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
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

Cited by 4 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 12 april 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.