OR, when the earliest available texts were produced, extends from around 1500 to 1640 (with some accounts describing the document called *Neacșu's Letter*, dated at 1521, as the first Romanian text). The second period of OR lasts from 1640 to 1780 and is characterized by a remarkable increase in the number and stylistic registers of texts. The third period is referred to as Modern Romanian (MR). *Neacșu's Letter*, a short document, contains no instances of DOM, and thus could not be used</footnote>
(6) Înţeleptulu soare [...] toţi-i veade, ce mai
wise.DEF.M.SG sun all-CL.ACC.M.3PL see.3SG but more
vârtosu pre cari-i prevescu pre elu.
strong DOM REL.M.PL-DEF.M.PL look/watch DOM he

'The wise sun sees everyone, especially those who watch him.'
(CC².1581: 439, apud Nicula Paraschiv 2016: 251a)

An unexpected behaviour of 3rd person pronouns with respect to DOM was initially observed by von Heusinger & Onea Gáspár (2008). In an examination of some of the first Bible translations into Romanian (especially Bible A and Bible B), the two authors noticed that 3rd person pronouns were differentially marked to an overwhelmingly higher degree than 1st and 2nd person pronouns. Once again, as we have indicated above, this is exactly the opposite to what the scales predict. More precisely, von Heusinger & Onea Gáspár (2008) noticed that 3rd person pronouns tend to show DOM in a more stable way than the other persons, with which the differential marker is rather optional. In some texts, the percentages go as illustrated in Table 6 below (from von Heusinger & Onea Gáspár 2008), where we can see DOM with 3rd person 97% of the time, compared to just 50% for 1st and 2nd.<fnref n="10" /> These results clearly mirror the OC picture. We supplemented the investigation in von Heusinger & Onea Gáspár with an analysis of other texts, such as CT.1560-1561, CC¹.1567 and CC².1581, Ev.1642, DÎ.1593 and MI (corpus label abbreviations are at the end of the document in the section Corpora and primary sources).<fnref n="11" />,<fnref n="12" /> The results indicate a prominence of 3rd person DOM at least in the initial texts, up to the second part of the 16th century.

here. However, our investigation has concentrated on other texts from the first period and the initial part of the second period.

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Avram & Zafiu (2017) have also examined corpora from other periods and present a more nuanced view of the distributional patterns, underlining important differences between various types of texts. Here, we are only interested in examples illustrating scale reversals. Regular DOM patterns, seen especially in later texts when the strategy has been regularized (just as in OC, as we mentioned above), are unproblematic for the discussion in this paper. See also Hill & Mardale (to appear) for similar observations.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Abbreviation conventions from Pană-Dindelegan (ed., 2016).</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²See also Tigău (2011), Nicula Paraschiv (2016), Avram & Zafiu (2017) and Hill and Mardale (2017, 2019), among others.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 6** DOM with *p(r)e* in 16th century Romanian (adapted from von Heusinger & Onea Gáspár 2008: Table 1, page 77)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>NO DOM</th><th>DOM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup>/2<sup>nd</sup><br>sg/pl</td><td>5<br>(50%)</td><td>5<br>(50%)</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> sg/pl</td><td>1<br>(3%)</td><td><strong>33</strong><br><strong>(97%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Extending our attention beyond the personal pronouns per se to include also other animates, the full results of von Heusinger & Onea Gáspár (2008) are as depicted in Table 7. What is relevant here is that 3rd person pronouns basically have the same distributional patterns as proper names. Both categories require DOM to an overwhelmingly high degree (97% for the former, and 100% for the latter). They are thus distinguished from 1st/2nd person pronouns, which only show differential marking 50% of the time. As the animacy/referentiality scale also appears to be reversed in OR, just as in OC, the data require an explanation.

<table><caption>**Table 7** DOM with *p(r)e* in 16th century Romanian (von Heusinger & Onea Gáspár 2008: Table 1, page 77)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Me/ you</th><th>Other pronouns (one instance of reflexive)</th><th>Prop. name</th><th>Def. NP</th><th>Indef. NP</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>+pe</td><td>5</td><td><strong>33</strong></td><td><strong>3</strong></td><td>9</td><td>1</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>-pe</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td><strong>36</strong></td><td><strong>9</strong></td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>10</td><td>34</td><td>3</td><td>45</td><td>10</td><td>102</td></tr><tr><td>%+pe</td><td>50%</td><td>97%</td><td>100%</td><td>20%</td><td>10%</td><td>50%</td></tr></tbody></table>

In fact, the independent analysis performed by Avram & Zafiu (2017) on a more extensive set of corpora has also emphasized the prominence of proper names. The two authors conclude that ‘an earlier stage’ was active in OR ‘when proper names might have been more robustly pe-marked than definite pronouns’ (p. 36), according to the scale in (7).

(7) Proper names > definite pronouns > definite DPs > indefinite DPs (Avram & Zafiu 2017: i, p.36)

The higher percentage of DOM on proper names (and other animate nouns) as opposed to personal pronouns is similarly salient in the corpora examined
by Hill and Mardale (2019, to appear). As our results are very similar to what Hill & Mardale (to appear) have obtained and in the interest of space, we present Tables 8 and 9 below from Hill & Mardale (to appear), as an illustration.<fnref n="13" />

<table><caption>**Table 8** DOM with *p(r)e* in 16th century Romanian (Hill & Mardale to appear: Table 3, page 11)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Operation</th><th colspan="2">CEv</th><th colspan="2">PO</th><th colspan="2">DÎ</th></tr><tr><th>Pron.</th><th>Nouns</th><th>Pron.</th><th>Nouns</th><th>Pron.</th><th>Nouns</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>DOM-p</td><td>271;<br>48.91%</td><td>90;<br>42.05%</td><td>214;<br>49.76%</td><td><b>245;</b><br><b>62.02%</b></td><td>17;<br>64%</td><td><b>56;</b><br><b>76.71%</b></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 9** DOM with *p(r)e* in 17th and 18th century Romanian (Hill & Mardale to appear: Table 4, page 11)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Operation</th><th colspan="4">17<sup>th</sup> century</th><th colspan="4">18<sup>th</sup> century</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Varlaam</th><th colspan="2">Ureche</th><th colspan="2">Ivireanu</th><th colspan="2">Neculce</th></tr><tr><th>Pron.</th><th>Nouns</th><th>Pron.</th><th>Nouns</th><th>Pron.</th><th>Nouns</th><th>Pron.</th><th>Nouns</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>DOM-p</td><td>52;<br>25.12%</td><td><b>240;</b><br><b>94.11%</b></td><td>22;<br>43.13%</td><td><b>342;</b><br><b>87.91%</b></td><td>87;<br>43.5%</td><td><b>368;</b><br><b>96.08%</b></td><td>43;<br>48.31%</td><td><b>526;</b><br><b>90.37%</b></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note that proper names are equally important in OC. The earliest Catalan texts also show that *a*-marking did not necessarily consolidate first with strong pronouns and then appeared in DPs. In the two examples below we notice a 2nd person pronoun showing up without DOM, while the 3rd person proper name carries DOM.

(8) a. *darem* *a aquels* [l]icènsia de peynorar
give.FUT.1PL to them permit to fine.INF
**vós**
you.2PL.HONORIFIC(=SG)
'We will give them permit to fine you.'
(Clams e crims, 13th century)

b. *com en Ca[ste]let, saig, volgués*
since the Castelet, executioner, want.SBJV.PST.3SG
*peynorar a· n Ramon Sanç, lo dit Ramon*
*fine.INF DOM the Ramon Sanç the mentioned Ramon*

<footnote n="13">¹³17th and 18th century Romanian also shows robustness of clitic doubling with DOM for pronouns. As we discuss in the next section, this further confirms the hypothesis that nominal categories can present more than one licensing strategy operating at the same time.</footnote>
On the setting of scales in the diachrony of DOM

dix a aquel que no·l peynoràs,
tell.PST.3SG to that.one that no him.ACC fine.SBJV.PST.3SG

'Since Castelet, the executioner, wanted to fine Ramon Sanç, the
above-mentioned Ramon told to that one not to fine him.'

(Clams e crims, 13th century)

These observations are important from yet another perspective. OR and OC, although two Romance varieties, have not been in close contact at all. Thus, these patterns can also tell us something relevant about the nature of DOM and its evolution.

### 3 DISAMBIGUATION OF THE NOM-ACC HOMOMOPHISM

Von Heusinger and Onea Gáspár (2008) have proposed an explanation for the unexpected behaviour of 3rd person by connecting these patterns to one salient morphological aspect. The two authors start from an observation about the pronominal system of OR and Modern Romanian (MR), namely that 1st and 2nd persons preserve distinct accusative case morphology in the singular, as illustrated in Table 10. Note that we are only interested in the tonic forms of the pronouns here; Romanian also exhibits clitic pronominal forms,<fnref n="14" /> but as these cannot show the differential marker, we are not concerned with them in much detail.

<table><caption>**Table 10** Morphology of personal pronouns in MR</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">Singular</th><th colspan="3">Plural</th></tr><tr><th>NOM</th><th>ACC</th><th>DAT</th><th>NOM</th><th>ACC</th><th>DAT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>1<sup>st</sup> person</th><td>eu</td><td><strong>mine</strong></td><td><em>mie</em></td><td>noi</td><td>noi</td><td><em>nouă</em></td></tr><tr><th>2<sup>nd</sup> person</th><td>tu</td><td><strong>tine</strong></td><td><em>ţie</em></td><td>voi</td><td>voi</td><td><em>vouă</em></td></tr><tr><th>3<sup>rd</sup> (M)</th><td>el</td><td>el</td><td><em>lui</em></td><td>ei</td><td>ei</td><td><em>lor</em></td></tr><tr><th>3<sup>rd</sup> (F)</th><td>ea</td><td>ea</td><td><em>ei</em></td><td>ele</td><td>ele</td><td><em>lor</em></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴For the clitic paradigms of Romanian, see especially Ciucivara (2009), as well as Table 11. An ungrammatical example with DOM on the clitic in MR is seen below.</footnote>

<footnote>(i) (*Pe) l-am văzut.
DOM CL.3SG.ACC-have seen
Intended: 'I have seen him.'</footnote>
Von Heusinger and Onea Gáspár’s (2008) reasoning goes as follows: given that the 1st and 2nd person pronouns still show distinct accusative morphology, there was no functional need for them to also be differentially marked. Their special accusative form already indicates their status as direct objects. The morphology of the 3rd person pronouns, on the other hand, is ambiguous between nominative and accusative case. Thus, the identification of their direct object status, as opposed to their functioning as subjects, needs further morphological signalling. As DOM is basically a means to indicate internal objects which are licensed via structural accusative case (see also Aissen 2003), its presence with 3rd person tonic pronouns is as expected. This explanation builds on a generally held assumption regarding the status of the differential marker as a grammatical means for accusative case.<fnref n="15" /> However, there are some observations that weaken this hypothesis. We will discuss two aspects here.

First, if we examine Table 10 carefully, we notice that distinct accusative morphology is only seen on the 1st/2nd person in the *singular*. In the plural, the homomorphism extends to all persons. The problem is that the case-marking explanation proposed above would imply that the differential marker must be used with *all* persons in the plural in order to disambiguate their object functions (as the pronominal forms are uniformly homophonous in the plural). But, once again, this is not what the corpora show. We can see in one and the same text 3rd person showing up with DOM and 1st and 2nd person *plurals* being used as objects without differential marking, although they are homophonous between their nominative and accusative uses. Looking at yet other texts, we get the same problem. In example (9a) below, overt verbal agreement indicates that the subject is 3rd person, while the object is the 2nd person plural form *voi*. As we can see in Table 10, this latter form is syncretic with the nominative. However, it is used for a direct object *without* differential marking. In the same text, we also get a 3rd person object in example (9b), with an equally nominative-accusative homophonous form, which *is* differentially marked. This exact same state of affairs is replicated in the sentences in (10), this time with a 1st person plural (tonic) pronoun. Despite the nominative-accusative homomorphism that affects both the 1st person plural pronoun (*noi* in (10a)) and the 3rd person singular pronoun (*elu* in (10b)), it is only the latter that gets differentially marked. There is something else to note about examples like (10b): the verb cluster also contains an *object* clitic, namely the 3rd person singular masculine accusative -l. As shown in Table 11, 16th century Romanian clitics had distinct

<footnote n="15">¹⁵See also Jaeggli (1982, 1986), Dobrovie-Sorin (1994), López (2012) and Ormazabal & Romero (2013), among others, as well as the remarks in footnote 16 below.</footnote>
accusative and dative forms (just as in MR), which were also distinguished by
gender to a certain degree. Thus, we know that the form -l in example (10b)
refers to a 3rd person masculine entity, in the accusative. As the accusative
object function of the 3rd person tonic form elu is already signalled by the
clitic, which is part of the same (thematic) chain, the question is why the 3rd
person tonic pronoun also needed the differential marker.<fnref n="16" /> Examples of this
type unambiguously demonstrate that the presence of DOM on 3rd person to
the exclusion of 1st and 2nd person is not simply due to an avoidance of the
nominative-accusative homomorphism.<fnref n="17" />

(9) a. *Nemica voi să vatăme.*
nothing you.PL SBJV hurt.3sbjv
‘Let nothing hurt you.’
(CT.1560–1561: 140<sup>v</sup>)

b. *Lumea pre elu nu cunoscu.*
people.DEF.F.SG DOM he not know.PST.3.SG
‘People did not recognize him.’
(CT.1560–1561: 1<sup>v</sup>)

The major problem is that there are countless instances where differential marking is
possible, and in fact, only grammatical without clitic doubling. We have already seen
many examples where 3rd person tonic pronouns/animate DPs functioning as direct objects
surface with differential marking but no clitic doubling (the OR examples, (6), (9b), etc.).
Generally, differential marking and clitic doubling are not correlated at the historical stages
we are examining for OR (see also Hill & Mardale 2017), MR (Cornilescu 2000, Irimia
2020, a.o.) or Catalan (Pineda to appear). An explanation for the co-occurrence of clitic
doubling is, therefore, still needed. This is beyond the scope and limits of this article.
What matters for us is that examples like (10b) strengthen the conclusion that the presence
of differential marking on 3rd person tonic pronouns, as opposed to 1st and 2nd persons,
cannot be motivated by the need to block nominative-accusative ambiguity.

<footnote n="16">¹⁶Grouping examples like (10b) under the so-called Kayne–Jaeggli Generalization does not solve the problem. As expressed in (i), this generalization has been formulated for DOM languages where the differential marker is ungrammatical without (accusative) clitic doubling. In modern Romance languages, this obligatoriness is preserved with tonic pronouns, which, as we show in more detail later in the paper, indeed require obligatory clitic doubling besides DOM. The Kayne–Jaeggli Generalization connected the prepositional differential marker to a last-resort convergence mechanism. As the clitic needs to be Case-marked, it absorbs the Case from V, leaving the object DP without Case, and thus violating the Case Filter (Chomsky 1981). The differential marker is inserted to check Case on the DP, thus saving the derivation.</footnote>

<footnote>(i) *Kayne-Jaeggli Generalization* (Jaeggli 1982: 20)</footnote>

<footnote>An object NP may be doubled by a clitic only if the NP is preceded by a preposition.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷Another important observation about OR is that 3rd person pronouns had a yet distinct form, which was used for the accusative, under the morphological shape *sine*. This is illustrated in Table A.</footnote>
(10) a. *Va vindeca noi.*
FUT.3SG heal.INF we
‘S/he will heal us.’

(CC².1581: 20)

b. *Surpa-l-va pre elu.*
destroy-CL.ACC.3SG-FUT.3SG DOM he
‘Heᵢ will destroy himᵢ.’

(CC².1581: 23)

<table><caption>**Table A** Morphology of personal pronouns in OR</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">Singular</th><th colspan="3">Plural</th></tr><tr><th>NOM</th><th>ACC</th><th>DAT</th><th>NOM</th><th>ACC</th><th>DAT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup> person</td><td>eu</td><td><strong>menre/</strong><br><strong>mene</strong></td><td>mie</td><td>noi</td><td>noi</td><td><strong>noauă</strong></td></tr><tr><td>2<sup>nd</sup> person</td><td>tu</td><td><strong>tine</strong></td><td>ţie</td><td>voi</td><td>voi</td><td><strong>voauă</strong></td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> (M)</td><td>elu</td><td><strong>elu/sine</strong></td><td>lui(ui)</td><td>ei</td><td>ei</td><td><strong>lor(u)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> (F)</td><td>ea</td><td>ea</td><td>ei</td><td>ele</td><td>ele</td><td><strong>lor(u)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

A crucial point is that *sine* could be used as an accusative form for a 3rd person pronoun. We give below an example from DÎ (16th century). Note that the context appears to indicate that the subject and the object are not co-referential. Some clarification is therefore in order with respect to such sentences, and the form *sine*, more generally. The morphology *sine* is also seen in MR, where it can only have a reflexive interpretation, and needs obligatory clitic doubling via the reflexive *SE* (besides DOM). Thus, the MR correspondent of (i) would be the sentence in (ii). The existence of a potential reflexive interpretation could lead to the hypothesis that the presence of differential marking on *sine* in 16th century Romanian texts is orthogonal to the problem we need to solve here. Also note that *sine* also exhibits a nominalized variant, under the reading *self*. One possibility would be that reflexive interpretations always require DOM, just like proper names. However, the fact that *sine* could also accept non-reflexive/non-coreferential interpretations at the relevant period, would still require an explanation. In these contexts, the accusative morphology is clearly *distinct* from the nominative one, while DOM is still obligatory.

(i) *Ca să poată hrăni pe sine.*
that SBJV can.SBJV.3.SG feed.INF DOM he.ACC
‘so heᵢ can feed himᵢ.’

(DÎ.1593: XCV)

(ii) *Ca să se poată hrăni pe sine.*
that SBJV SE<sub>REFL</sub> can.SBJV.3.SG feed.INF DOM he.ACC
‘so he can feed himself.’/# ‘so heᵢ can feed himᵢ.’

(MR)

Crucially, even if we leave aside the problem of *sine* as a potential confound (under the assumption that the reflexive interpretation is of a different type in these contexts), we still need to address the other counterexamples with 3rd person mentioned in the paper.
<table><caption>**Table 11** Morphology of clitics in OR and MR</caption><thead><tr><th>Person</th><th>ACCUSATIVE</th><th>DATIVE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup> SG</td><td>mă, m-</td><td>îmi, -mi, mi-</td></tr><tr><td>2<sup>nd</sup> SG</td><td>te, -te, te-</td><td>îţi, -ţi-, -ţi</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> SG MASCULINE</td><td>îl, -l, l-</td><td>îi, -i, i-</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> SG FEMININE</td><td>o, -o, o-</td><td>îi, -i, i-</td></tr><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup> PL</td><td>ne, -ne, ne-</td><td>ne, -ne, ni</td></tr><tr><td>2<sup>nd</sup> PL</td><td>vă, -v, -vă</td><td>vă,-vă, vi</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> PL MASCULINE</td><td>îi, -i, i-</td><td>le, -le, le-</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> PL FEMININE</td><td>le, -le, le-</td><td>le, -le, le-</td></tr></tbody></table>

Turning now to Catalan, the case disambiguation hypothesis encounters similar problems. First, in both OC and Modern Catalan (MC), distinct accusative morphology is only seen with 1<sup>st</sup> person pronouns and only in the singular, as shown in Table 12.<sup>18</sup> Both 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> person pronouns are homophonous for the nominative and the accusative in their tonic form.<sup>19</sup>

<table><caption>**Table 12** Morphology of personal pronouns in OC and MC</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Singular</th><th colspan="2">Plural</th></tr><tr><th>NOM</th><th>ACC</th><th>NOM</th><th>ACC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup> person</td><td><b>jo</b></td><td><b>mi</b></td><td>nós/nosaltres</td><td>nós/nosaltres</td></tr><tr><td>2<sup>nd</sup> person</td><td>tu</td><td>tu</td><td>vós/vosaltres</td><td>vós/vosaltres</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">3<sup>rd</sup> person</td><td>ell</td><td>ell</td><td>ells</td><td>ells</td></tr><tr><td>ella</td><td>ella</td><td>elles</td><td>elles</td></tr></tbody></table>

This state of affairs would predict differential marking to be obligatory with both 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> person. But as we have already mentioned, this is not what the evidence shows. Moreover, if DOM were a mechanism to solve the

<footnote n="18"><sup>18</sup>In Balearic Catalan, the homomorphism extends to the 1<sup>st</sup> person singular too.</footnote>

<footnote>(i) a. *Jo* vindré.
I will.come
'I will come.'</footnote>

<footnote>b. *M'* *han* *vist* *a* *jo*.
CL.ACC.1SG have seen DOM I
'They have seen me.'</footnote>

<footnote n="19"><sup>19</sup>For a detailed picture of strong pronouns in the diachrony of Catalan, see Beltran & Guardiola (to appear).</footnote>
nominative-accusative isomorphism, we would expect 1st person singular pronouns to be more reluctant than other personal pronouns to take DOM. However, this does not seem to be the case either. In our corpora we find texts where DOM shows up with some 1st person singular pronouns (11)<fnref n="20" /> whereas 1st person plural pronouns, as well as animate DPs presenting the nominative-accusative homomorphism, lack it (12).

(11) vós enviàs missatge a mon seyor lo rey que
you.2PL send.PST.2PL message to my lord the king that
us enviàs missatge en què él molt
you.DAT send.SBJV.PST.3SG messenger in whom he much
se fiàs, e trià a mi
REFL trust.SBJV.PST.3SG and choose.PST.3SG DOM me.ACC
'you sent a message to my lord, the king, asking him to send you a
messenger whom he really trusted, and he chose me'
(Jaume I, *Fets*, 13th century)

(12) a. E sobre açò, nós esperan éls, vench missatge
and about that we waiting them come.PST.3SG message
al conseyl
to.the council
'And regarding this issue, while we were waiting for them, a
message arrived to the council' (Jaume I, *Fets*, 13th century)

b. enviaren missatge a l' apostoli Innocent tercer, que
send.PST.3PL message to the Pope Innocent third that
él presés conseyl e destrenyés En
he take.PST.SBJV.3SG council and force.PST.SBJV.3SG the
Simon de Muntfort per vet o per altra manera, que
Simon de Muntfort by veto or by other way so—that
cobrassen nós, qui érem lur seyor
recover.PST.SBJV.3PL us who be.PST.1PL their lord
natural
natural
'they sent a message to Pope Innocent III, asking him to gather
his council and force Simon de Muntfort out by veto or in some
other way, so that they could recover us, because we were their
natural lord' (Jaume I, *Fets*, 13th century)

<footnote n="20">²⁰Still to a lesser degree than 3rd person.</footnote>
If we turn to MC, DOM is required with all strong pronouns, with no
difference between the 1st person singular and the rest. Moreover, all personal
pronouns also need to be clitic doubled, using the accusative form of the
clitic.

(13) Catalan pronouns used as direct objects

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>a.</td>
      <td>M'</td>
      <td>han</td>
      <td>vist</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>mi.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>CL.1SG.ACC</td>
      <td>have.3PL</td>
      <td>seen</td>
      <td>DOM</td>
      <td>me</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>b.</td>
      <td>T'</td>
      <td>han</td>
      <td>vist</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>tu.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>CL.2SG.ACC</td>
      <td>have.3PL</td>
      <td>seen</td>
      <td>DOM</td>
      <td>you</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>c.</td>
      <td>L'</td>
      <td>han</td>
      <td>vist</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>ell.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>CL.3SG.ACC</td>
      <td>have.3PL</td>
      <td>seen</td>
      <td>DOM</td>
      <td>him</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>d.</td>
      <td>Ens</td>
      <td>han</td>
      <td>vist</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>nosaltres.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>CL.1PL.ACC</td>
      <td>have.3PL</td>
      <td>seen</td>
      <td>DOM</td>
      <td>us</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>e.</td>
      <td>Us</td>
      <td>han</td>
      <td>vist</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>vosaltres.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>CL.2PL.ACC</td>
      <td>have.3PL</td>
      <td>seen</td>
      <td>DOM</td>
      <td>you</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>f.</td>
      <td>Els</td>
      <td>han</td>
      <td>vist</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>ells.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>CL.3PL.ACC</td>
      <td>have.3PL</td>
      <td>seen</td>
      <td>DOM</td>
      <td>them</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="6">'They have seen me/you/him/us/you/them.'</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

As shown in Tables 13 and 14, MC and OC clitics have distinct accusative and dative forms for the 3rd person.<fnref n="21" /> Thus, as we already saw for OR, the presence of a non-ambiguously accusative doubling clitic in the verb cluster indicates the object function of the tonic 3rd person forms that follow and that are part of the same thematic chain. The question thus arises as to why 3rd person pronouns need to bear DOM; clearly, the answer cannot be related to the nominative–accusative homomorphism, as we already concluded from the evidence in Table 12 (as well as for OR).

<footnote n="21">²¹The dative/accusative distinct morphology for 1st and 2nd person pronouns from Latin was not preserved in OC (Ribera to appear). In the earliest Catalan texts, some occurrences of *mi* (from Latin dative *mihi*) and *ti* (from Latin dative *tibi*) can be found together with *me* and *te*. They usually correspond to contexts where the pronoun is tonic, although instances where *mi* and *ti* seem to be weak are also found (Ribera to appear). In any case, what is important is that these forms are used for both direct and indirect objects, namely they do not represent a continuation of Latin’s distinct dative morphology: as noted by Maneikis & Neugaard (1977: I, 23), the functions of *mi* and *me* in Catalan, as in many neo-Latin dialects, interpenetrated to a large extent and appear heavily confused.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 13** Morphology of clitics in MC</caption><thead><tr><th>Person</th><th>ACCUSATIVE</th><th>DATIVE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup> SG</td><td>em, m', -me, 'm</td><td>em, m', -me, 'm</td></tr><tr><td>2<sup>nd</sup> SG</td><td>et, t', -te, 't</td><td>et, t', -te, 't</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> SG MASCULINE</td><td><b>el, l', -lo, 'l</b></td><td><b>li, -li</b></td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> SG FEMININE</td><td><b>la, l', -la</b></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup> PL</td><td>ens, -nos, 'ns</td><td>ens, -nos, 'ns</td></tr><tr><td>2<sup>nd</sup> PL</td><td>us, -vos</td><td>us, -vos</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> PL MASCULINE</td><td>els, -los, 'ls</td><td>els, -los, 'ls (some dialects <i>els hi, 'ls-hi</i>)</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> PL FEMININE</td><td>les, -les</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 14** Morphology of clitics in OC (from Ribera to appear)</caption><thead><tr><th>Person</th><th>ACCUSATIVE</th><th>DATIVE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup> SG</td><td>me/em, m', -me, 'm</td><td>me/em, m', -me, 'm</td></tr><tr><td>2<sup>nd</sup> SG</td><td>te/et, t', -te, 't</td><td>te/et, t', -te, 't</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> SG MASCULINE</td><td><b>lo/el, l', -lo, 'l</b></td><td><b>li, -li</b></td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> SG FEMININE</td><td><b>la, l', -la</b></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup> PL</td><td>nos/ens, -nos, 'ns</td><td>nos/ens, -nos, 'ns</td></tr><tr><td>2<sup>nd</sup> PL</td><td>vos/us, -vos</td><td>vos/us, -vos</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> PL MASCULINE</td><td><b>los/els, -los, 'ls</b></td><td><b>lur/los/els, -lur/-los, 'ls</b></td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> PL FEMININE</td><td><b>les, -les</b></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

The same observation about the presence of DOM with clitic doubling is salient in MR. We have already mentioned that all pronouns used as direct objects need to be accompanied by both the differential marker and accusative clitic doubling, as seen in (14). In the singular, 1st and 2nd person pronouns must additionally show accusative morphology. Taking into account the objections to the Kayne–Jaeggli Generalization presented in footnote 16, the hypothesis under which DOM is connected to accusative case is further weakened.

(14) Romanian pronouns used as direct objects

a. *(Mă) numesc *(pe) mine.
CL.1SG.ACC nominate.3PL DOM I.ACC
‘They nominate me.’
b. *(Te) numesc *(pe) tine.
CL.2SG.ACC nominate3PL DOM you.ACC
'They nominate you (SG).'

c. *(Îl/o) numesc *(pe) el/*(pe) ea.
CL.3SG.M/F.ACC nominate.3PL DOM he/DOM she
'They nominate him/her.'

d. *(Ne) numesc *(pe) noi.
CL.1PL.ACC nominate.3PL DOM we
'They nominate us.'

e. *(Vă) numesc *(pe) voi.
CL.2PL.ACC nominate.3PL DOM you
'They nominate you (PL).'

f. *(Îi/le) numesc *(pe) ei/ele.
CL.2PL.ACC nominate.3PL DOM they.M/they.F
'They nominate them (M/F).'

## 4 TOWARDS A SOLUTION

Summarizing what has been discussed up to this point, under a construction of scales as in (2), 1st/2nd person are predicted to be stronger DOM triggers than 3rd person. But this is the opposite to what we see in our data. Given the arguments we have presented above, OC and OR support an important conclusion – in the scale reversal contexts we have illustrated, the problem is 3rd person itself, and not the nominative-accusative homomorphism. DOM is not a mechanism to disambiguate between subjects and objects. As the case morphology disambiguation hypothesis can be safely excluded, we propose a different solution which builds on two important theoretical aspects: a) the status of differential objects with respect to argument-licensing strategies in the syntax; b) the existence of more than one structural source for personal pronouns. We clarify both aspects below; we show that an analysis under which differential marking is unified as a licensing strategy beyond Case is better equipped to address the data. This assumption, coupled with the observation that personal pronouns project more than one type of structure, can derive the observation that 3rd person appears to be more robust when it comes to differential marking, in certain transitional states in the grammar.

### 4.1 DOM and Case

Recent discussions have seen a renewed interest in the nature of DOM. Many formal accounts in the generative tradition equate DOM with structural
Case/licensing. In an extreme view of some of the theoretical incarnations
in this direction, direct objects are taken to instantiate an important split
when it comes to their syntax (Ormazabal & Romero 2013, Kalin 2018,
Levin 2019, a.o.). On the one hand, there are those objects that have an
(uninterpretable) Case [(u)C] feature and require valuation by a suitable
functional projection in the sentential spine. Such objects are assumed to
contain the determiner functional projection (being DPs) or even a higher
functional projection for Case (the KP). The result of this operation is the
presence of overt morphology, such as DOM. On the other hand, those objects
that cannot show DOM are assumed to be caseless and, more generally,
undergo (pseudo-)incorporation (for example, due to their predicate <e,t>
nature). A simple representation is given below.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>b. Objects with [uC]</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Building on these observations, we believe that some of the formal accounts
in this line may have the potential to explain the puzzle we are concerned
with here. However, our claim is that DOM does not simply signal the
difference between objects that undergo (pseudo-)incorporation (DOM-less
ones) and objects that must be licensed in the syntax (DOM-ed). OR and
OC provide evidence that the differential marker tracks an additional licens-
ing operation on objects that have an independent argumental status (and
escape incorporation). More simply put, the differential marker is rather
an argument-licensing operation beyond Case (see also Leonetti 2003, 2008,
Iemmolo 2011, Cornilescu & Tigău 2017, Belletti 2018, Irimia 2018, 2020, a.o.).
Thus, the typology of direct objects in OC and OR is a three-way one: a)
objects that are not subject to licensing (15 a); b) objects that undergo licensing
for [uC]<fnref n="22" /> (15 b); c) objects that contain an extra specification beyond [uC], as

<footnote n="22">²²OC provides further evidence for a three-way split in the marking of direct objects. A difference is made in the language between objects that can show up with no object</footnote>
On the setting of scales in the diachrony of DOM

in (16). It is objects in this latter category that are differentially marked via
the preposition.

(16) DOM objects (additional licensing)

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

4.2 *Structures for pronouns*

The diagram in (16) contains an even more specific claim. Following what
is now a rich line of research where animacy is seen as the reflex of a
[PERSON] specification (Cornilescu 2000, Adger & Harbour 2007, Nevins
2007, Rodríguez-Mondoñedo 2007, Richards 2008, a.o.), we connect the
additional licensing operation to the presence of this [PERSON] feature. As
we have mentioned above, the correlation between animacy and adpositional
differential marking is clear in both Old and Modern Romance varieties

agreement, objects that exhibit object agreement (in number and gender on the participle in analytic past tenses), and objects that show differential marking, which is independent of object agreement but can co-occur with it. An example of object agreement without DOM is illustrated below; note that object agreement is not sensitive to animacy (the object in the example below is inanimate and cannot take DOM).

(i) OC – *Marquès* (14<sup>th</sup> century)

ell ... hac menjada la dita vianda
he ... had eaten.F.SG DEF.F.SG said.F.SG meat.F.SG
‘He has eaten the above-mentioned meat.’
that have differential marking.<fnref n="23" /> In the formal literature, one hypothesis to explain the marking is that animate objects contain a [PERSON]<fnref n="24" /> feature, which makes them similar to 1st and 2nd person pronouns. The presence of the [PERSON]<fnref n="25" /> specification allows animate objects to be included in the discourse (background), in the same way as the speaker and the hearer. Most of the accounts in this direction assume a decomposition similar to the one in Table 15. We model the geometry in Table 15 after Harley & Ritter (2002), Nevins (2007) and Anagnostopoulou (2003), among others.

<table><caption>**Table 15** Person and animacy (building on animacy as [PERSON] accounts)</caption><thead><tr><td>PERSON/ANIMACY</td><td>FEATURES</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1st person</td><td>[PERSON] (= [+PARTICIPANT])</td></tr><tr><td>2nd person</td><td>[PERSON] (= [+PARTICIPANT])</td></tr><tr><td>3rd person [+human, +animate]</td><td>[PERSON] (= [-PARTICIPANT])</td></tr></tbody></table>

However, although the linking of animates to a [PERSON] feature is useful for our analysis, we nevertheless show that animate direct objects and 3rd person animate pronouns must be distinguished from 1st/2nd person pronouns. The latter are not set aside via the presence of the [PERSON] feature, but via the presence of specifications such as [SPEAKER] and [HEARER]. Following standard assumptions in the literature, we take 2nd person to be signalled by a [HEARER/ADDRESSEE] feature, while 1st person is flagged by a [SPEAKER] feature (Nichols 2001, Nevins 2007, Béjar & Rezac 2009, a.o.). The fundamental

<footnote n="23">²³There are certain classes of inanimates which must be differentially marked, especially in Modern Romance varieties. For simplicity and lack of space, we leave aside a detailed discussion of these classes. In OC texts, for example, inanimates are not seen with DOM. Also note that 3rd person object pronouns cannot refer to inanimate entities either in the varieties described here or in the modern variants. In some Romance varieties, 3rd person inanimates can be used as subjects. For reasons of space, we leave aside an explanation for this latter aspect too.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴One important piece of evidence supporting the presence of a [PERSON] specification in the composition of differentially marked objects is related to the P(erson)C(ase)C(onstraint)-type interactions they give rise to. The pioneering discussion in Ormazabal & Romero (2007) has demonstrated that certain contexts where combinations of two clitics are banned can be reduced to the need of *animate* pronominal elements to enter into an object agreement relationship with the relevant verbal material. Many of these configurations cannot be reduced just to competition in terms of Case/agreement. Thus, the [PERSON] feature appears to be relevant.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵For reasons of space, we do not address here the debate of whether this is a binary feature or has to be specified in a different way (see Nevins 2007 for discussion). These options do not affect the thrust of our argument. We use the binary feature notation for convenience, but nothing hinges on it.</footnote>
question is whether 1st and 2nd person pronouns are constructed on material which is characteristic to 3rd person animates, or can have an independent structure, which requires an independent type of licensing. We believe that a system under which 1st and 2nd person pronouns can be associated with more than one type of configuration is on the right track and allows us to model and better understand the Old Romance data we started with. More specifically, we propose that the structures in both Table 16 and Table 17 are possible for 1st and 2nd person pronouns. The only difference between the two geometries is that, in Table 17, the features [SPEAKER] and [ADDRESSEE] also need the presence of a [PERSON] specification in order to be interpreted.

<table><caption>**Table 16** Person and animacy</caption><thead><tr><th>PERSON / ANIMACY</th><th>FEATURES</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup> person</td><td>[SPEAKER] (= [+PARTICIPANT])</td></tr><tr><td>2<sup>nd</sup> person</td><td>[ADDRESSEE] (= [+PARTICIPANT])</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> person [+human, +animate]</td><td>[PERSON] (= [+PARTICIPANT])</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 17** Person and animacy</caption><thead><tr><th>PERSON / ANIMACY</th><th>FEATURES</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1<sup>st</sup> person</td><td>[PERSON] (= [+PARTICIPANT]) + [SPEAKER]</td></tr><tr><td>2<sup>nd</sup> person</td><td>[PERSON] (= [+PARTICIPANT]) + [ADDRESSEE]</td></tr><tr><td>3<sup>rd</sup> person [+human, +animate]</td><td>[PERSON] (= [-PARTICIPANT])</td></tr></tbody></table>

Turning to the problem of 3rd person pronouns, we have claimed that some 3rd person DPs and pronouns, namely the animates that are differentially marked, contain a [PERSON] feature that requires licensing, beyond [uC]. Based on other theoretical observations recently made in the literature we further assume that this [PERSON] feature, which is linked to animacy and spelled out as the prepositional DOM, encodes a type of *Sentience* (Sundaresan 2018), or *Perspective* (Zubizarreta & Pancheva 2017, a.o.). It signals the entities that are seen as individualized and, thus, potential discourse participants to which the speaker/hearer can relate. In some contexts, this feature needs anchoring to the discourse, just like [SPEAKER], [HEARER] (Nichols 2001, Béjar & Rezac 2009, a.o.). As a consequence, we can obtain the following possible geometries for 3rd person, adapting Harley & Ritter (2002), among others, as well as the 'DOM as [PERSON]' hypothesis.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

To summarize, we connect grammaticalized animacy to the presence of a [PERSON] specification in the composition of 3rd person animate pronouns and, more generally, nominals. Moreover, in order to explain other important properties of DOM (such as PCC effects, as discussed below, or non-trivial interactions with clitic doubling, etc.), we also assume that this [PERSON] feature requires licensing in the syntax. More specifically, we further build on recent discussions (see especially Miyagawa 2017, Mursell 2018, a.o.) which have shown that the licensing of arguments can have two important sources: i) checking of Case features (phi-related strategy in Miyagawa’s terms), and ii) licensing of discourse-related features. We see the licensing of animates as a discourse-related licensing mechanism. With this assumption, we fit into a theoretical stream which has connected (Romance) DOM to a syntax-pragmatics interface mechanism. More often, this mechanism is related to topicality – DOM as secondary topic (Leonetti 2003, 2008, Dalrymple & Nikolaeva 2011, Iemmolo 2011, Mardale 2015, Hill & Mardale 2017, Belletti 2018, a.o.). However, although we link DOM to a discourse-licensing strategy, we do not necessarily assume a narrow connection with topicality.<fnref n="26" /> This is due to empirical reasons; in the corpora we have examined, DOM is not salient in topical contexts (for example, signalled by phrases such as ‘the above-mentioned’). We include an example below from OC: as we see here, what looks like a topicalized object shows up without DOM. Also, DOM is

<footnote n="26">²⁶The accounts that link DOM to topicality also need to explain why it is that animates are those categories that have to be topical.</footnote>
not necessary (or even possible) on dislocated topical DPs, irrespective of
whether they are animate or not. Similar observations hold for OR.

(19) *Clams e crims*, 13<sup>th</sup> century

lo dit Castelet dix que peynorava lo dit
the mentioned Castelet said that fine.IPFV.3SG the mentioned
***Ramon.***

Ramon

'The above-mentioned Castelet said that he would fine the
above-mentioned Ramon.'

In one of its most basic realizations, DOM is instead just the means to signal grammaticalized animacy, which needs licensing via a discourse-related strategy, as a category similar to Sentience or Perspective. This is due to the importance of animate entities in the discourse.

4.2.1 Animacy and discourse participants

Given the representations presented above, we can now turn to the problem
raised by this paper, namely the unexpected presence of DOM with 3rd
person to the exclusion of 1st and 2nd person. We have seen that such
examples constitute a violation of the animacy/person scale. We believe that
the answer hinges on understanding the precise composition of 1st and 2nd
person pronouns. We have proposed that such pronouns can exhibit two
geometries, which we make more precise here. Following Postal's (1969)
structure for pronouns, we assume that they contain the D⁰ projection, but a
null nominal base. 1st and 2nd person pronouns also contain specifications
such as [SPEAKER] and [HEARER]. The importance of such features in the
discourse and narrow syntax has been emphasized in a variety of contexts,
such as the PCC, allocutive agreement, etc. (Béjar & Rezac 2009, Nichols 2001,
a.o.). Crucially, [SPEAKER]/[HEARER] are distinct from animacy. For example,
as we show below, there are PCC configurations where only 1st and 2nd
persons are affected, while animates (even if differentially marked) are not
relevant (see also Anagnostopoulou 2003, Ormazabal & Romero 2007, a.o.).
On the basis of these remarks, we can have two types of structures for 1st and
2nd person pronouns. One option is that the features [SPEAKER]/[HEARER]
merge directly with D⁰ as in (20 a) and (21 a). As these features must be
licensed in the discourse, their valuation will not have differential marking
as a spell-out. The other option is that they merge with the projection that
introduces animacy (which we have labelled [SENTIENCE]), as in (20 b) and
(21b). In this case, as a result of licensing, DOM morphology might be present, as it signals [SENTIENCE].

(20) a.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

b.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

(21) a.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

b.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

What we see in Modern as opposed to Old Romance is a shift from a structure of type (a) to a structure of type (b). Initially, adpositional DOM was a marker of *animacy*, and not signalling [SPEAKER]/[HEARER], which therefore could not have been encoded by the prepositional DOM. The shift from the patterns in (20a)/(21a) to those in (20b)/(21b) is motivated by a pragmatic constraint that can be grammaticalized in certain languages: [SPEAKER]/[HEARER] can only be animate.

### 4.2.2 More on discourse participants: PCC effects

The remarks we have provided here assume that 1st and 2nd persons are structurally distinct from 3rd person, irrespective of animacy. We have just mentioned two independent classes of phenomena under which 1st and 2nd persons are set aside from 3rd person, such as PCC effects and allocutive agreement. We will be providing here further remarks with respect to the PCC, given that phenomena under this class raise some questions. As is well known, at least since Bonet's (1991) work, many Romance varieties exhibit hierarchy restriction phenomena under which 3rd person is set aside from 1st and 2nd persons, especially in the clitic domain. More precisely, the latter are not possible as accusative direct objects if the indirect object is a 3rd person.
On the setting of scales in the diachrony of DOM

These restrictions have come to be known under the label *P(erson) C(ase) C(onstraint)*. The PCC has been subsequently shown to have many sub-types, which we cannot exhaustively address here. One sub-type in particular is important for us, which individuates 1st/2nd from 3rd person. We present below its classical formulation.

(22) Bonet's *Strong* PCC
If DAT, then ACC/ABS = 3rd
When a clitic/weak *indirect object* (IO) and *direct object* (DO) pronoun co- occur, the DO cannot be 1/2P
(Bonet 1994: 36)

An example is provided in the sentence (23) from Catalan, where ungram-
maticality is triggered by the 1st person clitic realized as a direct object in the
presence of a 3rd person indirect object. As we can see in example (24), if
the direct object is instead a 3rd person, the structure is well formed in the
presence of a 1st person indirect object.

(23) * La Mireia **me** **li** ha recomanat.
the Mireia CL.1SG.ACC CL.3SG.DAT has recommended.M
*(3 DAT<sub>CL</sub> > 1 ACC<sub>CL</sub>)
'Mireia has recommended me to him/her.' (Bonet 2008, adapted)

(24) La Mireia me l' ha recomanat/-ada.
the Mireia CL.1SG.DAT CL.3SG.ACC has recommended.M/F
'Mireia has recommended him/her to me.'

This diagnostic, however, can be challenged in the light of Ormazabal and
Romero's (2007) observations about the connection between PCC and an-
imacy. As the two authors observed, there are Spanish varieties in which
3rd person clitics have distinct morphology, depending on animacy. More
precisely, 3rd person animate clitics must show up with dative morphology,
under a type of oblique DOM. We present the relevant examples below, under
(25). Note that the animate dative clitic in (25b) is *not* a dative syntactically,
but passes diagnostics indicating that it is a structural accusative.

(25) a. Lo vi.
CL.3ACC[-ANIMATE] saw
'I saw it.'
b. *Le* vi.
CL.3DAT=DAT[+ANIMATE] saw
'I saw him.' (Ormazabal & Romero 2007: 15a/b)

Another important observation Ormazabal & Romero (2007) made is that the 3rd person animate dative clitic appears to trigger PCC effects. The contrast below is telling and was the basis for Ormazabal and Romero's (2007) assumption that the PCC simply reduces to animacy.

(26) a. *Te* lo di.
CL.2DAT CL.3ACC gave.1SG
'I gave it to you.'

b. *Te* le di.
CL.2DAT CL.3DAT=DOM gave.1SG
'I gave him to you.' (Ormazabal & Romero 2007: 16a/b)

This conclusion could be problematic in light of the analysis put forward in this paper. If what matters is animacy, then it is surprising to see that oblique DOM shows differences from 1st and 2nd person (in OC and OR). The latter can only be animate, and thus there should be no difference between them and 3rd person animates. However, as Ormazabal & Romero (2007) themselves notice, the connection between PCC and animacy fails in at least one respect. The relevant Spanish varieties also present DOM constructed from full nominals which must be introduced by the locative/dative preposition. These latter are precisely the classes we have analysed here. The puzzle is that full nominal DOM does not trigger PCC effects similarly to the dative animate clitics in (26). As the example below shows, a full nominal DOM is possible in the presence of a 1st/2nd person indirect object. Thus, there is an important contrast between example (26b) and (27), proving that animacy is *not* the relevant factor in an absolute manner<fnref n="27" /> when it comes to the PCC.

(27) *Le/me* *enviaron a* *los enfermos*.
CL.3DAT/CL.1DAT sent.3PL DAT=DOM the sick
'They sent the sick to him/her/me.'

Note that grammaticality is also seen with a 3rd person when realized as a full pronoun. As in these instances the pronominal form is restricted just to animacy, the DOM preposition is obligatory.

<footnote n="27">²⁷Full nominal DOM does give rise to co-occurrence restrictions, but of a different nature.</footnote>
On the setting of scales in the diachrony of DOM

(28) *Me* *lo* *enviaron* *a* *él.*
CL.1DAT CL.3ACC sent.3PL DAT=DOM he
‘They sent him to me.’

What these examples tell us is that there is an *important structural* distinction between 1st/2nd persons and 3rd person (which, under certain surface conditions, might not be transparent). Crucially, the latter does not extend to full nominals under the same structural specifications.

## 5 SCALE REVERSALS BEYOND ROMANCE: ARE SCALES UNIVERSAL?

The intuition behind our analysis is that a given system might not contain only one *licensing strategy* (for its internal objects). This assumption has important consequences with respect to the nature of scales, in that it predicts that an individual scale is not necessarily *unitary*. More specifically, it need not be the case that all specifications above a certain threshold are *uniformly* signalled in the morphology. Thus, for example, in the animacy/person scale, if the threshold is set at the specification ‘human’ in a certain language, this should not imply that all human DPs, or DPs with higher specifications (pronouns, etc.), should be indicated in the morphology/syntax in the same way. There can, in fact, be further bifurcations introduced by individual specifications, with the result that, in a given scale, more than one morphological output might be observed on categories above a certain threshold. More simply put, if certain classes above a threshold are expected to bear some morphological marking, it should be possible to have instances where the marker is missing on certain categories above the threshold but still above other categories that do show the marker. Taking A, B, C, D to be abstract feature bundles above a certain threshold (>), we should expect both the morphological output in (29) and the one in (30). The former behaves as expected under a uniform scale, in that all classes above a certain threshold are salient morphologically. In the latter, the specifications A, B do not bear the morphological marker, despite being situated above C, D. As we explained above, our hypothesis is that in these contexts, A, B contain special bundles of features which are spelled out in a different way from the bundles of features characteristic to C, D (which demarcate the threshold). Obviously, a third scenario is also possible, as in (31). Here the categories C, D above the threshold receive dedicated marking 1, while the categories A, B, which are higher than C, D (and thus also above the threshold) receive not only dedicated marking 1, but also dedicated marking 2. We have seen this third scenario illustrated from Modern Romance languages in examples (13) and (14), where (1st, 2nd and animate 3rd person) pronouns functioning like direct
objects need to carry not only the differential preposition characteristic to other animates, but also clitic doubling (generally with accusative case, if we leave aside the so-called *leísta* varieties). See also Kiparsky (2008) for discussion in the same direction.

$$ (29) \quad \underbrace{A \ B \ C \ D}_{\text{dedicated marking}} > \underbrace{E \ F}_{\emptyset} $$

$$ (30) \quad \underbrace{A \ B}_{\emptyset} \ \underbrace{C \ D}_{\text{dedicated marking}} > \underbrace{E \ F}_{\emptyset} $$

$$ (31) \quad \underbrace{A \ B}_{\text{dedicated marking}_1 \ \& \ \text{dedicated marking}_2} \ \underbrace{C \ D}_{\text{dedicated marking}_1} > \underbrace{E \ F}_{\emptyset} $$

Going back to Aissen's (2003) classical analysis, the dedicated marking on certain categories (such as animates) is assumed to be regulated by grammar-internal constraints. Following an OT framework, Aissen (2003) discusses two constraints that are at work in DOM (see also the discussion in López 2012: 27–29): i) a constraint that requires the nominal to be case-marked and thus blocks caseless nominals (*Ø<sub>c</sub>), as shown in (32); ii) a constraint that requires the nominal to be caseless and penalizes nominals that are case-marked (*STRUC<sub>c</sub>), as seen in (33).

(32) *Ø<sub>c</sub> ‘STARZERO’: Penalizes the absence of a value for the feature CASE

(33) *STRUC<sub>c</sub>: Penalizes the presence of a value for the feature CASE (Aissen 2003: 447–448)

For differentially marked objects, the constraint *Ø<sub>c</sub> ‘STARZERO’ is operative and it requires them to bear special morphology so that they are differentiated from objects below the threshold. However, the constraint forces the presence of the feature Case on all the objects subject to the *Ø<sub>c</sub> ‘STARZERO’ constraint (that is, those that have to be CASE-marked). In order to get the data right, we need to introduce yet another constraint that will penalize the presence of a value for the feature CASE for 1st/2nd person pronouns, but yet make them dissimilar to the other objects for which *STRUC<sub>c</sub> is also relevant (the objects below the threshold). The licensing account we have proposed can address this problem in a straightforward manner. It also captures the fact that the issue here does not seem to be one of morphological case per se. In a system where inanimates (which are below the threshold) lack C/case (are unlicensed, undergo pseudo-incorporation, etc.), it is difficult to derive OC
examples like the ones in footnote 22. We saw there that inanimates trigger agreement just like animates and differentially marked objects. It is also important to note that scale reversal patterns that resemble those in OC/OR have been discussed for other language families. We will illustrate just two examples here. First, in Kashmiri (Indo-Iranian), there is DOM that shows sensitivity to animacy, just as in Romance languages. Direct object pronouns are also subject to DOM. However, the system is more complex in that 1st and 2nd person pronouns *can/must* show up without DOM depending on the featural composition of the subject (see especially Wali & Koul 1997, Béjar & Rezac 2009, Bárány 2018, a.o.). Kashmiri illustrates a so-called *global split* pattern with pronouns: if the feature of the subject pronoun is higher than that of the object pronoun, DOM is not possible on the object. But if the subject pronoun is hierarchically lower than the object pronoun, then DOM must be used. The examples below show that when the subject pronoun is 1st person and the object pronoun is 2nd person, DOM is not possible on the object, as in (34a). However, if the subject pronoun is 3rd person and the object pronoun is 2nd person, then DOM must be used on the object, as in (34b). Similarly to Romance, although from a distinct syntactic perspective, these patterns indicate that the animacy/person scale can interfere with other scales in the grammar; as a result, 1st/2nd person pronouns, which might be expected to carry a certain marking, end up lacking it.

<table><tr><td>(34)</td><td>Kashmiri</td><td>(Wali & Koul 1997: 155)</td></tr><tr><td>a.</td><td>1 → 2: no DOM on 2<br>bi chu-s-ath tsi parina:va:n.<br>I be-1SG-2SG you teaching<br>'I am teaching you.'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>b.</td><td>3 → 2: DOM on 2<br>su chu-y tse parina:va:n.<br>he be-M.3SG-2SG.OBJECT you.DAT=DOM teaching<br>'He is teaching you.'</td><td></td></tr></table>

Another paradigm that can be classified as a scale reversal has been discussed by Nikolaeva (2014) for Tundra Nenets, an Uralic Samoyedic variety. In this language there is DOM reflected as a type of agreement morphology on the verb, under the so-called objective (OBJ) conjugation. Interestingly, only (topical) 3rd person objects can be differentially marked this way. For example, the 3rd person dual object in (35a) is differentially marked, as demonstrated by the objective inflection on the verb. 1st and 2nd person
pronouns are never differentially marked;<fnref n="28" /> thus they never trigger the objective conjugation. This is shown by the contrast between (35 b) and (35 c).

(35) Tundra Nenets DOM (Nikolaeva 2014: ex. 22a, b, c)

a. ɣəno-x°h mən’iyeŋa-xəyu-n°.
boat-ACC.DU see-DU.OBJ-1SG
‘I see the boats.’

b. pida s’id°n’ih ladə°.
he WE.ACC.DU hit
‘He hit the two of us.’

c. \*pida s’id°n’ih lad°ŋa-x°yu-da.
he WE.ACC.DU hit-DU.OBJ-3SG
Intended: ‘He hit the two of us.’

## 5.1 Types of scales

The data we have examined allow us to make further remarks about scales. First, there is the indication that more than one scale affecting categories under the broad umbrella of animacy might be active at a given moment in a certain system. Second, any of the specifications on a scale can introduce its own hierarchical implications. Thus, 1st and 2nd person pronouns are at the higher end of the animacy/person scale, but can also introduce their own scale, which is regulated by features such as SPEAKER/HEARER, which can be grammaticalized in a different way from the animacy feature per se (for example, via clitic doubling). Third, more than one (nominal) licensing strategy can be active in a language. These parameters do not necessarily argue against the existence of scales; rather, they support a flexible grammatical system where interactions between various types of nominal licensing give the appearance of scale reversals.

The data also provide us with a valuable opportunity to examine more closely the nature of scales, and evaluate whether they are true universals. A leading contribution assessing this very important aspect is the paper by Kiparsky (2008). The crucial observation made by the author is that the broad class of scales contains at least two different types of entities: true universals, on the one hand, and typological generalizations, on the other, the latter without the status of true universals. To illustrate the difference, Kiparsky (2008) presents a hypothetical counterexample to the universally expected process of coda devoicing; he notices that across Romance the

<footnote n="28">²⁸Arkadiev & Testelets (2019) discuss a similar picture in Circassian languages.</footnote>
interaction of independent phonetic and phonological processes applying in
a well-determined sequence might, in fact, give rise to coda voicing. Kiparsky
(2008) subsequently concludes that coda devoicing, even if subject to featural
hierarchy, cannot be a true universal. On the contrary, the animacy scale is
seen as a universal. What we have illustrated here is that even the putatively
universal scales can have counterexamples. We moreover see that they can
have the same source as violations of mere typological generalizations; more
clearly put, more than one structurally sensitive process can, at a given
moment, affect categories that are otherwise unified as bearing features at
the higher ends of hierarchies. The result is that such classes might not
surface with the expected marking. But this is not because they must be
assumed not to respect the scales; the crucial factor is that they might contain
yet additional features which might lead to the application of a different
operation or of more than one operation. In conclusion, our data do not
automatically imply that scales do not exist or might not be relevant to the
inner workings of the grammar. What they do prove is that even putatively
universal scales, such as the animacy/person scale, can in fact be weaker
than usually assumed and can have the status of typological generalizations
(Filimonova 2005, Legate 2014, a.o.). As various other researchers have
observed, this lack of uniformity is to be attributed to scales being external
to the grammar itself (Silverstein 1976, Newmeyer 2002, Haspelmath 2008,
Deal 2016, a.o.). Animacy, person and referentiality hierarchies are instead
dictated by the nature and principles of organization in human cognition and
communication, more generally. This, however, makes them an important
empirical domain for the study of how narrow UG interacts with language
external mechanisms and the type of variation that arises as a result.

6 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we have addressed a generally ignored counterexample to
referentiality scales (animacy/person and specificity/definiteness). It is
usually claimed that such scales regulate the emergence and extension of
DOM cross-linguistically, implying that 1st/2nd persons are always at the
higher end of the hierarchy. As such, 1st/2nd persons should be the first
categories to carry DOM, and it should not be the case that DOM skips
them while marking classes lower down, such as 3rd person. Contrary to
these widely held assumptions, we have discussed data from OC and OR
where it is precisely 3rd person objects that show DOM, to the exclusion
of 1st and 2nd persons. We have examined various hypotheses that could
explain this puzzling state of affairs. We have demonstrated that the presence
of DOM on 3rd person cannot be due to the fact that their morphology is
homophonous between the nominative and the accusative. We have shown that the case syncretism also holds in other areas, such as 1st and 2nd persons in the plural, without forcing the presence of DOM. Our analysis derives DOM with 3rd person, to the exclusion of 1st and 2nd persons, under the following assumptions: i) animacy-based DOM is an argument-licensing strategy beyond Case; ii) 1st and 2nd person pronouns contain features such as [SPEAKER/HEARER], which are different from animacy, but also need licensing due to their importance in the discourse. If the features [SPEAKER/HEARER] are licensed independently of the presence of the animacy specification, a scale reversal pattern can be obtained where DOM only signals animate 3rd person objects.

## CORPORA AND PRIMARY SOURCES

### Old Catalan

**13<sup>th</sup> century**

Clams I: *Clams i crims en la València medieval segons el "Llibre de cort reial de justícia (1279-1321)", edited by Maria Àngels Diéguez. Alacant: Universitat d'Alacant, 2002.*

Jaume I, *Fets*: Jaume I, *Llibre dels fets del rei en Jaume*, vol. II, edited by Jordi Bruguera. Barcelona: Barcino, 1991.

**14<sup>th</sup> century**

Clams II: *Clams i crims en la València medieval segons el "Llibre de cort reial de justícia (1279-1321)", edited by Maria Àngels Diéguez. Alacant: Universitat d'Alacant, 2002.*

Epistolari I: *Epistolari de la València Medieval (I)*, edited by Agustín Rubio Vela. València/Barcelona: Institut Interuniversitari de Filologia Valenciana/Publicacions de l'Abadia de Montserrat, 2003, 2nd edition.

Filla: "La fiyla del rey d'Ungria", edited by Ramon Aramon i Serra. Barcelona: Barcino, 1934.

Marquès: *Un matrimoni desavingut i un gat metzinat. Procés criminal barceloní del segle XIV [Procés criminal contra Antònia Marquès]*, edited by Joan Anton Rabella. Barcelona: Institut d'Estudis Catalans, 1998.

**15<sup>th</sup> century**

Curial: *Curial e Güelfa*, edited by Antoni Ferrando. Tolosa de Llenguadoc: Anacharsis Éditions, 2007.

Epistolari II: *Epistolari de la València Medieval (II)*, edited by Agustín Rubio Vela. València/Barcelona: Institut Interuniversitari de Filologia Valenciana/Publicacions de l'Abadia de Montserrat, 1998.

All these texts are found in the following corpus: Corpus Informatitzat del Català Antic (CICA), an online corpus directed by Joan Torruella together with Manuel Pérez Saldanya and Josep Martines. http://www.cica.cat
Old Romanian

Bible A: Noul Testament de la Bălgrad ('The New Testament from Belgrade'). 1648. Transylvania.

Bible B: Biblie V.T.N.T. ('The Bible. The Old Testament and the New Testament'). 1688. Walachia (Bucharest).

CC¹.1567 Coresi (ed.). 1567. Tâlcul Evangheliilor ('The meaning of the Gospels'); repr. in Vladimir Drimba (ed.). Tâlcul Evangheliilor şi molitvenic românesc, 31–187. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. (See Gheţie & Mareş 2001: 115.)

CC².1581 Coresi (ed.). 1567. Evanghelie cu învăţătură; repr. in Coresi (ed.). 1581. Carte cu învăţătură; repr. as Sextil Puşcariu & Alexie. Procopovici (eds.). 1914. Textul I. Bucharest: Socec. (Braşov)

CEv Puşcariu, Sextil & Alexie Procopovici (eds.). 1914. Carte cu învăţătură (1581). Bucharest: Atelierele Grafice Socec & Co.

CT.1560–1561 Coresi (ed.). 1560–1561. Tetraevanghel (Tetraevanghelul tipărit de Coresi. Braşov 1560–1561), compared with Florica Dimitriu (ed.). 1963. Evangheliarul lui Radu de la Mănăşesti 1574. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.

DÎ.1593 Gheorghe Chivu, Magdalena Georgescu, Magdalena Ioniţă, Alexandru Mareş & Alexandra Roman-Moraru (eds.). 1979. Documente şi însemnări româneşti din secolul al XVI-lea ('Romanian documents and notes from the 16th century'). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.

Ev.1642 Alin-Mihai Gherman (ed.). 2011. Evanghelie învăţătoare, 153–480. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.

MI. 1630 Mirela Teodorescu & Ion Gheţie (eds.). 1977. Manuscrisul de la Ieud ('The Ieud Manuscript'), 153–170. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.

PO Pamfil, Viorica (ed.). 1968. Palia de la Orăştie. 1581–1582. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei.

REFERENCES

Adger, David & Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint. *Syntax* 10(1). 2–37.

Aissen, Judith L. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. *Natural Language and Linguistic Theory* 21(3). 435–483.

Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. *The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics*. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Arkadiev, Peter M. & Yakov G. Testelets. 2019. Differential nominal marking in Circassian. *Studies in Language* 43(3). 715–751.

Avram, Larisa & Rodica Zafiu. 2017. Semantic hierarchies in the evolution of differential object marking in Romanian. In Adina Dragomirescu et al. (ed.), *Sintaxa ca mod de a fi. Omagiu Gabrielei Pană-Dindelegan, la aniversare*,
29–42. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.

Belletti, Adriana. 2018. On a-marking topics in the Italian left periphery. In Roberto Petrosino, Pietro Cerrone & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), *From sounds to structures. Beyond the veil of Maya*, 445–466. Berlin/Boston: Mouton De Gruyter.

Beltran, Vicent & Maribel Guardiola. To appear. Els pronoms personals forts. In Josep Maritnes & Manuel Pérez-Saldanya (eds.), *Gramàtica del català antic*, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. *Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance: MIT PhD dissertation*.

Bonet, Eulàlia. 1994. The Person-Case Constraint: A morphological approach. In H. Harley & C. Phillips (eds.), *The morphology-syntax connection*, vol. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22, 33–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

Bonet, Eulàlia. 2008. The person-case constraint and repair strategies. In R. D’Alessandro, S. Fischer & G. Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (eds.), *Agreement restrictions*, 103–128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Wanner & D. A. Kibbee (eds.), *New analyses in Romance linguistics*, 143–172. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bossong, Georg. 1998. Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In J. Feuillet (ed.), *Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe*, 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bárány, András. 2018. Dom and dative case. *Glossa* 3(1). 1–40.

Béjar, Susan & Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic agree. *Linguistic Inquiry* 40(1). 35–73.

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. *Lectures on government and binding*. Dordrecht: Foris.

Ciucivara, Oana. 2009. *A syntactic analysis of pronominal clitic clusters in Romance: NYU doctoral dissertation*.

Company, Concepción. 2002. Grammaticalization and category weakness. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), *New reflections on grammaticalization*, 201–215. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. *Language universals and linguistic typology*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2000. Notes on the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. *Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics* 2(1). 91–106.

