Number Morphology and Bare Nouns in Some Romance Dialects of Italy

Abstract

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

1. Introduction

The relation between the morphological representation of the feature Number on nouns and the possibility for nouns to be realized as bare (i.e., not introduced by any overt determiner) in argument position was explored by Delfitto and Schroten (1991).1 They propose that, in English, the licensing of argument bare nouns depends on the realization of number alternations through overt affixes “attached to a ‘free’ morpheme” (Delfitto and Schroten 1991, p. 157): a silent “plural quantifier” is licensed when the affix raises to D at LF, “providing the correct quantificational representation” (Delfitto and Schroten 1991, p. 162). By contrast, in French, where morphological number exponence on nouns is generally absent,2 bare arguments are ungrammatical: argument nominal structures, including indefinite mass and plural nouns, require a visible “quantification operator” in D, as shown in (1).

(1)	a.	J’ai	vu	*(des)	étudiants	dans	l’	édifice
		I have	seen	of.the.pl	student	in	the.sg	building
		‘I saw students in the building’
	b.	Jean	a	bu	*(de l’)	eau
		Jean	has	drunk	of	the.sg water
		‘Jean drunk water’

A similar proposal is presented in Crisma and Longobardi (2020, pp. 51–54); in their analysis, the possibility of identifying the feature Number via a null D is connected to the availability of overt morphological Number exponence on nouns, which distinguishes, for instance, languages like English, Italian, or Spanish—where number alternations are lexicalized on (almost) all nouns and bare arguments are possible—from languages like French, where nouns are generally unmarked for Number and bare arguments are impossible.

Concerning the realization of number alternations on suffixes, English, Italian, and Spanish exhibit three different strategies. In English, as already mentioned, plural suffixes attach to the root, which has the status of a “free morpheme”; in Italian, number and gender/class information are collapsed in one single suffix attached to a bound root, as shown in (2); in Spanish, plural number is realized through the suffix -s, which in turn attaches to a “word marker”3 suffix, as shown in (3).4

(2)	Italian
	a. student-e
	student-m.sg
	b. student-i
	student-m.pl

(3)	Spanish
	a. estudiant-e
	student-wm
	b. estudiant-e-s
	student-wm-pl

In the Romance dialects of Italy, number marking on nouns is realized through various strategies (for a detailed survey, see Manzini and Savoia 2005, vol. III). For example, there are dialects, such as Ladin or certain Friulian varieties, where “syncretic” suffixes of the Italian type alternate with the combination [wm + -s] (see, among others, Manzini et al. 2020; Pescarini 2020). Since none of the dialects considered in this paper exhibit -s suffixes, this phenomenon will not be further explored here. By contrast, we focus on the effect of the loss/weakening of final vowels (Tagliavini [1949] 1972) on the realization of “syncretic” suffixes. We observe two types of dialects. In the dialects where final vowels were not lost/weakened, number alternations are realized on suffixes, which, like in Italian (Manzini and Savoia 2005, vol. III, pp. 547–48), collapse class/gender and number information. By contrast, in the dialects where final vowels were dropped or became indistinct, the overt realization of number alternations on suffixes was blurred as well: in some such dialects, these phenomena affected almost all noun classes; in others, the weakening process affected only some final vowels: therefore, number alternations were retained on some suffixes and became lost in others. In turn, in some dialects, alternative strategies were developed to overtly mark singular vs. plural distinctions, through the re-analysis of stressed vowel alternations originally induced by metaphony (Tagliavini [1949] 1972, p. 408; Fanciullo 1994).5

With respect to these phenomena, the languages of our dataset can be classified into two major types: (1) languages where final vowels were preserved and, consequently, number alternations are realized on suffixes on all/most nouns, and (2) languages where, as a consequence of the weakening/loss of final vowels, number alternations on suffixes were (entirely or partially) lost. The latter, in turn, split into two further types: (2a) languages where, due to the loss of final vowels, suffixes were lost as well on entire classes of nouns, and (2b) languages where, due to the weakening of final vowels, suffixes were retained but have lost (either partially or entirely) number distinctions. These outcomes are discussed in the first part of the paper and are summarized in (26). The first part of the paper also contains a survey of the strategies available in the languages of the dataset for marking number alternations on nouns, adjectives, articles, demonstratives, and possessives.

In the second part of the paper, we focus on the relation between the morphological realization of number on nouns and the availability of bare argument nouns.6 Using original data collected from native speakers, we sketch a survey of the distribution of bare arguments in our sample of dialects. Two generalizations emerge from our data:

(a)

languages where there is regular/systematic number exponence on nouns have bare nouns;

(b)

the absence of suffixes on nouns seems to correlate with the absence of argument bare nouns.

The structure of the paper runs as follows. Section 2 introduces the languages of the dataset and presents some properties relevant for our discussion. Section 3 presents three parameters that govern the realization of the feature Number on nominal structures and describes the morphological strategies for number marking in the dialects of the dataset, focusing on the following nominal categories: nouns, adjectives, articles, demonstratives, and possessives. Section 4 presents the distribution of bare nouns in argument position in the dialects of the dataset as compared to Italian and explores how it relates with the morphological realization of Number on nouns. Section 5 summarizes the conclusions.

2. The Dataset

The data discussed in this paper were collected from the 29 Romance dialects of Italy listed in (4) (see also Figure A1).7

(4)	a.	six “Gallo-Italic”8 dialects of northern Italy (Lombardia: Casalmaggiore;9 Emilia: Parma,10 Reggio Emilia,11 Novellara,12 Correggio;13 Romagna: Savignano sul Rubicone)14
	b.	ten “upper” southern dialects (Abruzzo: Teramo;15 Campania: Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Amalfi and Palma Campania;16 Cilento: Felitto;17 Puglia: Bari,18 Barletta,19 Taranto;20 Lausberg area: Francavilla in Sinni,21 Verbicaro)22
	c.	twelve “extreme” southern dialects (Salento:23 Cellino San Marco, Mesagne, Botrugno; Calabria:24 Cutro,25 Nicastro,26 Catanzaro,27 Reggio Calabria;28 Sicily:29 San Filippo del Mela, Ragusa, Ribera, Mussomeli, Trapani)
	d.	one “Gallo-Italic”30 dialect of Sicily (Aidone)

In what follows, we provide a brief description of some phenomena traditionally observed in these four groups of dialects that are relevant for our discussion.

The dialects of group (4a) share the generalized deletion of all final vowels except for -a (Tagliavini [1949] 1972, p. 399; e.g., bras, it. braccio, lat. brāchium, ‘arm’, vs. pjasa, it. piazza, lat. plăteam,‘square’), a phenomenon that affects several other Romance dialects of northern Italy.31

In the dialects of group (4b), final unstressed vowels were centralized as -ə32 (e.g., fiʎʎə,33 it. figlio/i/a/e, lat. fīlium/ii/am/ae, ‘son/s, daughter/s’), except for Felitto, where they were generally maintained. With respect to this phenomenon, variation mostly concerns which final vowels are involved in the weakening process. Some dialects (e.g., Francavilla in Sinni, or various dialects of Puglia and Campania: Loporcaro 1988; De Blasi 2006) centralize all final vowels. Others (see Cangemi et al. 2010 for an overview) centralize some vowels while retaining others. In our dataset, one example of the latter type is the dialect of Verbicaro (Loporcaro and Silvestri 2015; Idone and Silvestri 2018), where final -a was retained, with the consequence that “the phonemic opposition {-U(-); -O(-); -I(-); -E(-)} > /ə/ ≠ /a/ < {-A(-)} is preserved” (Idone and Silvestri 2018, p. 2)34, and, consequently, some gender/number alternations on suffixes (feminine singular vs. the rest) are maintained, as shown in (5)—adapted from Loporcaro and Silvestri (2015, pp. 69–70).35

(5)	a.	nu	kwatrarə	bbjeddə
		a.m	boy	beautiful
		‘a beautiful boy’
	b.	na	kwatrara	bbɛdda
		a.f	girl.f.sg	beautiful.f.sg
		‘a beautiful girl’
	c.	tʃɛrtə	kwatrarə	bbjeddə
		some	boy	beautiful
		‘some beautiful girls/boys’

In the dialects of group (4c) and, as mentioned above, in Felitto, final vowels are generally preserved (figgju, it. figlio, lat. fīlium, ‘son’; figgja, it. figlia, lat. fīliam, ‘daughter’; figgji, it. figli, figlie, lat. fīlii/ae, ‘sons, daughters’). Consequently, in these dialects, overt singular vs. plural distinctions on suffixes were preserved too; by contrast, gender distinctions were maintained in the singular, but were lost in the plural, due to phonetic changes occurred to unstressed -Ī/-Ĭ and -Ē (Lausberg 1971; Tagliavini [1949] 1972).

Like Verbicaro, Aidone (4d) has preserved final -a while generalizing all other vowels as -ə, as seen in (6) and (7).

(6)	a.	u	ddibbrə	nuvə
		the.m.sg	book	new
		‘the new book’
	b.	i	ddibbrə	nuvə
		the.pl	book	new
		‘the new books’
(7)	a.	a	kasa	nuva
		the.f.sg	house.f.sg	new.f.sg
		‘the new house
	b.	i	kasə	nuvə
		the.pl	house	new
		‘the new houses’

The loss/weakening of final vowels in groups (4a), (most dialects of) (4b), and (4d) had consequences on the realization of number alternations on suffixes, which is blurred on most noun/adjective classes (with the exception of feminine nouns ending in -a in the dialects where the latter was preserved). Yet, in some dialects, number distinctions were partially maintained thanks to metaphony (Tagliavini [1949] 1972, p. 408; Fanciullo 1994). “Metaphony is a type of quality agreement of stressed mid or low vowels” (Savoia and Maiden 1997, p. 15) induced by final vowels. For example, in various dialects of our dataset, the continuers of the Latin unstressed final -I and -U triggered the raising of stressed mid–high vowels -e-, which became -i- (e.g., mesə, it. mese, ‘month’ vs. misə, it. mesi, ‘months’), and -o-, which turned into -u- (e.g., nəpotə, it. nipote, ‘nephew’ vs. nəputə, it. nipoti, ‘nephews’), and/or the diphthongization of mid–low vowels -ɛ- in -je- (e.g., rɛndə, it. dente, ‘tooth’, vs. rjendə, it. denti, ‘teeth) and -ɔ- in -wo- (e.g., fɔrtə, it. forte, ‘strong.sg’, vs. fwortə, it. forti, ‘strong.pl’).36 These processes obviously happened before the loss/centralization of final vowels.

In the dialects where final vowels became -ə (i.e., most dialects of group (4b)), nouns (and adjectives) originally ending in -E, which realized plural number through the suffix -I, were affected by metaphony in the plural (triggered, in fact, by -I), while no change happened in the singular (because final -E does not trigger metaphony). Consequently, when final unstressed -E and -I changed into -ə, singular vs. plural alternations were preserved through the alternation, on the stressed root vowel, between non-metaphonetic (singular) and metaphonetic (plural) outputs (e.g., mesə, ‘month.sg’ / misə, ‘month.pl’). By contrast, nouns (and adjectives) ending in -U, whose plural was -I, were affected by metaphony both in the singular and in the plural (because both final -U and final -I trigger metaphony); thus, after the weakening of final -U and -I, no alternation was preserved (e.g., nwovə, ‘new.m.sg’/ nwovə, ‘new.m.pl’). Finally, nouns and adjectives ending in -A, whose plural was -AE>-E, and were thus etymologically unaffected by metaphonetic changes, did not retain any singular/plural alternation after the weakening of final vowels (for example, in Campania, the item rɔtə, ‘wheel’, encodes both singular and plural number).37 Nouns/adjectives of all classes whose stressed root vowel was -a-, -i-, or -u- are not expected to display any metaphonetic output. Yet, there are exceptions. For example, Fanciullo (1994) reports cases of lexical roots etymologically unaffected by metaphony whose stressed vowels display alternations signaling singular vs. plural interpretation; he concludes that, in these dialects, metaphony, which was originally a phonetic/phonological process, was turned into a morphological procedure (that he calls morphometaphony) to maintain/restore the overt realization of singular/plural alternations originally lexicalized on suffixes (Fanciullo 1994, pp. 574–77).

Various instances of these phenomena are visible in Teramano and other dialects of Abruzzo (Fanciullo 1994; Savoia and Maiden 1997; D’Alessandro and Van Oostendorp 2014, a.o.), where the extension of stressed root vowel alternations to non-etymological contexts also affected -a-, as shown in (8) (from Mantenuto 2015b, p. 11).

(8)	a.	vasə	kiss.sg		vs.	visə	kiss.pl
	b.	nasə	nose.sg		vs.	nisə	nose.pl

In various dialects of northern Italy (Rohlfs 1966, §§ 141–47; Loporcaro 2009, p. 80; Foresti 1988), metaphony is triggered only by final -I, as in the following examples (from Foresti 1988, p. 579):

(9)	a.	Ferrara	spoz	groom.sg	vs.	spuz	groom.pl
	b.	Bologna	bon	good.sg	vs.	bun	good.pl
			pa	foot.sg	vs.	pi	foot.pl
			an	year.sg	vs.	en	year.pl
			gras	fat.sg	vs.	gres	fat.pl
		Fusignano (Badini 2002, p. 381)	kan	dog.sg	vs.	ken	dog.pl

In the dialect of Savignano sul Rubicone (Pelliciardi 1977, pp. 45–48), like in other dialects of Romagna (Foresti 1988), the realization of number distinctions through alternations of the stressed vowel was extended to almost all classes of nouns (and adjectives) which, because of the loss of final vowels, have lost their suffixes (see Table A4 and Table A5). Thus, in this dialect, three different types of nouns are identified on the basis of number marking strategies: indeclinable nouns (10a), nouns where singular vs. plural alternations are realized on suffixes (-a vs. -i, or -a vs. no suffix, as shown in (10b.i) vs. (10b.ii)), and nouns that have no suffix and realize number oppositions through stressed vowel alternations (10c).

(10)			singular	plural	meaning
	a.		bikir	bikir	glass
	b.	i.	fnestra	fnestri	window
		ii.	kriatura	kriatur	person
	c.	i.	lamp	lɛmp	lightning
		ii.	kapɛl	kapel	hat
		iii.	kapɔt	kapot	coat
		iv.	fjor	fjur	flower

To sum up, the dialect of Savignano sul Rubicone shares the absence of suffixes on most noun (and adjective) classes with the other dialects of group (4a), while it shares the overt realization of Number through alternations of the stressed root vowel with the dialects of group (4b), where, in contrast, all nouns/adjectives have suffixes (although often undistinguished for Number). In Section 3.3.1, we briefly explore these differences and their morphosyntactic consequences.

3. Number in Nominal Structures

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

3.1. Number in DPs

We start from a brief survey of three parameters that have been proposed in the literature to account for cross-linguistic variation in the representation of the feature Number in D and within DPs.38

Number is one of the features that can be realized in D.39 Languages differ according to whether Number is “grammaticalized” or not, where “grammaticalized” means “obligatorily valued through some overt exponence in syntactically defined contexts” (Crisma and Longobardi 2020, p. 21).40 In the comparative parametric analysis of the nominal domain proposed since Guardiano and Longobardi (2005) and Longobardi and Guardiano (2009), until its most recent instantiations (Crisma et al. 2020), this cross-linguistic distinction is encoded by parameter Grammaticalized Number, whose empirical manifestations are summarized in (11). The parameter is active (i.e., Number is grammaticalized) in languages that display (at least one of) the patterns in (11) (e.g., English and Italian). By contrast, the parameter is not active in languages that do not display any such manifestations (e.g., Mandarin or Japanese).

(11)	Grammaticalized Number (adapted from Crisma et al. 2020)
	a. Nominal arguments display bound morpheme alternations (on the head noun and/or on a definite article/demonstrative/quantifier/adjective) that oppose singular to non-singular interpretation.
	b. There is agreement in number between a singular/non-singular nominal argument and the verb.
	c. There is agreement in number between a singular/non-singular noun (or a definite article/demonstrative/quantifier) and adjectives (within the same nominal structure).
	d. There is agreement in number between a 3rd person reflexive and its antecedent.

In turn, languages where parameter Grammaticalized Number is active are of two types (Crisma and Longobardi 2020): languages (e.g., Basque) where singular vs. plural alternations are realized overtly only in D, where the latter must thus be systematically lexicalized (i.e., bare arguments are ruled out, Longobardi 2021), and languages where number distinctions are overtly realized (also) on nouns and other nominal categories (e.g., Italian, English, and, more generally, Indo-European languages). This difference is assumed to follow from a further parameter, Number spread to N (Longobardi and Guardiano 2009; Longobardi et al. 2013; Crisma et al. 2020), that is active in Indo-European and non-active in Basque.

Finally, among languages where Number spread to N is active (i.e., where at least some nouns exhibit overt singular vs. plural alternations), there are languages where overt number exponence is generalized to all (or most) classes of nouns (like English, Italian, or Spanish) and languages (like French) where number alternations are visible only on a lexically restricted set of nouns (see note 2). The latter do not allow argument bare nouns, thus superficially behaving like Basque, while the former can allow empty Ds in argument nominals. This difference is encoded by parameter Number on N, which is active in English, Italian, and Spanish (see examples (2) and (3)), and non-active in French (see example (1)).

The implicational relations between these three parameters are summarized in (12).41

(12)	Number in DPs: three parameters

3.2. Parameter Manifestations in the Dialect Dataset

In what follows, we briefly explore the evidence available in the dialects of our sample concerning some of the patterns listed in (11), which define the empirical manifestations of parameter Grammaticalized Number.42 In (13)–(19), we provide examples of manifestations (11b) (subject-verb agreement)43 and (11c) (agreement in number between a noun or a definite article/demonstrative/quantifier and adjectives). Concerning (11a), an overview of how number alternations are realized on major nominal categories is provided in Section 3.3.

Example (13) is from Casalmaggiore (group (4a)). In this example, agreement in number between subject and verb is visible only on the participle: as in several other dialects of northern Italy, the auxiliary be does not agree in number with the subject (Manzini and Savoia 2005, chps. 2 and 5). Concerning DP-internal agreement, in the feminine, number agreement is visible on all DP-items (noun, adjective, definite article).

(13)	Casalmaggiore (Vezzosi 2019, p. 26)
	a.	la	bɛla	ragasa	l	ɛ	andada	via
		the.f.sg	beautiful.f.sg	girl.f.sg	subj.cl	be.3	gone.f.sg	away
		‘The beautiful girl has left’
	b.	li	bɛli	ragasi	li	ɛ	andadi	via
		the.f.pl	beautiful.f.pl	girl.f.pl	subj.cl	be.3	gone.f.pl	away
		‘The beautiful girls have left’

Examples (14) and (15) are from Teramo and Santa Maria Capua Vetere (group (4b)), respectively.44 Both examples show subject-verb agreement. DP-internal agreement is realized on all DP-items: nouns and adjectives realize number alternations on the stressed vowel.

(14)	Teramo (Mantenuto 2015a, pp. 2–3)
	a.	lu	kanə	roʃʃə	ɛ	bbellə
		the.m.sg	dog.m.sg	red.m.sg	be.3sg	beautiful.m.sg
		‘The red dog is beautiful’
	b.	li	kinə	ruʃʃə	so	bbillə
		the.m.pl	dog.m.pl	red.m.pl	be.3pl	beautiful.m.pl
		‘The red dogs are beautiful’
(15)	Santa Maria Capua Vetere
	a.	o	waʎʎonə	roʃə	a	partutə
		the.m.sg	young person.m.sg	sweet.m.sg	have.3sg	left
		‘The sweet boy has left’
	b.	e	waʎʎunə	ruʃə	annə	partutə
		the.m.pl	young person.m.pl	sweet.m.pl	have.3pl	left
		‘The sweet boys have left’

Examples (16)–(18) are from dialects of group (4c). Here, again, number agreement is visible between subject and verb and on all the items that belong to the same DP.

(16)	Trapani
	a.	u		pittʃottu		mirikanu		paittiu
		the.m.sg		young person.m.sg		American.m.sg		leave.3sg.past
		‘The American boy has left’
	b.	i		pittʃotti		mirikani		paitteru
		the.pl		young person.pl		American.pl		leave.3pl.past
		‘The American boys/girls left’
(17)	Reggio Calabria
	a.	lu		figgjɔlu		mirikanu		partiu
		the.m.sg		young person.m.sg		American.m.sg		leave.3sg.past
		‘The American boy has left’
	b.	i		figgjɔli		mirikani		partɛru
		the.pl		young person.pl		American.pl		leave.3pl.past
		‘The American boys/girls left’
(18)	Cellino San Marco
	a.	lu	kane	bjanku	se	fatʃe	sempre	kkju	jɛrtu
		the.m.sg	dog.sg	white.m.sg	SI	do.3sg	always	more	tall.m.sg
		‘The white dog is becoming increasingly taller’
	b.	li	kani	bjanki	se	fannu	sempre	kkju	jɛrti
		the.pl	dog.pl	white.m.pl	SI	do.3pl	always	more	tall.pl
		‘The white dogs are becoming increasingly taller’

Example (19) is from Aidone (group (4d)). Here, too, the verb agrees in number with the subject ((19a) vs. (19b)) and there is DP-internal agreement in number: the latter is only visible between items interpreted as feminine singulars.45

(19)	Aidone
	a.	i.	vinnə	na	pəttʃidda	səmpatəka
			come.3sg.past	a.f	child.f.sg	nice.f.sg
			‘A nice girl came’
		ii.	vinnə	nu	pəttʃiddə	səmpatəkə
			come.3sg.past	a.m	child	nice
			‘A nice boy came’
	b.		vinnərə	(tʃɛrtə)	pəttʃiddə	səmpatəkə
			come.3pl.past	some	child	nice
			‘Some nice girls/boys came’

To sum up, all the dialects of our sample display subject-verb agreement in number (11b), and number agreement within DPs (11c). This constitutes positive evidence for Grammaticalized Number.

Concerning parameter Number spread to N, all the dialects of our sample display at least some nouns where number alternations are realized overtly (see Section 3.3.1 and Table A4); this means that, in these languages, parameter Number spread to N is active. In contrast, the empirical manifestations of parameter Number on N are more variable. We present the relevant data in Section 3.3.1.

3.3. Morphological Exponence of Number in the Dataset

3.3.1. Nouns (and Adjectives)

As shown in Section 1 and Section 2, across the dialects of our dataset, two strategies (often in complementary distribution) for making number on nouns46 are observed: suffix alternations and root vowel alternations47. The former strategy, as remarked in Manzini and Savoia (2005, vol. III, p. 583), is “clearly computational, namely syntactic” (“chiaramente computazionale, cioè sintattico”). The latter has the properties of an “introflexive” mechanism (“un paradigma di flessione interna”), which yet is not generalized to all inflectional classes and, especially in some dialects, is not productive (Fanciullo, p.c.).

In the dialects of group (4c) and in Felitto, number alternations are visible on almost all classes of nouns (with isolated lexical exceptions),48 and are realized through suffixes, which, like in Italian, collapse class/gender and number information, as shown in (20).49 In most such dialects, gender alternations are visible in the singular and blurred in the plural, as shown in (21).50

(20)	Reggio Calabria (adapted from Falcone 1976, p. 68)
	a.	u	mulu	bbɔnu
		the.m.sg	mule.m.sg	good.m.sg
		‘the mule of good quality’
	b.	i	muli	bbɔni
		the.pl	mule.pl	good.pl
		‘the mules of good quality’
(21)	San Filippo Del Mela
	a.	a	figgjɔla	mirikana
		the.f.sg	young person.f.sg	American.f.sg
		‘the American girl’
	b.	u	figgjɔlu	mirikanu
		the.m.sg	young person.m.sg	American.m.sg
		‘the American boy’
	c.	i	figgjɔli	mirikani
		the.pl	young person.pl	American.pl
		‘the American boys/girls’

The other dialects of our dataset display a “reduction of the internal articulation of the inflectional system” (‘una riduzione dell’articolazione interna del sistema flessivo’, Manzini and Savoia 2005, vol. III, p. 574) as compared to Italian. For example, in the dialects of group (4a), number alternations are visible on suffixes only on one class of nouns, i.e., feminine nouns ending in -a, with plural -i.51 The other classes do not exhibit any suffix (example (22) is from Casalmaggiore).52 Finally, in Savignano sul Rubicone, like in other dialects of Romagna, there are nouns that have no suffixes but overtly mark singular and plural interpretation through stressed vowel alternations (see the examples in (10)).

(22)	Casalmaggiore (Vezzosi 2019, p. 26)
	a.	i.	sotana	dʒalda
			gown.f.sg	yellow.f.sg
			‘yellow gown’
		ii.	sotani	dʒaldi
			gown.f.pl	yellow.f.pl
			‘yellow gowns’
	b.		ragas	grand
			boy	tall
			‘tall boy/s’

In group (4b) (except for Felitto) and Aidone (4d), most final vowels have been weakened, and are now realized as -ə. Thus, most number alternations on suffixes were lost. As already mentioned in Section 2 (see examples (5), (6), and (7)), in Verbicaro (23) and Aidone (24), some alternations on suffixes have been maintained, because of the retention of final -A. In these languages, there are two different suffixes: -a, which corresponds to (feminine) singular interpretation (originally -A), and -ə, which collapses masculine singular (originally -U) and plural (originally -I).53

(23)	Verbicaro (adapted from Loporcaro and Silvestri 2015, p. 69)
	a.	i.	na	bbɛlla	kasa
			a.f	beautiful.f.sg	house.f.sg
			‘a beautiful house’
		ii.	na	kasa	bbɛdda
			a.f	house.f.sg	beautiful.f.sg
			‘a beautiful house’
	b.	i.	tʃɛrtə	bbɛllə	kasə
			some	beautiful.f.pl	house.pl
			‘some beautiful houses’
		ii.	tʃɛrtə	kasə	bbɛddə
			some	house.pl	beautiful.f.pl
			‘some beautiful houses’
	c.	i.	nu	bbwellə54	kwatrarə
			a.m	beautiful.m	young person
			‘a beautiful boy’
		ii.	nu	kwatrarə	bbjeddə
			a.m	young person	beautiful.m
			‘a beautiful boy’
	d.	i.	na	bbɛlla	kwatrara
			a.f	beautiful.f.sg	young person.f.sg
			‘a beautiful girl’
		ii.	na	kwatrara	bbɛdda
			a.f	young person.f.sg	beautiful.f.sg
			‘a beautiful girl’
	e.	i.	tʃɛrtə	bbellə	kwatrarə
			some	beautiful	young person
			‘some beautiful boys/girls’
		ii.	tʃɛrtə	kwatrarə	bbjeddə
			some	young person	beautiful.m
			‘some beautiful boys/girls’
		iii.	tʃɛrtə	kwatrarə	bbɛddə
			some	young person	beautiful.f.pl
			‘some beautiful girls’
(24)	Aidone
	a.	i.	na	bbrava	karuza
			a.f	good.f.sg	young person.f.sg
			‘a good girl’
		ii.	na	karuza	bbrava
			a.f.sg	young person.f.sg	good.f.sg
			‘a good girl’
	b.	i.	un	bravə	karuzə
			a.m	good	young person.sg
			‘a good guy’
		ii.	un	karuzə	bbravə
			a.m	young person.sg	good
			‘a good guy’
	c.	i.	tʃɛrtə	bbravə	karuʒə
			some	good	young person.pl
			‘some good guys’
		ii.	tʃɛrtə	karuʒə	bbravə
			some	young person.pl	good
			‘some good guys’

By contrast, in most dialects of group (4b), where final -A, -U, and -I turned into -ə, there is only one suffix, which is not specified for number (i.e., -ə). Yet, in some such dialects, suffixes -a, -u, and -i re-emerge in certain contexts/classes of items, which might suggest that suffixes still encode number information, albeit often non-overtly.55 For example, Ledgeway (2007, p. 106) observes that, in the dialect of Napoli (like in several other dialects of Campania), (some) prenominal adjectives (as well as other prenominal modifiers) retain the suffixes -a (feminine, singular), -u (masculine singular), and -i (plural), while post-nominal adjectives generalize -ə. Another case is exemplified by Francavilla in Sinni (examples in (25)). Here, on nouns, the feminine singular suffix is realized as -a when the noun is followed by an adjective (see (25a.i)); otherwise, it is realized as -ə (see (25a.ii)). Similarly, on adjectives, the feminine singular suffix is realized as -a when the adjective precedes the noun and as -ə when the adjective is post-nominal, as shown by the contrast between (25b.i) and (25a.i).56 Similar patterns have been described for Bari (Andriani 2017, p. 92) and Teramo (Savini 1881, p. 58).

(25)	Francavilla in Sinni
	a.	i.	a	makəna	bbellə
			the.f.sg	car.f.sg	beautiful
			‘the beautiful car’
		ii.	i	makənə	bbellə
			the.pl	car	beautiful
			‘the beautiful cars’
	b.	i.	a	bbella57	makənə
			the.f.sg	beautiful.f.sg	car
			‘the beautiful car’
		ii.	i	bbellə	makənə
			the.pl	beautiful	car
			‘the beautiful cars’
	c.	i.	u	pallonə	bbellə
			the.m.sg	ball.sg	beautiful
			‘the beautiful ball’
		ii.	i	pallunə	bbellə
			the.pl	ball.pl	beautiful
			‘the beautiful balls’
	d.	i.	u	bbellə	pallonə
			the.m.sg	beautiful	ball.sg
			‘the beautiful ball’
		ii.	i	bbellə	pallunə
			the.pl	beautiful	ball.pl
			‘the beautiful balls’

To sum up, concerning morphological exponence of Number on nouns, four major types of languages are identified in our dataset:58

(26)	a.	Languages where number distinctions are visible on suffixes on all noun classes as a rule (with spare lexical exceptions), and all noun classes have suffixes. The extreme southern dialects (group (4c)) belong to this type, as well as Felitto (4b).
	b.	Languages (i.e., Verbicaro and Aidone) where number alternations are visible on suffixes only on one class (i.e., nouns originally ending in -A), and suffixes appear on all nouns. In these languages, the suffix -a encodes feminine gender and singular number; masculine nouns and plurals have the suffix -ə.
	c.	Languages where no number alternations are visible on suffixes, and suffixes appear on all nouns. In some nouns, number distinctions are realized through alternations of the stressed vowel. Dialects of group (4b), except for Felitto and Verbicaro, belong to this type.
	d.	Languages where suffixes encode number alternations only on a subset of nouns (i.e., those ending in -a/-al/-el), while the other nouns do not display any suffix. Dialects of group (4a) belong to this type. In some such dialects (e.g., Savignano sul Rubicone), number alternations are also realized through alternations of the stressed root vowel.

In Section 4, we explore the relations between these number marking strategies and the distribution of bare nouns in the languages of the dataset, to check whether the predictions made by Delfitto and Schroten (1991) and Crisma and Longobardi (2020) are met in this domain of languages.

Before closing this Section, we provide a short survey of three categories (articles, demonstratives, and possessives) that display variation across the dataset in terms of how they realize number alternation and their DP-internal distribution.

3.3.2. Definite Articles

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

Table 1. Number and gender distinctions on definite articles.

Language	m.sg	f.sg	m.pl	f.pl
Casalmaggiore, Savignano	al, el	la	i	li
Parma, Reggio Emilia, Novellara, Correggio	al	la	i	al
Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Amalfi, Palma Campania60	o	a	e[-RF]	e[+RF]
Botrugno	u	a	i	e
Teramo, Felitto, Cellino San Marco, Mesagne, Reggio Calabria	lu	la	li
Bari (BA), Taranto (TA)	u	la (BA) a (TA)	lə
Barletta, Francavilla in Sinni, Verbicaro, Cutro, Nicastro, Catanzaro, Sicily (incl. Aidone)	u	a	i

3.3.3. Demonstratives

In all the dialects of the database, demonstratives are incompatible with articles (i.e., they are D-checking, Guardiano and Stavrou 2020). Most dialects display two different items for adnominal and pronominal demonstratives: adnominal demonstratives are usually “reduced” as compared to pronominal ones (monosyllabic vs. disyllabic).61 Almost all the dialects of the sample realize number distinctions on both forms (full paradigms are given in Table A2a and Table A2b). Like definite articles, only a few dialects display four-member paradigms, e.g., Casalmaggiore (27) and Palma Campania (28); in the latter, feminine plural demonstratives trigger Rafforzamento Fonosintattico (see note 60). In most of the other dialects, masculine and feminine gender are collapsed into one and the same item in the plural, while they take two separate forms in the singular.

(27)	Casalmaggiore (adapted from Vezzosi 2019, p. 55)
	a.	kul	lebar		ke/le
		dem.m.sg	book		here/there
		‘this/that book’
	b.	ki	lebar		ke/le
		dem.m.pl	book		here/there
		‘these/those books’
	c.	kla	duna		ke/le
		dem.f.sg	woman.f.sg		here/there
		‘this/that woman’
	d.	kli	duni		ke/le
		dem.f.pl	woman.f.pl		here/there
		‘these/those women’
(28)	Palma Campania
	a.	stu	/	killu		maʎʎonə
		this.m.sg		that.m.sg		sweater.sg
		‘this/that sweater’
	b.	sti	/	killi		maʎʎunə
		this.pl		that.m.pl		sweater.pl
		‘these/those sweaters’
	c.	sta	/	kella		kandzonə
		this.f.sg		that.f.sg		song.sg
		‘this/that song
	d.	sti	/	kelli		kkandzunə
		this.pl		that.f.pl		song.pl
		‘these/those songs’

In Francavilla in Sinni, pronominal demonstratives realize number distinctions through alternations of the root vowel, as shown in (29a), while suffix alternations are visible only on adnominal demonstratives (29b–d).

(29)	Francavilla in Sinni
	a.	i.	kwistə	kwestə	kistə
			this.m.sg	this.f.sg	this.pl
		ii.	kwillə	kwellə	killə
			that.m.sg	that.f.sg	that.pl
	b.		stu /	kwillu	waʎʎonə
			this.m.sg	that.m.sg	young person.sg
			‘this/that boy’
	c.		sta /	kwella	waʎʎonə
			this.f.sg	that.f.sg	young person.sg
			‘this/that girl’
	d.		sti /	killi	waʎʎunə
			this.pl	that.pl	young person.pl
			‘these/those boys’

A further aspect of variation in the languages of our dataset concerns the realization of deictic interpretation (Guardiano and Stavrou 2020). Some dialects of group (4a) (Casalmaggiore, Correggio, Novellara, and Reggio Emilia) are like French: adnominal demonstratives are usually realized as two separated lexical items (as shown in (27) and (30), from Vezzosi 2019, p. 26), wherein one (ku/ki, kla/kli) occurs in the D-area, does not encode any deictic information (i.e., it is “deictically neutral”) and is inflected for gender and number, and the other (ke/le, a deictic “reinforcer”, Bernstein 1997) occurs DP-finally (after adjectives and prepositional phrases), realizes deictic reference and is uninflected. A difference between Casalmaggiore and the other dialects is that, in Casalmaggiore, the reinforcer seems to be required in all contexts (and with all interpretations, Vezzosi 2019), while in the other dialects (like in French) it is not obligatory when the demonstrative does not have deictic meaning.

(30)	Casalmaggiore
	a.	kul	ragas	grand	ke/le
		dem.m.sg	boy	tall	here/there
		‘this/that tall boy’
	b.	ki	ragas	grand	ke/le
		dem.m.pl	boy	tall	here/there
		‘these/those tall boys’

In Parma and Savignano sul Rubicone, and in the other groups, deictic demonstratives do not require reinforcers; like in Italian, they take different forms according to whether they encode proximal or distal distinctions, as shown in (31).

(31)	Parma
	a.	i.	sto/kol	gat
			this.m.sg/that.m.sg	cat
			‘this/that cat’ (M)
		ii.	sta/kla	gata
			this.f.sg/that.f.sg	cat.f.sg
			‘this/that cat’ (F)
		iii.	sti/kil	gati
			this.pl/that.pl	cat.f.pl
			‘these/those cats’ (F)
	b.	i.	koste (ki) /	kol (la)	l	ɛ
			this.m.sg here	that.m.sg there	3sg.cl.subj	be.3sg
			l	me	libor
			the.m.sg	my	book
			‘This/that is my book’
		ii.	kosti (ki) /	koi (la)	i	in
			this.pl here	that.m.pl there	3pl.cl.subj	be.3pl
			li	me	libor
			the.m.pl	my	book
			‘These/those are my books’
		iii.	kosta (ki) /	kola (la)	l	ɛ
			this.f.sg here	that.f.sg there	3sg.cl.subj	be.3sg
			la	me	kamiza
			the.f.sg	my	blouse.f.sg
			‘This/that is my blouse’
		iv.	kosti (ki) /	koli (la)	i	in
			this.pl here	this.f.pl there	3pl.cl.subj	be.3pl
			al	me	kamizi
			the.f.pl	my	blouse.f.pl
			‘These/those are my blouses’

A peculiar case is instantiated by the dialect of Teramo. As noted in Mantenuto (2016), Teramano features “demonstrative doubling”: two demonstratives can occur in the same DP, one DP-initially, in the reduced form of adnominal items, and the other DP-finally, in the non-reduced form of pronominal items. Doubling is not obligatory but is preferred when the DP has deictic interpretation.

(32)	Teramo (Mantenuto 2016, pp. 35–39)
	a.	ʃtu/llu	libbrə	(kwaʃtə)/(kwallə)
		this.m.sg /that.m.sg	book	this.m.sg/that.m.sg
		‘this/that book (here)/(there)’
	b.	ʃta/lla	parnindzə	(kaʃtə)/(kallə)
		this.f.sg/that.f.sg	apron.f.sg	this.f.sg/that.f.sg
		‘this apron (here)’
	c.	ʃti/lli	kinə	(kəʃtə)/(kəllə)
		this.pl/that.pl	dog.pl	this.pl/that.pl
		‘these/those dogs (here)/(there)’

3.3.4. Possessives

By the label “possessive”, we refer here to pronominal forms interpreted as arguments of the head noun (i.e., expressing one of the following relations: Possessor, Subject, Object; Crisma et al., forthcoming). In several Romance dialects of Italy,62 like in Italian (and unlike in English), adnominal possessives must co-occur with a determiner (e.g., an article or a demonstrative: il/un/questo mio libro, lit. ‘the/a/this my.m.sg book.m.sg’ vs. *mio libro) and do not assign any definite reading to the noun phrase they modify.63

In various dialects of our dataset, possessives agree in gender and number with the head noun, like in Italian,64 while in others they don’t.65 For example, in group (4a), adnominal possessives are prenominal (with exceptions, see Vezzosi 2019, p. 50) and uninflected.66 Pronominal possessives display number alternations only on some forms: 1st and 2nd person plural, except for Savignano (nɔstra.f.sg vs. nɔstre, vɔstra.f.sg vs. vɔstre), exhibit the same suffix alternations as adjectives (like in most other dialects, Manzini and Savoia 2005, p. 573), i.e., -a/-i in the feminine (nɔstra/nɔstri, vɔstra/vɔstri) and no alternations in the masculine (nɔster, vɔster); 3rd person plural forms are uninflected (lor); 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person singular are uninflected for gender when modifying a plural head noun (me, to, so), while, in some dialects, gender alternations (through the suffixes -o/-a, masculine and feminine, respectively) are visible on possessives modifying a singular head noun (e.g., mio/mia, tuo/tua, suo/sua in Reggio Emilia and Novellara).

More variation is observed in group (4b), mostly resulting from the combination of the weakening of final vowels and metaphony. Barletta has uninflected items for all persons but 1st singular, which has two forms opposing masculine (mejə) vs. feminine (ma), with no number oppositions. In Bari (Andriani 2017, p. 106), Amalfi, and Palma Campania, possessives are inflected for gender but not for number, except for 1st person singular in Amalfi and Palma Campania, where mijə encodes singular (masculine and feminine), mjejə encodes masculine and plural, and mɛjə encodes feminine and plural—note that no such alternation is realized through suffixes. In Verbicaro, all items are invariable (Silvestri 2016, p. 135), except for 1st and 2nd person plural, which, as in most other dialects, display gender/number alternations identical to adjectives. In Teramo, except for 1st person singular (mi), possessives are inflected for number (to vs. tu, so vs. su, nɔstrə vs. nustrə, vɔstrə vs. vustrə, so vs. su) but not for gender. In Francavilla in Sinni, 3rd person plural is uninflected (lorə) and 1st and 2nd person plural, like adjectives, have two forms, one encoding feminine singular (nɔstə/vɔstə), and the other (nwostə/vwostə) encoding plural and masculine singular. The other forms (1st, 2nd, and 3rd person singular) are inflected for number (mijə vs. mejə; tujə vs. tojə, sujə vs. sojə) but not for gender; in all forms, number distinctions are realized through root vowel alternations only. In Taranto, possessives exhibit the same gender/number alternations as adjectives (see Table A4). In Santa Maria Capua Vetere, the suffix -a encodes feminine gender and singular number on all persons but 3rd plural. Plural number and masculine gender are realized as -ə. In the 1st person singular, root vowel alternations encode singular vs. plural and masculine vs. feminine oppositions (mijə.m.sg, mija.f.sg, mjejə.m.pl, mɛjə.f.pl). Finally, in Felitto, number alternations are realized through suffixes (-u/-a for the singular, masculine and feminine, respectively, -i/-e for the plural); in 1st and 2nd person plural, gender alternations are also visible on the stressed vowel (-wo- vs. -ɔ-, masculine and feminine, respectively).

In group (4c), the dialects of Sicily and Reggio Calabria have two types of possessives (Manzini and Savoia 2005, vol. III, pp. 552–74; Guardiano et al. 2018). Pre-nominal possessives are uninflected and realized attached to D (called “Wackernagel possessives” in Guardiano et al. 2018); by contrast, inflected adnominal possessives are post-nominal and identical to pronominal “strong” items. The latter are inflected for gender and number in Ragusa, Trapani, and Reggio Calabria; in Ribera, San Filippo del Mela, and Mussomeli, possessives are uninflected (except for 1st and 2nd person plural, which display the same suffix alternations as adjectives). In Salento (Cellino San Marco, Mesagne, Botrugno) and the rest of Calabria (Cutro, Catanzaro and Nicastro), possessives are post-nominal only; in Cellino San Marco, they are inflected for number but not for gender, except for 1st and 2nd person plural, which display the same suffix alternations as adjectives and stressed vowel alternations (nweʃʃu/vweʃʃu.m.sg, nɔʃʃa/vɔʃʃa.f.sg, nweʃʃi/vweʃʃi.pl), and for 3rd person plural, which is invariable (lɔru); in Nicastro, Mesagne, and Cutro, possessives are uninflected (except for 1st and 2nd person plural and, in Nicastro, also 1st person singular), and in Botrugno and Catanzaro (except for 3rd person plural), they are inflected for number and, in the singular, also for gender.

In Aidone (4d), possessives are uninflected, except for 1st and 2nd person plural, which, as in the other dialects, display the same alternations as adjectives.

4. The Distribution of Bare Nouns

Based on the premises sketched in Section 3.1, and on the data discussed in Section 3.2, we can now attempt some preliminary predictions concerning the availability of bare nouns in argument position in the dialects under investigation.

(33)	a	Concerning the realization of number on nouns, type (26a), where number alternations are systematically realized on suffixes on all classes of nouns, does not display significant differences with respect to Italian; hence, it is expected that these languages allow bare nouns, arguably with a distribution similar to that observed in Italian.
	b	Type (26b) displays number alternations (on suffixes) on a subset of nouns (the -A class). Similarly, in type (26d), number distinctions are realized only on a subset of classes (-a, -al, -el). The difference between the two types is that in type (26b) all nouns have a suffix, while in type (26d) there are noun classes that do not display any suffix. One might wonder whether the “partial” encoding of the feature Number on nouns is sufficient to license empty Ds (i.e., bare nouns) or, by contrast, whether, for the licensing mechanisms described in Delfitto and Schroten (1991) and Crisma and Longobardi (2020) to be activated, it is necessary that Number be systematically realized on all noun classes.
	c	In type (26c), all nouns have suffixes, but the latter are never overtly specified for Number. However, number alternations are realized through (semi-)productive introflexive strategies. According to Crisma and Longobardi (2020, p. 52), “for an empty D the value of Number is recovered via formal agreement between such a D and some category on which it is spelt out”. Thus, these languages should, in principle, license bare nouns. Yet, the fact that, in most languages of this type, number marking is not systematically realized on all noun classes raises the same issues as in (33b).

In what follows, we illustrate the distribution of bare nouns in argument position in the dialects of the dataset, to check whether the predictions suggested in (33) are borne out. To do so, we test (a) whether bare arguments are grammatical in the dialects investigated and, if they are, (b) whether their distribution displays any differences with respect to Italian.

4.1. Data Collection

The data used to test the predictions in (33) were collected from native speakers and further integrated, when possible, with those available in the literature. When not otherwise specified, the examples presented in this Section come from elicited data. For each dialect, we interviewed one speaker. If needed, speakers were consulted multiple times to refine and double-check the material they provided.

We arranged a list of syntactic environments where testing the degree of acceptability of various types of nominals when used with no visible determiner (i.e., bare). Our starting point is the distribution of bare nouns in Italian (Crisma and Longobardi 2020), which is summarized in (34) and exemplified in (35)–(39).

(34)	a	Singular count nouns cannot be bare in any argument position (35).
	b	Plural (and mass) nouns cannot be bare in pre-verbal subject position (36a), unless they are modified by an adjective, a PP or a relative clause, (36b).
	c	Plural (and mass) nouns can be bare in post-verbal subject position (37), as pivots of existential clauses (38), and in object position (39).

(35)	a.	*	ho	visto	studente		(americano)
			have.1sg	seen	student.m.sg		American.m.sg
			Intended: ‘I saw a(n American) student/the (American) student’
	b.	*	studente	(americano)	è		arrivato
			student.m.sg	American.m.sg	be3sg		arrived m.sg
			Intended: ‘A(n American) student/the American student has arrived’
(36)	a.	*	studenti	sono	entrati	nell’	edificio
			student.m.pl	be.3pl	entered.m.pl	in.the.sg	building.m.sg
			‘Students have entered the building’
	b.		studenti	da	ogni	parte	del
			student.pl	from	every	part	of.the.m.sg
			mondo	sono	entrati	nell’	edificio
			world.m.sg	be.3pl	entered.m.pl	in.the.sg	building.m.sg
			‘Students from all over the world have entered the building’
(37)	a.	sono		entrati	studenti	nell’	edificio
		be.3pl		entered.m.pl	student.m.pl	in.the.sg	building.m.sg
		‘Students have entered the building’
	b.	è		caduta	acqua	sul	tavolo
		be.3sg		fallen.f.sg	water.f.sg	on.the.m.sg	table.m.sg
		‘Water has dropped on the table’
(38)	a.	ci		sono	studenti	nell’	edificio
		there		be.3pl	student.m.pl	in.the.sg	building.m.sg
		‘There are students in the building’
	b.	c’		è	acqua	sul	tavolo
		there		be.3sg	water.f.sg	on.the.m.sg	table.m.sg
		‘There is water on the table’
(39)	a.	ho		visto	studenti	nell’	edificio
		have.1sg		seen	student.m.pl	in.the.sg	building.m.sg
		‘I saw students in the building’
	b.	ho		bevuto	acqua
		have.1sg		drunk	water.f.sg
		‘I drank water’

Based on this material, we created a list of 41 different patterns/sequences (see Table A6) that contain modified and unmodified plural nouns, singular count nouns, and mass nouns, in the following positions in non-negative sentences:

(40)	a.	Object
	b.	Post-verbal subject
	c.	Pivot of existential clause:
		i. with a “locative” coda
		ii. with a relative clause as the coda
	d.	Pre-verbal subject

The list was then used as a “lexically-flexible” guide to collect the relevant data from the speakers and test their judgements.67 During the interviews, for each of the 41 patterns, speakers were asked to generate a sentence in their language with the same properties of that pattern. The language used in the interviews was Italian. It has been shown (Pinzin and Poletto 2022) that the use of Italian (i.e., the other native language for most of the speakers) as the input language in this type of task is likely to induce non-trivial priming effects (Cornips and Poletto 2005; Van Craenenbroek et al. 2019). To control for this, when possible, we provided sentences in the dialect of the speaker, asking about their grammaticality.68 Each pattern was tested twice, using different lexical items. When the answers provided by a speaker were unclear or inconsistent, we tested the relevant pattern multiple times, controlling for potentially infelicitous lexical choices and/or pragmatic contexts.

In what follows, we present the data that are relevant to test the predictions in (33).

4.2. Data Description

In the dialects of group (4c) and in Felitto (type (26a)), bare argument nouns are grammatical, and their distribution is constrained by the same restrictions as in Italian (see (34)): (a) bare singulars are ungrammatical in all argument positions (see examples (41a–c) from Ragusa); (b) plural (and mass) nouns are ungrammatical as pre-verbal subjects (41d) and very marginally accepted when modified by an adjective, a relative clause, or a PP (41e); and (c) unmodified bare plural (and mass) nouns can only occur as objects (41f–g), post-verbal subjects (41h–i), and pivots of existential sentences (41j–k). Prediction (33a) is therefore borne out.

(41)	Ragusa
	a.	*	priparai		tɔrta	(bwonissima)
			prepare1sg.past		cake f.sg	excellent
			Intended: ‘I prepared an excellent cake’
	b.	*	pittʃɔtta		(mirikana)	arruvau
			young person.f.sg		American.f.sg	arrive.3sg.past
			Intended: ‘A(n American)/the American girl arrived’
	c.	*	arruvau		pittʃɔtta	(mirikana)
			arrive.3sg.past		young person.f.sg	American.f.sg
			Intended: ‘A(n American)/the American girl arrived’
	d.	*	pittʃwɔtti		arruvarru	ri
			young people.pl		arrive.3pl.past	from
			tutta		a	Sitʃilja
			all.f.sg		the.f.sg	Sicily
			Intended: ‘Young people arrived from all over Sicily’
	e.	??	turisti		spaɲɲwɔli	arruvarru	ajɛri
			tourist.pl		Spanish.pl	arrive.3pl.past	yesterday
			Intended: ‘Spanish tourists arrived yesterday’
	f.	ddʒɔvanni		vinniu	libbra	ppi	na
		Giovanni		sell.3sg.past	book.pl	for	a.f
		vita
		life.f.sg
		‘Giovanni sold books for his entire life’
	g.	ddʒɔvanni		fabbrika	kasi	ranni
		Giovanni		build.3sg	house.pl	big
		‘Giovanni builds big houses’
	h.	ri		tutta	a	Sitʃilja	arruvarru
		from		all.f.sg	the.f.sg	Sicily	arrive.3pl.past
		pittʃwɔtti
		young people.pl
		‘There arrived young people from all over Sicily’
	i.	ajɛri		arruvarru	turisti	spaɲɲwɔli
		yesterday		arrive.3pl.past	tourist.pl	Spanish.pl
		‘There arrived Spanish tourists yesterday’
	j.	ttʃi		su	ffurmikuli	nta	tutta
		there		be.3pl	ant.pl	into	all
		a		kasa
		the.f.sg		house.f.sg
		‘There are ants all over the house’
	k.	ttʃi		su	pittʃwɔtti		ka
		there		be.3pl	young people.pl		that
		nun		vwɔnu	sturjari
		neg		want.3pl	study
		‘There are young people who do not want to study’

Let’s now explore (33b). In the dialects of type (26d), bare nouns are ungrammatical in all contexts, as shown in (42). By contrast, in type (26b), bare nouns are possible and occur with almost the same distribution as (34). As shown in (43), a difference with respect to (34) is that plural (and mass) nouns are only marginally accepted in pre-verbal position, even when modified.

(42)	Novellara
	a.	dʒwani	al	kunteva	*(dal)	buzɛi
		Gianni	3sg.cl.subj	tell.3sg.past	of.the.f.pl	lie.f.pl
		‘Gianni used to tell lies’
	b.	dʒwani	al	kunteva	*(dal)	grand		buzɛi
		Gianni	3sg.cl.subj	tell.3sg.past	of.the.f.pl	big		lie.f.pl
		‘Gianni used to tell big lies’
	c.	i	in	rivè	*(di)	turesta
		3pl.cl.subj	be.3pl	arrived	of.the.m.pl	tourist
		‘Tourists have arrived’
	d.	i	in	rivè	*(di)	turesta		spaɲol
		3pl.cl.subj	be.3pl	arrived	of.the.m.pl	tourist		Spanish
		‘Spanish tourists have arrived’
	e.	a	g	ɛ	*(dal)	matʃi
		cl.subj	there	be.3	of.the.f.pl	stain. f.pl
		insema	al	vistì
		above	the.m.sg	dress
		‘There are stains on the dress’
	f.	a	g	ɛ	*(dal)	matʃi
		cl.subj	there	be.3	of.the.f.pl	stain. f.pl
		k	i	van	mia	via
		that	3pl.cl.subj	go.3pl	neg	away
		‘There are stains which never go away’
(43)	Aidone, Verbicaro
	a.	ajə	ləddʒutə	libbrə			Verbicaro
		have.1sg	read	books
		‘I have read books’
	b.	a	skɔla	vɔ	pəggjà		Verbicaro
		the.f.sg	school.f.sg	want.3sg	hire
		pruvəssurə	ddʒugənə
		teacher	young
		‘The school wants to hire young teachers’
	c.	an	a	vənì	a		Aidone
		have.3sg	to	come	to
		ferə-mə	visəta	amiʒə
		do-1sg.cl.dat	visit.f.sg	friend.pl
		‘Friends are coming to visit me’
	d.	an	a	vənì	a		Aidone
		have.3sg	to	come	to
		ferə-mə	visəta	amiʒə	fədzjunarə
		do-1sg.cl.dat	visit.f.sg	friend.pl	beloved
		‘Beloved friends are coming to visit me’
	e.	ggjə	su	bbeddə	karuʒə		Aidone
		there	be.3pl	nice	to
		nt	a	fotografia	young person.pl
		in	the.f.sg	picture.f.sg
		‘There are nice boys in the picture’

As mentioned, there is one difference between type (26d) and type (26b), i.e., the absence, in type (26d), of suffixes generalized to all nouns. In this latter group, like in French, there are nouns that do not exhibit any specification for Number and have no suffixes; according to Delfitto and Schroten’s (1991) analysis of French, this type of nouns do not allow the licensing of empty Ds. Apparently, the persistence of number alternations on a restricted class of suffixes (e.g., -a/-al/-el) and, in some dialects (e.g., Savignano sul Rubicone), the realization of number alternations through other strategies (i.e., alternations of the stressed vowel) are not sufficient to license bare arguments. By contrast, one can assume that, in type (26b), because of the alternation between the suffix -a and the suffix -ə, the latter is assigned number/gender interpretation (e.g., non-singular, non-feminine) even though it is not overtly specified for number/gender. If this line of reasoning is on the right track, a possible conclusion is that, among languages that partially mark number on nouns, what sets a difference between those which allow bare nouns and those which do not is not the amount of nouns that overtly display number exponence, but rather the morphological structure of nouns themselves, and the mechanisms that, through this structure, make the retrieving of number information possible even when the latter is “silent” (i.e., not overtly specified).

A further similarity between the dialects of type (26d) and French is that, in all the dialects of this group, like in French, the item that overtly realizes D with non-definite plural/mass nouns is a “partitive-like” article (DE+definite article; for a recent detailed survey of the distribution of this item in northern Italy, including Emilian varieties, see Pinzin and Poletto 2021). In all the other dialects of our dataset, this item is never used to lexicalize D with non-definite plural/mass nouns in argument position.69

Finally, concerning prediction (33c), the data collected from languages of type (26c) show the highest variability. Speakers of Francavilla in Sinni, Taranto, and Amalfi accept argument bare nouns under the same conditions as types (26a) and (26b), as shown in (44)–(46).

(44)	Francavilla in Sinni
	a.	i.	Pumbejə	vennə		pummədorə		ka
			Pompea	sell.3sg		tomato		that
			so	ddietʃ		annə
			be.3pl	ten		year
			‘Pompea has been selling tomatoes for ten years’
		ii.	ajierə	i		tsijə		ennə	munnætə
			yesterday	the.pl		uncle		have.3pl	peeled
			fasulə	tutt		a		jurnætə
			bean	all		the.f.sg		day
			‘Yesterday my uncles were peeling beans all day long’
	b.		kwella	dittə		frabbəkə		kæsə	grannə
			that.f.sg	firm		build.3sg		house	big
			‘That firm builds big houses’
	c.		ennə	arrəvætə		(tʃertə)		furəstjerə	utəmamendə
			have.3pl	arrived		some		foreigner.3pl	recently
			‘Foreigners have arrived recently’
	d.		sopə	u		vəstitə		tʃə	so
			above	the.m.sg		dress		there	be.3pl
			makkjə
			stain
			‘There are stains on the dress’
	e.		tʃ	arənə		waɲɲunə70			ka
			there	be.3pl.past		young person.pl			who
			kurrijənə			sendza		maʎʎə
			run.3pl.past			without		shirt
			‘There were children running without their shirts’
(45)	Taranto
	a.	aggjə		vənnutə	patånə		pə	ttrɛndə	annə
		have.1sg		sold	potato		for	thirty	year
		‘I have been selling potatoes for thirty years’
	b.	passənə		makənə	tuttə		lə	ddʒurnə	sus
		pass.3pl		car	all		the.pl	day	on
		ɔ		pɔndə
		to.the.m.sg		bridge
		‘Cars cross the bridge every day’
	c.	jɛssə		fumə	da		susə
		go.out.3sg		smoke	from		above
		‘Smoke comes out from above’
(46)	Amalfi
	a.	kella		dittə	frabbəkə		kasə	grɔssə
		that.f.sg		firm	build.3sg		house	big.f
		‘That firm builds big houses’
	b.	ennə		vənutə	??(tʃertə)		turistə	spaɲɲwolə	ind
		have.3pl		come	some		tourist	Spanish.m	in
		o		paesə
		the.m.sg
		‘Spanish tourists have arrived at the village’
	c.	tʃə		stannə	sturjendə		ka	nu	vɔnnə
		there		stay.3pl	student.pl		that	neg	want.3pl
		fa		njendə
		do		nothing
		‘There are students who do not want to do anything’

In Teramo, according to Mantenuto (2015a, 2015b, 2016), bare nouns are ungrammatical, as shown in (47). The ungrammaticality of bare nouns in this dialect seems to be a recent phenomenon: older varieties of Abruzzese accepted bare (plural) nouns at least in some argument function, for example in object position, as shown in (48)—from Finamore (1882, pp. 112, 148, respectively).71

(47)	Teramo
	a.	*(li)	ʃtudintə	annə	skrittə	*(li)	latterə
		the.pl	student.pl	have.3pl	written	the.pl	letter
		‘(The) students wrote (the) letters’
	b.	tʃi	ʃta	*(i)	sidʒə	dentra	la	kasə
		there	stay.3sg	the.pl	chair.pl	inside	the.f.sg	house
		‘There are chairs in the house’
	c.	so	arrivitə	*(li)	pittsə
		be.3pl	arrived	the.pl	pizza
		‘Pizzas have arrived’
(48)	Abruzzese (19th century)
	a.	è	ddispiacere	chi	pèrdə	parèndə
		be.3sg	pain	who	lose.3sg	relative
		‘It is painful for those who lose their relatives’
	b.	se	métt’	a	lett’	e	ccèrche
		SE	put.3sg	on	bed	and	search.3sg
		medecine
		medication
		‘He goes to bed and looks for medications’

Similarly, our speakers of Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Palma Campania, Bari, and Barletta do not accept bare nouns in argument position: argument nominals require an overt D-like item (e.g., an article, a demonstrative, or a quantifier); a difference with respect to French and type (26d) is that these dialects never use the “partitive article” to introduce indefinite arguments (see Pinzin and Poletto 2021). However, in all these dialects, there are signals that bare nouns are not entirely ruled out. For example, the speaker of Palma Campania accepts bare plurals as pivots of existential constructions when the coda is a relative clause, as shown in (49). Moreover, in the literature about other dialects of Campania (e.g., the dialect of Napoli, Ledgeway 2009, p. 191), instances of argument bare nouns are attested, as shown in the examples in (50), which show that, in Napoli, plural bare nouns in object position have been grammatical at different diachronic stages, and mass nouns as pivots of existential clauses were possible at least until the 20th century. Instances of argument bare nouns are also reported in the literature about the dialect of Bari, as can be seen in (51).

(49)	Palma Campania
	a.	ʧǝ	stannǝ	sturjendǝ	ʃfatikatǝ
		there	stay.3pl	student.pl	laggard
		‘There are laggard students (= there exist students who are laggard)’
	b.	ʧǝ	stannǝ	makkjǝ	kǝ	nun	sǝ	llɛvǝnǝ
		there	stay.3pl	stain	that	not	SI	go-away.3pl
		‘There are stains which don’t fade away (= there exist stains…)’
(50)	Napoli (adapted from Ledgeway 2009, p. 191)
	a.	facevano		pertose	alle	mure
		make.3pl.past		hole	to.the.pl	wall
		‘They made holes in the walls’ (16th cent.)
	b.	cuoglie	fasule	e	torna	fra	doje	ore
		pick.2sg	bean	and	come.back.2sg	in	two.f	hour
		‘Go pick beans and come back in two hours’ (17th cent.)
	c.	quannə	vedə	uommənə	sə	ncə	mena	ncuollə
		when	see.3sg	man.pl	SI	loc	throw.3sg	in.neck
		‘When she sees men, she jumps in their arms’ (19th cent.)
	d.	ce	sta	casə	si	vulitə
		there	stay.3sg	cheese	if	want.2pl
		‘There is cheese if you want’ (20th cent.)
(51)	Bari (Lacalendola 1972, p. 22, in Andriani 2017, p. 76)
	a.	ji	akkattə	sèmbə	cosə	mərcàtə
		1sg	buy.1sg	always	thing	cheap
		‘I always buy cheap stuff’
	b.	u	cùddə	c’	avànzə	tərrìsə,	tə	préchə
		the	that.m	that	exceeds	money.pl	2sg.cl.dat	praises
		la	vìtə
		the.f.sg	life
		‘The person who is owed (by you) will praise your life’

The conclusion seems to be that, in the dialects of type (26c) where bare nouns are not currently accepted by the speakers, they were possible, and presumably productive, at older diachronic stages. Prediction (33c) is therefore partially met. What remains to be explained is why—although there is no visible difference among languages of type (26c) in the realization of number on nouns—in some dialects bare nouns have become lost while in others they remained productive.

4.3. A Summary of the Results

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

Table 2. Number marking on N and bare nouns.

		Number on N	Bare Nouns
(1)	Casalmaggiore	S/0	NO
(2)	Parma	S/0	NO
(3)	Reggio Emilia	S/0	NO
(4)	Novellara	S/0	NO
(5)	Correggio	S/0	NO
(6)	Savignano sul Rubicone	S/0/M	NO
(7)	Teramo	ə/M	NO*
(8)	Santa Maria Capua Vetere	ə/M	NO*
(9)	Amalfi	ə/M	YES
(10)	Palma Campania	ə/M	NO*
(11)	Felitto	S	YES
(12)	Bari	ə/M	NO*
(13)	Barletta	ə/M	NO*
(14)	Taranto	ə/M	YES
(15)	Francavilla in Sinni	ə/M	YES
(16)	Verbicaro	S/ə	YES
(17)	Cellino San Marco	S	YES
(18)	Mesagne	S	YES
(19)	Botrugno	S	YES
(20)	Cutro	S	YES
(21)	Nicastro	S	YES
(22)	Catanzaro	S	YES
(23)	Reggio Calabria	S	YES
(24)	San Filippo del Mela	S	YES
(25)	Ragusa	S	YES
(26)	Ribera	S	YES
(27)	Mussomeli	S	YES
(28)	Trapani	S	YES
(29)	Aidone	S/ə	YES

5. Summary

The data observed in Section 4 support the hypothesis that there is a relation between the possibility for nominal structures to occur bare in argument position and the realization of the feature Number on nouns. In our dataset, languages where number alternations are systematically realized on nouns can have bare arguments (type (26a)). This sets a first split between languages where number marking is generalized to all (or most) nouns and those where it is not (see the schema in (52)).

Concerning languages where number alternations are only found on some (classes of) nouns, it appears that generalized number marking is not a necessary condition for bare nouns to be licensed; as a matter of fact, bare nouns are also possible in languages where not all noun classes exhibit overt number alternations (type (26b)). Yet, having “partial” number alternations is not sufficient by itself for bare nouns to be licensed (type (26d)). As seen above, a difference between types (26d) and (26b) is that, in the former, there are nouns that do not have suffixes at all. By contrast, in type (26b), all nouns have suffixes, although not all suffixes display number alternations. Thus, the property of having suffixes on all nouns vs. not having suffixes (or having suffixes only on a subset of noun classes) seems to set a further split between languages that can have bare nouns and languages that never license them, respectively (i.e., the second split in (52)).

Finally, among languages where all nouns have suffixes but only some noun classes display overt number alternations (i.e., where number marking is not generalized to all nouns, types (26b) and (26c)), there is more variability. Concerning languages where bare nouns are allowed, we make the hypothesis that, in these languages, there exists some mechanism that allows the speakers to extract number information even from nouns where such information is not visible on the surface. In this respect, the nature of the suffix -ə and the way it interacts with the alternations of the stressed root vowels (in type (26c)) require better investigation. In what follows, we provide some preliminary hints.

We make the hypothesis that final -ə is not merely the “relic” of a phonetic change but has rather retained the morphological properties of a suffix that contains number information. In the dialects where final -a was not lost (type (26b)), the plural interpretation of -ə is presumably induced by pairs like a fava (lit. ‘the.f.sg fava bean.f.sg’) vs. i favə (lit. ‘the.pl fava bean’), where -ə is associated with plural interpretation by opposition to singular -a. By contrast, in the dialects where overt number alternations are realized through the stressed root vowel only, one might assume that -ə harmonically agrees (Manzini and Savoia 2016) in number with it, thereby replicating number information “silently”.

The realization of plural number through multiple morphemes on the same item has been recently explored by Koopman (2020) who, capitalizing on previous proposals by Alexiadou (2011) and Schwarzschild (2015), analyzes “two plural morphemes” in Dutch—one realizing the “inner plural” (often through vowel alternations), and the other realizing the “outer plural”, in the form of a suffix. This analysis can be tentatively extended to our dataset under the assumption that suffixes realize the outer plural and root vowel alternations realize the inner plural. As a rule, only one such morpheme overtly realizes number alternations, while the other silently agrees with it. Yet, in the dataset, there are also instances (again, like in Dutch) of nouns (and/or other DP-items, e.g., possessives or adjectives) where both the root vowel and the suffix overtly encode number information (see for instance the examples from Felitto in Table A4).

What also remains to be explored, through the investigation of diachronic data, is whether the different degrees of acceptability of bare argument nouns in the dialects of type (26c) correlate with potential differences in the productivity of the number marking strategies available in these dialects, how the latter are related with class/gender marking, and how the phonetic processes of weakening/loss of final vowels are diachronically related with the persistence of morphological information on suffixes.