1887
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

A long-standing divide between Icelandic and German in the literature takes for granted that there are non-nominative subjects in Icelandic, while corresponding arguments in German have been analyzed as objects (Zaenen et al. 1985Sigurðsson 1989). This is based on two differences between these languages: (a) differences with regard to control and conjunction reduction and (b) apparent subject behavior of the nominative in - constructions in German. This article focuses on the latter, introducing into the discussion the concept of alternating predicates, that is, - predicates that systematically alternate between two diametrically-opposed argument structure constructions, - and -. A comparison between Icelandic and German shows that Icelandic - predicates are of two types, a non-alternating type and an alternating type, whereas German seems to exhibit only the alternating type. On this assumption, the apparent subject behavior of the nominative in German is easily explained, since such occurrences in fact involve the - construction and not the - construction. Therefore, the subject behavior of the nominative in - constructions does not invalidate a subject analysis of the dative in - constructions in German. The analysis is couched in the framework of construction grammar.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00025.bar
2019-07-03
2019-10-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allen, C. L.
    (1995) Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen, K., Pereira, F., Botvinick, M., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2012) Distinguishing grammatical constructions with fMRI pattern analysis. Brain and Language, 123, 174–182. 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.08.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, S. R.
    (1976) On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In: Ch. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp.1–23). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Andrews, A.
    (1976) The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. North Eastern Linguistic Society, 6, 1–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barðdal, J.
    (1998) Argument structure, syntactic structure and morphological case of the impersonal construction in the history of Scandinavian. Scripta Islandica, 49, 21–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (1999) The dual nature of Icelandic psych-verbs. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 64, 78–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2000) The subject is nominative! On obsolete axioms and their deep-rootedness. In: C.-E. Lindberg & S. Nordahl Lund (Eds.), 17th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics (pp.93–117). Odense: Institute of Language and Communication.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2001a) The perplexity of dat-nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 24, 47–70. 10.1080/033258601750266187
    https://doi.org/10.1080/033258601750266187 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2001b) The role of thematic roles in constructions? Evidence from the Icelandic inchoative. In: A. Holmer, J.-O. Svantesson, & Å. Viberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 2000 (pp.127–137). Lund: Department of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2002) Oblique subjects in Icelandic and German. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 70, 61–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2004) The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese. In: W. Abraham (Ed.), Focus on Germanic Typology (pp.105–137). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2006) Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1), 39–106. 10.1515/COG.2006.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.002 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2011a) Alternating dat-nom/nom-dat verbs in a Germanic context. Talk delivered at the33rd Annual Conference of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Göttingen, February 23–25.
  15. (2011b) The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar approach. Lingua, 121(1), 60–79. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  16. Barðdal, J., & Eythórsson, Th.
    (2003) Icelandic vs. German: Oblique subjects, agreement and expletives. Chicago Linguistics Society, 39(1), 775–773. 10.1017/S002222670300207X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670300207X [Google Scholar]
  17. (2006) Control infinitives and case in Germanic: ‘Performance error’ or marginally acceptable constructions. In: L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov, & P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, valency and transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77] (pp.147–177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.77.11bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.77.11bar [Google Scholar]
  18. (2012) “Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies”: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society, 110(3), 363–393. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2012.01318.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01318.x [Google Scholar]
  19. (2018) What is a subject? The nature and validity of subject tests. In: J. Barðdal, N. Pat-El, & S. M. Carey (Eds.), Non-canonically case-marked subjects: The Reykjavík – Eyjafjallajökull Papers (pp.257–273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.200.11bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.200.11bar [Google Scholar]
  20. Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K. E., & Sveen, A.
    (2011) West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian V-REFL-NP construction. Linguistics, 49(1), 53–104. 10.1515/ling.2011.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.002 [Google Scholar]
  21. Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.
    (Eds) (2000) Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Barnes, M.
    (1986) Subject, nominative, and oblique case in Faroese. Scripta Islandica, 38, 3–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Bayer, J.
    (2004) Non-nominative subjects in comparison. In: P. Bhaskararao & K. V. Subbarao (Eds.), Non-nominative subjects1 (pp.31–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.60.05bay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.60.05bay [Google Scholar]
  24. Bayer, J., Bader, M., & Meng, M.
    (2001) Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: Syntactic and processing effects in German. Lingua, 111, 465–514. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(00)00041‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00041-3 [Google Scholar]
  25. Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L.
    (1988) Psych-verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291–352. 10.1007/BF00133902
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133902 [Google Scholar]
  26. Bernódusson, H.
    (1982) Ópersónulegar setningar [Impersonal sentences]. University of Iceland Master’s Thesis.
  27. Bybee, J. L.
    (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In: T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Bybee, J., & Hopper, P.
    (Eds) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  29. Cole, P., Harbert, W., Hermon, G., & Sridhar, S. N.
    (1980) The aquisition of subjecthood. Language, 56(4), 719–743. 10.2307/413485
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413485 [Google Scholar]
  30. Comrie, B.
    (1973) The ergative: Variations on a theme. Lingua, 32, 239–253. 10.1016/0024‑3841(73)90044‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(73)90044-2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Croft, W.
    (1998) Event structure in argument linking. In: M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp.1–43). Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In: H. Cuyckens, Th. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivations in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp.49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  34. (2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  36. Diessel, H.
    (2015) Usage-based construction grammar. In: E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Ed.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.295–321). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-015 [Google Scholar]
  37. Eythórsson, Th., & Barðdal, J.
    (2005) Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language, 81(4), 824–881. 10.1353/lan.2005.0173
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0173 [Google Scholar]
  38. Faarlund, J. T.
    (2001) The notion of oblique subject and its status in the history of Icelandic. In: J. T. Faarlund (Ed.), Grammatical relations in change (pp.99–135). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.56.05faa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.56.05faa [Google Scholar]
  39. Falk, C.
    (1997) Fornsvenska upplevarverb [Old Swedish experiencer verbs]. Lund: Lund University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Fanselow, G.
    (2002) Quirky subjects and other specifiers. In: I. Kaufmann & B. Stiebels (Eds.), More than words: A festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich (pp.227–250). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Fedriani, Ch.
    (2014) Experiential constructions in Latin: A synchronic and diachronic study. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004257832_004
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004257832_004 [Google Scholar]
  42. Fillmore, Ch. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. K.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64, 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  43. Fillmore, Ch. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhodes, R.
    (2012) The FrameNet constructicon. In: I. A. Sag & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp.283–299). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Fischer, O.
    (1990) Syntactic change and causation: Developments in infinitival constructions in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
  45. Fischer, O., & van der Leek, F. C.
    (1983) The demise of the Old English impersonal construction. Journal of Linguistics, 19(2), 337–368. 10.1017/S0022226700007775
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700007775 [Google Scholar]
  46. Fischer, S., & Blaszczak, J.
    (2001) Diachronic perspective of quirky subjects. In: P. Bhaskararao (Ed.), International Symposium on “Non-Nominative Subjects”, organized by ILCAA, Tokyo, 18–21December 2001 Working Papers, 42–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
    (2005) Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  48. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument atructure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Goldberg, A. E., & Bencini, G. M. L.
    (2005) Support from language processing for a constructional approach to grammar. In: A. Tyler, M. Takada, Y. Kim, & D. Marinova (Eds.), Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on language and language learning (pp.3–18). Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Haider, H.
    (2005) How to turn German into Icelandic – and derive the OV–VO contrast. Journal of Comparative Germanic Syntax, 8, 1–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (2003) V-clustering and clause-union: Causes and effects. In: P. A. M. Seuren & G. Kempen (Eds.), Verb constructions in German and Dutch (pp.91–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.242.04hai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.242.04hai [Google Scholar]
  52. (2010) The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511845314
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845314 [Google Scholar]
  53. Harbert, W.
    (2007) The Germanic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Haspelmath, M.
    (2001) Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In: A. Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon, & M. Onishi (Eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, (pp.53–83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.46.04has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.46.04has [Google Scholar]
  55. Hawkins, J. A.
    (1986) A comparative typology of English and German: Unifying the contrasts. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Helbig, G., & Buscha, J.
    (1988) Deutsche Grammatik: Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. 11th ed.Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Holvoet, A.
    (2013) Obliqueness, quasi-subjects and transitivity in Baltic and Slavonic. In: I. A. Serzant & L. Kulikov (Eds.), The diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects, (pp.257–282). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.140.12hol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.140.12hol [Google Scholar]
  58. Höhle, T. N.
    (1978) Lexikalistische Syntax: die Aktiv-Passiv-Relation und andere Infinitivstrukturen im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111345444
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111345444 [Google Scholar]
  59. Hopper, P. J.
    (1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139–157. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  60. Hyams, N., & Sigurjónsdóttir, S.
    (1990) The development of ‘long-distance anaphora’: A cross-linguistic comparison with special reference to Icelandic. Language Acquisition, 1, 57–93. 10.1207/s15327817la0101_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0101_3 [Google Scholar]
  61. Jackendoff, R.
    (1997) Twistin’ the night away. Language, 73, 534–559. 10.2307/415883
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415883 [Google Scholar]
  62. Jónsson, J. G.
    (1996) Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Doctoral Dissertation.
  63. (1997–98) Sagnir með aukafallsfrumlagi [Verbs with quirky subjects]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði, 19–20, 11–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. (2001) Oblique subject predicates in Icelandic. Unpublished ms., University of Iceland.
  65. Kay, P., & Fillmore, Ch. J.
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y?‘ construction. Language, 75, 1–33. 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  66. Keenan, E. L.
    (1976) Towards a universal definition of subject. InCh. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp.303–333). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Keller, F., Lapata, M., & Ourioupina, O.
    (2002) Using the web to overcome data sparseness. In: J. Hajič & Y. Matsumoto (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, (pp.230–237). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania & the Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Kiss, T.
    (2003) Die Genese der Ausnahmeanapher. In: L. Gunkel, G. Müller, & G. Zifonun (Eds.), Arbeiten zur Reflexivierung (pp.157–188). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110928365.157
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110928365.157 [Google Scholar]
  69. Kristoffersen, K. E.
    (1996) Infinitival phrases in Old Norse: Aspects of their syntax and semantics. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oslo.
  70. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  71. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Lenerz, J.
    (1977) Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Günter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. MacWhinney, B.
    (2001) Emergentist approaches to language. In: J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp.449–470). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.23mac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.23mac [Google Scholar]
  74. Maling, J.
    (1986) Clause-bounded examples in Modern Icelandic. In: L. Helland & K. Koch Christensen (Eds.), Topics in Scandinavian syntax (pp.53–63). Dordrecht: Reidel. [Also published inJ. Maling & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Modern Icelandic syntax (pp.277–287). Syntax and Semantics 24. San Diego: Academic Press.] 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑4572‑2_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4572-2_3 [Google Scholar]
  75. Masica, C. P.
    (1976) Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Michaelis, L. A., & Ruppenhofer, J.
    (2001) Beyond alternations: A construction-based account of the applicative construction in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Moore, J., & Perlmutter, D. M.
    (2000) What does it take to be a dative Subject?Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18, 373–416. 10.1023/A:1006451714195
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006451714195 [Google Scholar]
  78. Müller, S.
    (2012) On the copula, specificational constructions, and type shifting. Ms. Freie Universitet Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Nedjalkov, V. P.
    (1976) Kausativkonstruktionen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Platzack, Ch.
    (1999) The subject of Icelandic psych-verbs: A minimalistic account. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 64, 103–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Primus, B.
    (1994) Grammatik und Performanz: Faktoren der Wortstellungsvariation im Mittelfeld. Sprache und Pragmatik, 32, 39–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. (2012) Semantische Rollen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Reis, M.
    (1973) Is there a rule of subject-to-object-raising in German?Chicago Linguistic Society, 9, 519–529.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. (1976) Reflexivierung in deutschen A.c.I.-konstruktionen: Ein transformationsgrammatisches Dilemma. Papiere zur Linguistik, 9, 5–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Rögnvaldsson, E.
    (1991) Quirky subjects in Old Icelandic. In: H. Á. Sigurðsson (Ed.), Papers from the Twelfth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics (pp.369–378). Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. (1996) Frumlag og fall að fornu [Subject and case in Old Icelandic]. Íslenskt mál, 18, 37–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Rott, J. A.
    (2013) Syntactic prominence in Icelandic experiencer arguments: Quirky subjects vs. dative objects. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 66(2), 91–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Sasse, H.-J.
    (1978) Subjekt und Ergativ: Zur pragmatischen Grundlage primärer grammatischer Relationen. Folia Linguistica, 12, 219–252. 10.1515/flin.1978.12.3‑4.219
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1978.12.3-4.219 [Google Scholar]
  89. Sigurðsson, H. Á.
    (1989) Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Lund University Doctoral dissertation.
  90. (1990–91) Beygingarsamræmi [Agreement]. Íslenskt mál, 12–13, 31–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. (2006a) The nominative puzzle and the low nominative hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 289–308. 10.1162/ling.2006.37.2.289
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.2.289 [Google Scholar]
  92. (2006b) Agree in syntax, agreement in signs. In: C. Boeckx (Ed.), Agreement systems (pp.201–237). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.92.10sig
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.92.10sig [Google Scholar]
  93. Stepanov, A.
    (2003) On the ‘quirky’ difference Icelandic vs. German: A note of doubt. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 71, 1–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Struckmeier, V.
    (2016) Scrambling in German is driven by prosody and semantics. In: K.-M. Kim, P. Umbal, T. Block, Q. Chan, T. Cheng, K. Finney, M. Katz, S. Nickel-Thompson, & L. Shorten (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp.381–389). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Talmy, L.
    (1985) Force dynamics in language and thought. Chicago Linguistic Society, 21, 293–337.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. (1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  97. Thráinsson, H.
    (1979) On complementation in Icelandic [Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics]. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. (2007) The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619441
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619441 [Google Scholar]
  99. Thráinsson, H., Petersen, H. P., Jacobsen, J. í L., & Hansen, Z. S.
    (2012) Faroese: An overview and reference grammar. Second edition. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Wood, J.
    (2011) Icelandic let-causatives and case. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 97, 1–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Wood, J., & Sigurðsson, H. Á.
    (2014) Let-causatives and (a)symmetric DAT-NOM constructions. Syntax, 17(3), 269–298. 10.1111/synt.12019
    https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12019 [Google Scholar]
  102. Wunderlich, D.
    (2008) The force of lexical case: German and Icelandic compared. In: K. Hanson & Sh. Inkelas (Eds.), The nature of the word: Essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky (pp.587–620). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262083799.003.0025
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262083799.003.0025 [Google Scholar]
  103. Wurmbrand, S.
    (2003) Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110908329
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908329 [Google Scholar]
  104. Zaenen, A., Maling, J., & Thráinsson, H.
    (1985) Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 441–483. 10.1007/BF00133285
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133285 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00025.bar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00025.bar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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