Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2022: Selected papers from the 25th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oxford, 1–5 August 2022
Edited by Holly Kennard, Emily Lindsay-Smith, Aditi Lahiri and Martin Maiden
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 369] 2025
► pp. 216–232

The emergence of oblique subjects

Identifiable processes in the history of Icelandic

| Yale University
| University of Iceland
Predicate-specific oblique subjects have emerged throughout the history of Icelandic. The novel contribution of this paper is spelling out the precise mechanisms of the changes. We focus on three general processes: Oblique-Case Substitution (OCS), Case-Preserving Anticausativization (CPA) and Argument Swapping (ARS). OCS involves morphosyntactic leveling targeting experiencer predicates, causing nominative experiencer subjects to be replaced by oblique ones. CPA is a special kind of anticausativization, where the oblique case of the object of a transitive verb matches the case of the subject of the corresponding anticausative, resulting in an oblique-subject construction. Finally, ARS involves a reanalysis of an object as a subject. The oblique subject in dative — nominative structures, in particular with st-predicates (‘middles’), arose through ARS from earlier nominative — dative structures, motivated by the animacy of the dative.
Keywords: oblique subject, Oblique-Case Substitution, anticausative, Argument Swapping, Icelandic
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Subject case in Icelandic
  • 3.Pathways in the emergence of oblique subjects
    • 3.1Oblique-Case Substitution
    • 3.2Case-Preserving Anticausativization
  • 4.Evidence for a further pathway: Argument Swapping
    • 4.1Oblique NPs with st-predicates
    • 4.2Conditions for ARS
    • 4.3Further considerations and summary
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Author queries
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (43)
References
Allen, Cynthia L. 1986. Reconsidering the history of like. Journal of Linguistics 22. 375–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 1976. The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 6. 1–21. [Reprinted (‘lightly revised’) in Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds.), 165–85.]Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001. Case in Icelandic: A synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach. Lund: Lundastudier i Nordisk språkvetenskap A 57.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2003. The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39. 439–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The origin of the oblique-subject construction: An Indo-European Comparison. In Vit Bubenic, John Hewson & Sarah Rose (eds.), Grammatical changes in Indo-European languages: Papers presented at the workshop on Indo-European linguistics at the XVIIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Montreal, 2007, 179–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3). 363–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Tonya Kim Dewey. 2019. The alternating predicate puzzle: Dat-Nom vs. Nom-Dat in Icelandic and German. Constructions and Frames 11(1). 107–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Leonid Kulikov, Roland Pooth & Peter Kerkhof. 2020. Oblique anticausatives: a morphosyntactic isogloss in Indo-European. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 56(3). 413–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Christin & Miriam Butt. 2024. The rise of dative subjects: Relative prominence in event structure. In Christina Sevdali, Dionysios Mertyris & Elena Anagnostopoulou (eds.), The place of case in grammar, 239–274. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernódusson, Helgi. 1982. Ópersónulegar setningar [Impersonal sentences]. Cand. mag. thesis, University of Iceland.
Cennamo, Michela, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2015. Semantic and (morpho)syntactic constraints on anticausativization: Evidence from Latin and Old Norse — Icelandic. Linguistics 53(3). 677–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2002. Changes in subject case-marking in Icelandic. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 196–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2005. Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language 81(4). 824–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friðjónsson, Jón. 1989. Samsettar myndir sagna [Periphrastic verbs]. Reykjavík: Linguistic Institute, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Guðmundsdóttir, Dagbjört, Iris Edda Nowenstein & Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir. 2019. Changing variation: Diffuse directionality in Icelandic subject case substitution. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 25(1), Article 13.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1987. Transitivity alternations of the anticausative type. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, 53–83. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909–49. A Modern English grammar on historical principles. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jónsdóttir, Margrét. 2015a. Breytingar og breytileiki í hegðun sagnarinna kvíða [Change and variation in the behavior of the verb kvíða]. In Matthew Whelpton, Guðrún Björk Guðsteinsdóttir, Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir & Martin Regal (eds.), An intimacy of words / Innileiki orðanna. Essays in honour of Pétur Knútsson / Festschrift til heiðurs Pétri Knútssyni, 283–306. Reykjavík: Stofnun Vigdísar Finnbogadóttur í erlendum tungumálum / Háskólaútgáfan.Google Scholar
. 2015b. From accusative to dative (via nominative): The case of fjölga ‘increase’ and fækka ‘decrease’ in Icelandic. In Martin Hilpert, Jan-Ola Östman, Christine Mertzlufft, Michael Rießler & Janet Duke (eds.), New trends in Nordic and general linguistics, 181–201. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1997–98. Sagnir með aukafallsfrumlagi. Íslenskt mál 19–20. 11–43.Google Scholar
. 2003. Not so quirky: On subject case in Icelandic. In Ellen Brandner & Heike Zinsmeister (eds.), New perspectives in Case Theory, 129–65. CSLI Publications: Stanford.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2005. Variation and change in subject case marking in Insular Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28(2). 223–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan & Annie Zaenen (eds.). 1990. Modern Icelandic syntax (Syntax and Semantics 24). San Diego: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nygaard, Marius. 1905. Norrøn syntax [Old Norse syntax]. Kristiania: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Ottósson, Kjartan G. 1992. The Icelandic middle voice. The morphological and phonological development. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University.
Ottosson, Kjartan G. 2008. The Old Nordic middle voice in the pre-literary period: Questions of grammaticalisation and clitization. In Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds.), Interdependence of diachronic and synchronic analyses, 185–219. Studies in Language Companion Series 103. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ottosson, Kjartan. 2013. The anticausative and related categories in the Old Germanic languages. In Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds.), Diachronic and typological perspectives on verbs, 329–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pooth, Roland, Peter Alexander Kerkhof, Lenoid Kulikov & Johanna Barðdal. 2019. The origin of non-canonical case marking of subjects in Proto-Indo-European: Accusative, ergative, or semantic alignment. Indogermanische Forschungen 124(1). 245–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1991. Quirky subjects in Old Icelandic. In Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson (ed.), Papers from the Twelfth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 369–78. Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
. 2007. Reflexives in Older Icelandic, [URL] (9 May, 2023.)
Sandal, Catrine. 2011. Akkusative subject og antikausativitet i norrønt [Accusative subjects and anticausativization in Nordic]. MA thesis, University of Bergen.
Schätzle, Christin. 2018. Dative subjects: Historical change visualized. Doctoral dissertation, University of Konstanz.
Schätzle, Christin, Miriam Butt & Kristina Kotcheva. 2015. The diachrony of dative subjects and the middle in Icelandic: A corpus study. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG15 Conference, 357–77. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr and Heimir Freyr Viðarsson. 2020. Frá skiptisögn til ósamhverfrar aukafallssagnar. Um líka í fornu máli [From an alternating verb to an asymmetric verb: On líka ‘like’ in Old Icelandic]. Orð og tunga 22. 40–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic: In a comparative GB approach. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University. [Reprinted by the Linguistics Institute, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, 1993.]
Somers, Joren & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2022. Alternating Dat-Nom/Nom-Dat verbs in Icelandic: An exploratory corpus-based analysis. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 107. 83–110.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2014. Reflexive — st verbs in Icelandic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32. 1387–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie & Joan Maling. 1984. Unaccusative, passive, and quirky case. In Mark Cobler, Susannah MacKaye & Michael T. Wescoat (eds.), Proceedings of the Third West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 3. 317–29. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [Reprinted 1990 with small revisions in Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds.), 165–85.]Google Scholar