Cover not available
Part of
Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian
Edited by Höskuldur Thráinsson, Caroline Heycock, Hjalmar P. Petersen and Zakaris Svabo Hansen
[Studies in Germanic Linguistics 1] 2017
► pp. 165–198

Dimensions of Variation

Agreement with Nominative Objects in Icelandic

 | Carleton College
This chapter provides an in-depth investigation of both inter-speaker and intra-speaker variation in agreement with nominative objects and ECM nominative subjects. We both build on previous observations and report the findings of recent fieldwork. We show that in addition to a general dative intervention effect, clause boundaries, expletives, and singular datives are interveners for some speakers. We propose that Icelandic ECM clauses are either TP or vP and that the number feature on datives is visible for some speakers, contra previous research.
Keywords: Icelandic, object agreement, intervention effects, datives, restructuring, expletives
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background and overview of the data
    • 2.1Overview of optional agreement
    • 2.2Theoretical background and assumptions
  • 3.Intervention effects
    • 3.1Clause boundaries
    • 3.2Datives and singular datives
  • 4.A detailed look at agreement variation
    • 4.1Summary of data under investigation
    • 4.2The grammars of individuals
    • 4.3Additional complexities – Where’s það?
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 July 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sigl.1.07uss
References (41)
References
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2005. “Strong and Weak Person Restrictions: A Feature Checking Analysis.” In Clitic and Affix Combinations, ed. by Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordóñez, 199–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 1982a. “The Representation of Case in Modern Icelandic.” In The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, ed. by Joan Bresnan, 427–503. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1982b. “Long Distance Agreement in Modern Icelandic.” In The Nature of Syntactic Representation, ed. by Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 1–33. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. “The Rise of Dative Substitution in the History of Icelandic: A Diachronic Construction Grammar Account.” Lingua 121 (1): 60–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thórhallur Eythórsson, and Tonya Kim Dewey. 2014. “The Alternating Predicate Puzzle: A Sign-based Construction Grammar Account.” Ms., University of Bergen and University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. “Long Distance Agreement in Hindi-Urdu.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 757–807. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. “Where’s Phi? Agreement as a Post-syntactic Operation.” In Phi-Theory: Phi Features Across Interfaces and Modules, ed. by David Adger, Susana Béjar, and Daniel Harbour, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. “The Person-Case Constraint and Patterns of Exclusivity.” In Agreement Restrictions, ed. by Roberta D’Alessandro, 87–101. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulalia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The framework.” In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davies, William, and Stanley Dubinsky. 2004. The Grammar of Raising and Control: A Course in Syntactic Argumentation. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2009. “The Origin and Content of Expletives: Evidence from “Selection”.” Syntax 12 (4): 285–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1993. Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stockholm, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2004. “Agreement and Movement in Icelandic Raising Constructions.” Lingua 114: 651–673. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. [Distributed by GLSA.]Google Scholar
. 2003. “Not so Quirky: On Subject Case in Icelandic.” In New Perspectives on Case and Case Theory, ed. by Eellen Brandner and Heike Zinsmeister, 127–164. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Covert Nominative and Dative Subjects in Faroese.” Nordlyd 36 (2): 142–164. NORMS Papers on Faroese, ed. by Peter Svenonius, Kristine Bentzen, Caroline Heycock, Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen, Janne Bondi Johannessen, Jeffrey K. Parrott, Tania E. Strahan and Øystein Alexander Vangsnes. Tromsø: CASTL.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Samræmi við nefnifallsandlög.” [‘Agreement with nominative objects.’] In Tilbrigði í íslenskri setningagerð. III. Sérathuganir [‘Variation in Icelandic syntax. III. Individual studies’], ed. by Höskuldur Þráinsson, Ásgrímur Angantýsson and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 1999. “Possessor Raising and the Structure of VP.” Lingua 107 (1–2): 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan. 2002. “Það rignir þágufalli á Íslandi: Verbs with Dative Objects in Icelandic.” Íslenskt mál 24: 31–105.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax-Morphology Interface. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2010. “Failure to Agree is not a Failure: Phi-agreement with Post-verbal Subjects in Hebrew.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9: 241–278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2011. Agreement as a Fallible Operation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. [Accessible as lingbuzz/001303.]Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2007. “Escaping the Person Case Constraint: Reference-set Computation in the Phi-system.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 6: 97–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2003. “Agreement Impoverishment under Subject Inversion: A Cross-linguistic Analysis.” In Resolving Conflicts in Grammar: Optimality Theory in Syntax, Morphology, and Phonology, ed. by Gisbert Fanselow and Caroline Féry, 49–82. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 11. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1996. “Icelandic Finite Verb Agreement.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 1–46.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Icelandic Non-nominative Subjects: Facts and Implications.” In Non-Nominative Subjects, vol. 2, ed. by Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao, 137–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “On the New Passive.” Syntax 14 (2): 148–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Case Variation: Viruses and Star Wars.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35 (3): 313–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann, and Anders Holmberg. 2008. “Icelandic Dative Intervention: Person and Number are Separate Probes.” In Agreement Restrictions, ed. by Roberta D’Alessandro, 251–279. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Svavarsdóttir, Ásta. 2013. “Þágufallshneigð í sjón og raun. Niðurstöður spurningakannana í samanburði við málnotkun.” [‘Dative substitution, apparent and real. The results of questionnaires compared to language use.’] In Tilbrigði í íslenskri setningagerð. I. Markmið, aðferðir og efniviður [‘Variation in Icelandic syntax. I. Goals, methods and materials’], ed. by Höskuldur Þráinsson, Ásgrímur Angantýsson and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson, 83–110. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Einar Freyr Sigurðsson and Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson. 2015. “Samræmi.” [‘Agreement.’] In Tilbrigði í íslenskri setningagerð. II. Helstu niðurstöður – Tölfræðilegt yfirlit [‘Variation in Icelandic syntax. II. Main results. A statistical overview.’], ed. by Höskuldur Þráinsson, Ásgrímur Angantýsson and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson, 203–232. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.Google Scholar
Ussery, Cherlon. 2009. Optionality and Variability: Syntactic Licensing Meets Morphological Spell-out. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Agreement and the Icelandic Passive.” Linguistic Analysis 40(1–2): 19–53.Google Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2014. “Reflexive -st Verbs in Icelandic.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32 (4): 1387–1425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim and Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson. 2014. “Let Causatives and (A)symmetric dat-nom Constructions.” Syntax 17 (3): 269–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen 2006. “Lexical Case, Inherent Case and Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37 (1): 111–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. “Case and Grammatical Functions: The Icelandic Passive.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483. [Also published in Modern Icelandic Syntax, ed. by Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen, 95–136. San Diego: Academic Press.]Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Coon, Jessica & Stefan Keine
2021. Feature Gluttony. Linguistic Inquiry 52:4 ► pp. 655 ff. DOI logo
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2019. Restrictions on “Low” person agreement in Dutch specificational copular constructions. Linguistics in the Netherlands 36 ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2020. (Morpho)syntactic Variation in Agreement: Specificational Copular Clauses Across Germanic. Frontiers in Psychology 10 DOI logo
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2023. Person effects in agreement with Icelandic low nominatives: An experimental investigation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 41:3 ► pp. 1029 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.