Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Based mostly on the Romance languages, we provide evidence for the conclusion that oblique adpositions involved in the encoding of location and direction do not contribute a specific, fixed spatial meaning. On the contrary, they are general relators, relating a complement to an event by establishing an inclusion relation between them. Locatives are specializations of the basic relational inclusion content. State-in, motion-to and motion-from interpretations depend on the interaction of these simple relators with the structure of the event. Specifically, the relator may attach at the level of the Result phrase (goal, motion-to) or at the level of the Cause layer (source, motion-from). Furthermore, the Romance languages provide evidence for differential encoding of non-animate . animate location, which we refer to as locative DOM, presenting and discussing various instances of it.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arsenijević, B.
    2006 Inner Aspect and Telicity: The Decompositional and the Quantificational Nature of Eventualities at the Syntax-semantics Interface. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, M.
    1988 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beck, S. & K. Johnson
    2004 Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry35. 97–124. 10.1162/002438904322793356
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438904322793356 [Google Scholar]
  4. Belletti, A.
    2017 Labeling (Romance) causatives. Manuscript. Universities of Geneva & Siena. 10.1515/9781501504037‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504037-002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bellucci, G.
    2017 Oblique Arguments: Theoretical and Experimental Perspectives. PhD Dissertation. University of Florence.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Belvin, R. S.
    1996 Inside Events: The Non-Possessive Meanings of Possession Predicates and the Semantic Conceptualization of Events. PhD Thesis, University of Southern California.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Belvin, R., & M. den Dikken
    1997 “There, happens, to, be, have”, Lingua101. 151–183. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)00049‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00049-6 [Google Scholar]
  8. Benveniste, É.
    1966Problèmes de linguistique générale 1. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bruening, Benjamin
    2013By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax16. 1–41. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2012.00171.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00171.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Butt, Miriam & Tafseer Ahmed
    2011 The redevelopment of Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective. Morphology21. 545–572. 10.1007/s11525‑010‑9175‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9175-0 [Google Scholar]
  11. Caha, P.
    2009 The nanosyntax of case. Ph.D. Dissertation. CASTL, Tromsø.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chomsky, N.
    1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2001 Derivation by Phase. InM. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chomsky, N., A. Gallego & D. Ott
    2019 Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. special issue: 229–261Catalan Journal of Linguistics. 10.5565/rev/catjl.288
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.288 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cinque, G.
    2010 Mapping Spatial PPs: an Introduction. InG. Cinque & L. Rizzi (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs, 3–25. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Collins, C.
    2005 A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax8: 81–120. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2005.00076.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00076.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Creissels, D.
    2006 Encoding the distinction between location, source, and destination. InM. Hickmann & S. Robert (eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories, 19–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.66.03cre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.66.03cre [Google Scholar]
  18. Crowley, T.
    2004Bislama Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. 10.1515/9780824850074
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824850074 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dikken, M. den
    1995Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic and causative constructions. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1998 Predicate inversion in DP. InA. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (eds.), Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase, 177–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.22.08dik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.22.08dik [Google Scholar]
  21. Dikken, Marcel den
    2010 On the Functional Structure of Locative and Directional PPs. InG. Cinque & L. Rizzi (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs, 74–126. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fábregas, A.
    2007 (Axial) parts and wholes. Nordlyd34: 1–32. 10.7557/12.109
    https://doi.org/10.7557/12.109 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2015 Direccionales con con y Marcado Diferencial de Objeto. Revue Romane50.163–190. 10.1075/rro.50.2.01fab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.50.2.01fab [Google Scholar]
  24. Filip, H.
    2003 Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics11. 55–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fillmore, C. J.
    1968 The Case for Case. InE. Bach & R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Folli, R.
    2008 Complex PPs in Italian. InA. Asbury, J. Dotlačil, B. Gehrke, R. Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P, 197–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.120.10fol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.120.10fol [Google Scholar]
  27. Folli, R. & G. Ramchand
    2005 Prepositions and results in Italian and English: an analysis from event decomposition. InH. J. Verkuyl, H. de Swart and A. van Hout (eds.), Perspectives on Aspect. Dordrecht: Springer. 81–105. 10.1007/1‑4020‑3232‑3_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3232-3_5 [Google Scholar]
  28. Franco, L.
    2016 Axial Parts, phi-features and degrammaticalization. Transactions of the Philological Society114: 149–170. 10.1111/1467‑968X.12067
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12067 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2018 ‘Oblique’ serial verbs in Pidgin and Creole languages. QULSO4. 73–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Franco, L., & P. Lorusso
    2019 The expression of proper location and beyond: motion-to and state-in in Italian spatial adpositions. InM. Baird and J. Pesetsky. NELS 49: Proceedings of the Forty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society: Volume 1, 279–290GLSA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Franco, L., & M. R. Manzini
    2017 Instrumental prepositions and case: Contexts of occurrence and alternations with datives. Glossa2(1). 1–47. 10.5334/gjgl.111
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.111 [Google Scholar]
  32. Freeze, R.
    1992 Existentials and other locatives. Language68. 553–595. 10.2307/415794
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415794 [Google Scholar]
  33. Garzonio, J., & S. Rossi
    2016 Case in Italian Complex PPs. InE. Carrilho, A. Fiéis, M. Lobo & S. Pereira (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 28, Lisbon, 121–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/rllt.10.07gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.10.07gar [Google Scholar]
  34. Gehrke, B.
    2008Ps in Motion: On the Semantics and Syntax of P Elements and Motion Events. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gehrke, B. & N. Grillo
    2009 How to become passive. InExplorations of Phase Theory: Features, Arguments, and Interpretation at the Interfaces, ed.Kleanthes K. Grohmann, Interface Explorations, 231–268. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213966.231
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213966.231 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hale, K., & S. J. Keyser
    1993 On argument structure and the lexical expression of grammatical relations. InK. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Harley, H.
    2002 Possession and the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook2: 29–68. 10.1075/livy.2.04har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.2.04har [Google Scholar]
  38. 2013 External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua125: 34–57. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  39. Higginbotham, J.
    2009Tense, Aspect, and Indexicality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199239313.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199239313.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hoekstra, T.
    1999 Auxiliary selection in Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory17: 67–84. 10.1023/A:1006186109813
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006186109813 [Google Scholar]
  41. Jackendoff, R.
    1996 The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface. InP. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space, 1–30. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Johns, Alana
    1992 Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry23: 57–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Kayne, R.
    1975French Syntax. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 1984Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783111682228
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111682228 [Google Scholar]
  45. 1994The Antisimmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2010Comparisons and contrasts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Keenan, E. L.
    1985 Passive in the world’s languages. InT. Shopen, (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 1, Clause structure, 243–281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Koopman, H.
    2000 Prepositions, Postpositions, Circumpositions, and Particles: The Structure of Dutch PPs. InH. Koopman (ed.), The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads, 204–260. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203171608
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203171608 [Google Scholar]
  49. Ledgeway, Adam
    2018 The Causative Construction in the Dialects of Southern Italy and the Phonology Syntax Interface. InL. Franco, & P. Lorusso (eds.), Linguistic Variation: Structure and Interpretation. In honor of Rita Manzini. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Legate, J. A.
    2014Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262028141.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262028141.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Levinson, L.
    2011 Possessive with in Germanic: Have and the role of P. Syntax14: 355–393. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2011.00159.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00159.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Longobardi, G.
    2001 Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez. Linguistic Inquiry32: 275–302. 10.1162/00243890152001771
    https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001771 [Google Scholar]
  53. Luraghi, S.
    2011 Human landmarks in spatial expressions: from Latin to Romance. InS. Kittilä, K. Västi and J. Ylikoski (eds.), Case, Animacy, and Semantic Roles, 209–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.99.08lur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.99.08lur [Google Scholar]
  54. Manzini, M. R.
    2017 Passive, smuggling and the by-phrase. InN. LaCara, Keir Moulton & A.-M. Tessier (eds.), A Schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson, 233–244. University of Massachusets – Amherst.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Manzini, M. R., & L. Franco
    2016 Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory34: 197–240. 10.1007/s11049‑015‑9303‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9303-y [Google Scholar]
  56. Manzini, M. R., & L. M. Savoia
    2005I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa (3volumes) Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2007A Unification of Morphology and Syntax. Routledge: London. 10.4324/9780203968154
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203968154 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2011aGrammatical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511974489
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974489 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2011b Reducing ‘case’ to denotational primitives: Nominal inflections in Albanian. Linguistic Variation11: 76–120. 10.1075/lv.11.1.03man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.11.1.03man [Google Scholar]
  60. Manzini, M. R., L. M. Savoia, & L. Franco
    2015 Ergative case, Aspect and Person splits: Two case studies. Acta Linguistica Hungarica62. 297–351. 10.1556/064.2015.62.3.3
    https://doi.org/10.1556/064.2015.62.3.3 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2020 DOM and Dative in Italo-Romance. InA. Bárány & L. Kalin (eds.), Case, agreement, and their interactions: New perspectives on Differential Object Marking. 219–268. (pages for Manzini, Savoia and Franco 2020) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Matushansky, O.
    2016 The definite article in proper places. Paper presented atWorkshop on the semantic contribution of Det and Num. (In)definiteness, genericity and referentiality, UAB, May 27–28, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M. & M. Huber
    (eds.) 2013Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. apics-online.info
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Myler, N.
    2013 On coming the pub in the North West of England: accusative unaccusatives, dependent case, and preposition incorporation. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics16:189–207. 10.1007/s10828‑013‑9055‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-013-9055-1 [Google Scholar]
  65. 2016Building and interpreting possession sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034913.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034913.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  66. Nam, S.
    1995 The Semantics of Locative Prepositional Phrases in English. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 2005 Directional locatives in event structure: asymmetry between goal and source. Eoneohag (Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea)43: 85–117.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Palancar, E.
    2001The Origin of Agent Markers. Berlin: Akademie. (Studia Typologica 5). 10.1524/9783050081410
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050081410 [Google Scholar]
  69. Pantcheva, M.
    2010 The syntactic structure of Locations, Goals, and Sources. Linguistics48: 1043–1081. 10.1515/ling.2010.034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.034 [Google Scholar]
  70. 2011 Decomposing Path: The Nanosyntax of Directional Expressions. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Pesetsky, D.
    1995Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Pineda, A.
    2014 (In)transitivity borders. A study of applicatives in Romance language es and Basque. PhD Dissertation, UAB.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Ramchand, G.
    2008Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  74. Real Puigdollers, C.
    2010 A microparametric approach on goal of motion constructions: properties of adpositional systems in Romance and Germanic. Catalan Journal of Linguistics9: 125–150. 10.5565/rev/catjl.97
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.97 [Google Scholar]
  75. Reinhart, T.
    2003 The theta-system – an overview. Theoretical Linguistics28. 229–290. 10.1515/thli.28.3.229
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.28.3.229 [Google Scholar]
  76. Renzi, L. & Salvi, G.
    1988Grande Grammatical Italiana di Consultazione, Volume II. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Rizzi, L.
    1988 Il sintagma preposizionale. InL. Renzi, G. P. Salvi, & A. Cardinaletti (eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, 507–531. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Rohlfs, G.
    1969 [1954]Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Torino: Einaudi.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Rothstein, S.
    2004Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470759127
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759127 [Google Scholar]
  80. Rouveret, A. & Vergnaud, J-R.
    1980 Specifying Reference to the Subject: French Causatives and Conditions on Representations. Linguistic Inquiry11. 97–202.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Saeed, S. T.
    2016Space and Events. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Starke, M.
    2017 Resolving (DAT = ACC) ̸= GEN. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics. 10.5334/gjgl.408
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.408 [Google Scholar]
  83. Svenonius, P.
    2006 The emergence of axial parts. Nordlyd33: 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 2010 Spatial P in English. InGuglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzieds., Mapping Spatial PPs, vol. 6 of The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, 127–60. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  85. Talmy, Leonard
    2000Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Torrego, E.
    2009 Variability in the Case Patterns of Causative Formation in Romance and Its Implications. Linguistic Inquiry41: 445–470. 10.1162/LING_a_00004
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00004 [Google Scholar]
  87. Tortora, C.
    2005 The Preposition’s Preposition in Italian: Evidence for Boundedness of Space. InR. Gess, & E. Rubin (eds), Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to Romance Linguistics, 307–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.272.19tor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.272.19tor [Google Scholar]
  88. van Riemsdijk, H.
    1990 Functional prepositions. InH. Pinkster & I. Genee (eds.), Unity in diversity, 229–241. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110847420.229
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110847420.229 [Google Scholar]
  89. Wälchli, B. & F. Zúñiga
    2006 Source-Goal (in)difference and the typology of motion events in the clause. Sprachtypologie & Universalienforschung59: 284–303.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Wunderlich, Dieter
    1991 How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional syntax and semantics?Linguistics29: 591–621. 10.1515/ling.1991.29.4.591
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.4.591 [Google Scholar]
  91. Zribi-Hertz, A. & Jean-Louis, L.
    2018 General Locative Marking in Martinican Creole (Matinitjè): A case study in grammatical economy. QULSO4.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Zubizarreta, M. L. & E. Oh
    2007On the Syntactic Composition of Manner and Motion. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5132.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5132.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  93. Zwarts, J.
    1997 Vectors as Relative Positions: A compositional semantics of modified PPs. Journal of Semantics14: 57–86. 10.1093/jos/14.1.57
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/14.1.57 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Adposition; Differential Object Marking; Locative; Oblique; Passive
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error