Cover not available
Part of
Ditransitives in Germanic Languages: Synchronic and diachronic aspects
Edited by Eva Zehentner, Melanie Röthlisberger and Timothy Colleman
[Studies in Germanic Linguistics 7] 2023
► pp. 299–324

Ditransitives in Faroese

The distribution of IO/DO and PP

This paper examines the acceptability of the double object and prepositional frames for ditransitives in Faroese. We build on previous literature which has discussed various factors which may influence speakers’ use of one frame over the other. We report the findings of a judgment study in which we examined the degree to which semantic properties of verbs and length of the indirect object affect speakers’ acceptability of each frame. Our findings suggest that verbal semantics affect the acceptability of the prepositional construction, but not the double object construction. Our findings, however, do not directly support a heavy-late effect, unlike what has been reported in previous literature on Faroese (most notably by Fiebig 2012).
Keywords: Faroese, ditransitives, verbal semantics, drift
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Ditransitives in insular Scandinavian
  • 3.Overview of previous observations about Faroese
  • 4.Methods and results
    • 4.1Methods
    • 4.2Results
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 8 August 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sigl.7.09uss
References (37)
References
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001. “Case in Icelandic – A Synchronic, Diachronic and Comparative Approach.” Doctoral dissertation, Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Kristian Emil Kristoffersen, and Andreas 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Michael. 2001. Faroese Language Studies. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2011. “An Aspectual Analysis of Ditransitive Verbs of Caused Possession in English.” Journal of Semantics 28: 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid, and Kyle Johnson. 2004. “Double Objects Again”. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 97–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2007. “Is Syntactic Knowledge Probabilistic? Experiments with the English Dative Alternation.” In Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base, ed. by Sam Featherston and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 75–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, and Harald Baayen. 2007. “Predicting the Dative Alternation.” In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, ed. by Gerlof Boume, Irene Krämer, and Joost Zwarts, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Tatiana Nikitina. 2008. “The Gradience of the Dative Alternation.” In Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life, ed. by Linda Uyechi and Lian Hee Wee, 161–182. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010a. “Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation”. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 519–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. “Double Object Constructions Disguised as Prepositional Datives”. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 287–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Double Object Constructions and Prepositional Dative Constructions are Distinct: A Reply to Ormazabal & Romero 2012.” Linguistic Inquiry 49: 123–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1996. “VP-Internal Structure and Object Shift in Icelandic.” Linguistic Inquiry 27: 391–444.Google Scholar
Fiebig, Julika. 2012. “At geva fiskimonnum skattalætta. At geva skattalætta til fiskimenn. En undersøkelse av ditransitive konstruktioner i færøysk skriftspråk.” MA thesis, Oslo: ILN.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik, and Lars Heltoft. 2011. Grammatik over det Danske Sprog III. Sætningen og dens konstruktion. København: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. “Possession and the Double Object Construction.” Yearbook of Linguistic Variation 2: 29–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Hyun Kyoung Jung. 2015. “In Support of the PHAVE Analysis of the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 46: 703–730. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, Jeffrei. 2000. Orðalagslæra. Vestmanna: Sprotin. Hafniensia 49: 143–159.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, and Christer Platzack. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Indriðadóttir, Ingunn Hreinberg. 2017. “Weight Effects and Heavy NP Shift in Icelandic and Faroese.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 98: 131–146.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2000. “Case and Double Objects in Icelandic.” Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 71–94.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Verb Classes and Dative Objects in Insular Scandinavian.” In The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, and Shobana Chelliah, 203–224. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Eignarfallsandlöl í færeysku danskvæðunum”. In Bók Jógvan, ed. by Zakaris S. Hansen, Anfinnur Johansen, Hjalmar P. Petersen, and Lena Reinert, 199–213. Tórshavn: Faroe University Press.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 2002. “Það rignir þágufalli á Íslandi: Verbs with Dative Objects in Icelandic.” Íslenskt mál 24: 31–105.Google Scholar
Malmsten, Solveig. 2015. Dative i modern färöiska. En fallstudie i grammatisk förändring. Uppsala Universitet: Skrifter utgivna av Institutionen för Nordiska Språk vid Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. “The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation.” Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Petersen, Hjalmar P. 2010. The Dynamics of Faroese-Danish Language Contact. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
2017. “Variation in Dative in Faroese.” In Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian, ed. by Höskuldur Thráinsson, Caroline Heycock, Hjalmar P. Petersen and Zakaris S. Hansen, 113–141. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020. Føroysk mállæra II. Grunddrøg í føroyskari syntaks. Tórshavn: Nám.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2008. “The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity.” Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Þráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Þráinsson, Höskuldur, Hjalmar P. Petersen, Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen, and Zakaris S. Hansen. 2012. Faroese: An Overview and Reference Grammar. Tórshavn and Reykjavík: Faroe University Press and University of Iceland [published first time in 2004 by Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag].Google Scholar
Ussery, Cherlon. 2017. “Double Objects Again…but in Icelandic.” In A Schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson, ed. by Nicholas LaCara, Keir Moulton, and Anne-Michelle Tessier. Linguistics Open Access Publications. 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Inversion as Rightward-Dative Shift in Icelandic Ditransitives.” In Proceedings of the 48th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. by Sherry Hucklebridge, and Max Nelson. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. [Distributed by GLSA].Google Scholar
Weyhe, Eivind. 2011. Hentzasavn. Kvæðasavnið hjá Jóannesi í Króki frá 1819. Tórshavn: Fróðskapur.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.]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar