Figuig Berber (eastern Morocco) has a large number of deictic constructions. Among these, a construction with a preposed pronominal element followed by a genitival phrase is by far the most common. All deictic constructions use a basic contrast between two elements: -u and -ənn. In exophoric deixis, the former has proximal interpretation, while the latter has distal interpretation. In endophoric deixis, the situation is more complicated. For some speakers, only constructions with -ənn are permitted in this use, while other speakers use both constructions with -u and -ənn, without clear contrast. In the article, emphasis is laid on when endophoric deictic marking is used, and when it is absent. In principle, such marking shows that the referent has already been mentioned in the previous context, and can be regarded anaphoric. However, in such situations, it is still possible not to mark the noun. This is mainly the case when there is only one potential referent in a given situation, as, for example, in the case of kings, or as is often the case with nouns modified by a genitival phrase.

This contribution presents some results from a comparison of a sample of Italian texts, specifically those produced by native Italian informants, with: 1) on one side, a parallel sample of written productions by native Polish speakers; 2) on the other side, a sample of parallel texts produced in Italian by a group of Polish native speakers learning Italian as a second language. The presence of main and secondary sequences identified according to the Quaestio model is investigated, as well as the use of faithful and unfaithful anaphoras.