Cornilescu, Alexandra & Alina Tigău. 2017. *On the competition between differentially marked objects and indirect objects in Romanian. Paper presented at Going Romance 31. December 2017*. Bucharest: University of Bucharest.

Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. *Objects and information structure*.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Deal, Amy Rose. 2016. Person-based split ergativity in Nez Perce is syntactic. *Journal of Linguistics* 52(3). 533–564.

Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. *Language* 55. 59–138.

Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. *Ergativity*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. *The syntax of Romanian: Comparative studies in Romance*. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking. Problems and counterevidence. *Linguistic Typology* 9. 77–113.

Gheție, Ion & Alexandru Mareș. 2001. *De când se scrie românește?* Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic.

Hale, Kenneth. 1972. A new perspective on American Indian linguistics. In Alfonso Ortiz (ed.), *New perspectives on the pueblos*, 87–110. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric approach. *Language* 78(3). 482–526.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. *Cognitive Linguistics* 19. 1–33.

von Heusinger, Klaus & G. Kaiser. 2005. The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. In K. von Heusinger, G. Kaiser & E. Stark (eds.), *Proceedings of the workshop Specificity and the Evolution/Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance*, 33–69. University of Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft.

von Heusinger, Klaus, Udo Klein & Peter de Swart. 2008. Variation in differential object marking. Paper presented at Workshop on Case Variation. June 2008. Stuttgart.

von Heusinger, Klaus & Edgar Onea Gáspár. 2008. Triggering and blocking effects in the development of DOM in Romanian. *Probus* 20(1). 67–110.

Hill, Virginia. 2013. The object marker in Romanian: A historical perspective. *Australian Journal of Linguistics* 33(2). 140–151.

Hill, Virginia & Alexandru Mardale. 2017. On the interaction of differential object marking and clitic doubling in Romanian. *Revue Roumaine de Linguistique* LXII(4). 393–409.

Hill, Virginia & Alexandru Mardale. 2019. Patterns for differential object marking in the history of Romanian. *Journal of Historical Syntax* 3(5). 1–47.

Hill, Virginia & Alexandru Mardale. To appear. *The diachrony of differential object marking in Romanian*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2011. *Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation*: University of Pavia dissertation.
Irimia, Monica Alexandria. 2020. Types of structural objects. Notes on the differential object marking in Romanian. In András Bárány & Laura Kalin (eds.), *Case, agreement and their interactions: New perspectives on differential argument marking*, 77–127. Leiden: Brill.

Irimia, Monica Alexandria & Anna Pineda. 2019. Differential object marking and scales: Insights from Romance diachrony. In Patrick Farrell (ed.), *Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 2019*, vol. 57 4, 1–15.

Irimia, Monica Alexandria & Anna Pineda. To appear. Differential object marking and scale reversals. In Sergio Baauw, Luisa Meroni & Frank Drijkoningen (eds.), *Romance language and linguistic theory, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins*.

Irimia, Monica Alexandrina. 2018. Differential objects and other structural objects. In Patrick Farrell (ed.), *Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 2018*, vol. 50 1, 1–15.

Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. *Topics in Romance syntax*. Dordrecht: Foris.

Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. Three issues in the theory of clitics: Case, doubled NPs and extraction. In H. Borer (ed.), *Syntax and semantics 19: The syntax of pronominal clitics*, 15–42. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.

Kalin, Laura. 2018. Licensing and differential object marking. The view from Neo-Aramaic. *Syntax* 21(2). 112–159.

Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Universals constrain change: Change results in typological generalizations. In Jeff Good (ed.), *Linguistic universals and language change*, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Laca, Brenda. 2006. El objeto directo. La marcación preposicional. In Concepción Company (ed.), *Sintaxis historica del español. Primera parte: La frase verbal I*, 423–475. Mexico: Fondo de cultura económica/Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. *Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lazard, Gilbert. 2001. Le marquage différential de l'objet. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Österreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), *Language typology and linguistic universals. an international handbook II*, 873–885. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Split ergativity based on nominal type. *Lingua* 148. 183–212.

Leonetti, Manuel. 2003. Specificity and object marking: The case of *a*. In Klaus von Heusinger & Georg Kaiser (eds.), *Proceedings of the workshop Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages*, 67–101. Arbeitspapier 113. University of Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft.
Leonetti, Manuel. 2008. Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. *Probus* 20(1). 33–66.

Levin, Ted. 2019. On the nature of DOM. Insights from Palauan. *Natural Language and Linguistic Theory* 37(1). 167–213.

López, Luis. 2012. *Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions and differential marking*. Cambridge, MA/London, England: MIT Press.

Maneikis, Charlotte S. & Edward J. Neugaard. 1977. *Vides de sants rosselloneses I, estudi introductori*. Barcelona: Fundació Vives Casajuan.

Mardale, Alexandru. 2015. Differential object marking in the first Romanian texts. In Virginia Hill (ed.), *Formal approaches to DPs in Old Romanian*, 200–246. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Corpora.

Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2017. *Agreement beyond phi*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mursell, Johannes. 2018. Object agreement in Swahili is topic agreement. *Jezikoslovlje* 19(3). 427–455.

Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. *Natural Language and Linguistic Theory* 25(2). 273–313.

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2002. Optimality and functionality. A critique of functionally-based optimality-theoretic syntax. *Natural Language and Linguistic Theory* 20. 43–80.

Nichols, Lynn. 2001. The syntactic basis of referential hierarchy phenomena. Clues from languages with and without morphological case. *Lingua* 111(4–7). 515–537.

Nicula Paraschiv, Irina. 2016. The direct object. In Gabriela Pană-Dindelegan (ed.), *The syntax of Old Romanian*, 123–143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. *A grammar of Tundra Nenets*. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.

Næss, Åshild. 2004. What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. *Lingua* 114(9–10). 1186–1212.

Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2007. The object agreement constraint. *Natural Language and Linguistic Theory* 25(2). 315–347.

Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2013. Differential object marking, case and agreement. *Borealis: An international journal of Hispanic linguistics* 2(2). 221–239.

Pană-Dindelegan, Gabriela (ed.). 2016. *The syntax of Old Romanian*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pensado, Carmen. 1995. El complement directo preposicional: Estado de la cuestión y bibliografía comentada. In Carmen Pensado (ed.), *El complemento directo preposicional*, 11–59. Madrid: Visos Libros.
Pineda, Anna. To appear. El complement directe (I). El marcatge diferencial d'objecte. In Josep Martines, Manel Pérez-Saldanya & Gemma Rigau (eds.), *Gramàtica del català antic/Old Catalan Grammar*, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Postal, Paul. 1969. On the so-called 'pronouns' in English. In D. Reibel & S. Schane (eds.), *Gramàtica del català antic*, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Pușcariu, Sextil. 1921-1922. *Despre pre la acuzativ. Dacoromania* II. 565-581.

Ramsden, H. 1961. The use of a + personal pronoun in Old Spanish. *Bulletin of Hispanic Studies* 38. 42-54.

Ribera, Josep. To appear. Els pronoms personals febles (I): Les funcions dels pronoms. In Josep Maritnes & Manuel Pérez-Saldanya (eds.), *Gramàtica del català antic*, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Richards, Marc. 2008. Defective Agree: Case alternations, and the prominence of person. In Marc Richards & Andrei L. Malchukov (eds.), *Scales. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte*, vol. LXXXVI, 137-161. University of Leipzig.

Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Manuel. 2007. *The syntax of objects. Agree and differential object marking*: University of Connecticut doctoral dissertation.

Roegiest, Eugeen. 1979. A propos de l'accusatif prépositionnel dans quelques langues romanes. *Vox Romanica* 38. 312-334.

Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1971. Autour de l'accusatif prépositionnel dans les langues romanes. *Revue de Linguistique Romaine* 35. 312-327.

Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1973. Panorama de l'accusatif prépositionnel en Italie. *Studii și Cercetări Lingvistice* 24. 617-621.

Rosetti, Al. 1978. *Istoria limbii române*. București: Editura Științifică.

Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), *Grammatical categories in Australian languages*, 112-171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Sornicola, Rosanna. 1997. L'oggetto preposizionale in siciliano antico e in napoletano antico. *Italienische Studien* 18. 66-80.

Sornicola, Rosanna. 1998. Processi di convergenza nella formazione di un tipo sintattico: La genesi ibrida dell'oggetto preposizionale. In Annick Englebert (ed.), *Actes du XXIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes* 2, 419-427. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2018. Perspective is syntactic: Evidence from anaphora. *Glossa* 3(1). 128.1-40.

Tigău, Alina. 2011. *Syntax and semantics of the direct object in Romance and Germanic languages*. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.

Torrego, Esther. 1998. *The dependencies of objects*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wali, Kashi & O. N. Koul. 1997. *Kashmiri*. New York: Routledge.

Zubizarreta, María Luisa & R. Pancheva. 2017. A formal characterization
On the setting of scales in the diachrony of DOM

of person-based alignments: The case of Paraguayan Guaraní. *Natural Language and Linguistic Theory* 35(4). 1161–1204.

Monica Alexandrina Irimia
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
Department of Communication and Economics
Linguistics
Viale A. Allegri 9, Reggio Emilia
42121, RE, Italy
irimiamo@unimore.it

Anna Pineda
Sorbonne Université
UFR de Langue Française
Université Paris-Sorbonne
1 rue Victor Cousin, 75005 Paris
pinedaicirera@gmail.com
http://www.annapineda.cat