Common nouns (CN) and proper names (PN) have both semantic and syntactic differences. In Italian, as well as in other languages, the most important syntactic differences concern the conditions for taking or not the determiner. The basic rules of interest here are the following: 1) Within CN, singular countable nouns cannot occupy the argument position without a determiner. 2) Plurals and mass nouns can, instead, dispense with the determiner, being subject to an indefinite interpretation (e.g., “I eat potatoes”, “I drink wine”). 3) PN also do not take the determiner. Why, since they are not plurals, nor mass, and are not, as such, subject to indefinite interpretation? The answer (see Longobardi, 1994, 1999) is that they take the determiner position themselves. This is possible because PN are rigid designators. Taking the determiner (D-) position implies “movement” from the nominal head (N-) position. According to Longobardi (1994) movement from the Nposition to the D-position takes place on the basis of a prototypicality hierarchy: 1) under all conditions for some names, i.e. the most prototypical PN like pronouns; 2) in no condition for CN; 3) more or less frequently for all other names; person names (forenames and surnames), geographical names, names of the days of the week etc. This hierarchy is very complex in Italian, where, in addition, there are variations due to dialects. However, some variations are more stable and ubiquitous than others. For instance, there is a difference between surnames of males, that (with some exceptions) do not take the determiner (e.g., “Pavarotti”) and surnames of females, that must take the determiner (e.g., “la Callas”). Another difference is that between cities and “small and far island” on the one side, and states, regions, and “large and close islands” on the other. The former group does not take the determiner (Roma, Capri, Cuba) and requires the preposition “a” (to) in the motion –to– location complement. The latter group, instead, takes the determiner and wants the preposition “in”. This theory is supported by careful analyses of occurrences of PN in Italian sentences. The present study is interested in the following psychological question: