Chapter published in:
Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers
Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Na'ama Pat-El and Stephen Mark Carey
[Studies in Language Companion Series 200] 2018
► pp. 120
References

References

Abraham, Werner
2006Bare and prepositional differential case marking: The exotic case of German (and Icelandic) among all of Germanic. In Kulikov, Malchukov & de Swart (eds), 115–145.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., Dixon, Robert M. W. & Onishi, Masayuki
(eds) 2001Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith
2003Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 435–448.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery D.
1976The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. North Eastern Linguistic Society 6: 1–21.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2000The subject is nominative! On obsolete axioms and their deep-rootedness. In 17th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Carl-Erik Lindberg & Steffen Nordahl Lund (eds), 93–117. Odense: Institute of Language and Communication.Google Scholar
2004The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In Focus on Germanic Typology, Werner Abraham (ed.), 105–137. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
2006Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17(1): 39–106.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009The development of case in Germanic. In Barðdal & Chelliah (eds), 123–159.Google Scholar
2011The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar approach. Lingua 121(1): 60–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Syntax and syntactic reconstruction. In The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds), 343–373. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Arnett, Carlee, Carey, Stephen Mark, Eythórsson, Thórhallur, Jenset, Gard B., Kroonen, Guus & Oberlin, Adam
2016Dative subjects in Germanic: A computational analysis of lexical semantic verb classes across time and space. STUF: Language Typology and Universals 69(1): 49–84.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður, Danesi, Serena, Dewey, Tonya Kim, Eythórsson, Thórhallur, Fedriani, Chiara & Smitherman, Thomas
2013The story of ‘Woe’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 41(3–4): 321–377.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Chelliah, Shobhana L.
(eds) 2009The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case [Studies in Language Companion Series 108]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur
2009The origin of the oblique subject construction: An Indo-European comparison. In Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 305], Vit Bubenik, John Hewson & Sarah Rose (eds), 179–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Dewey, Tonya Kim
2014Alternating predicates in Icelandic and German: A sign-based construction grammar account. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 93: 50–101.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Smitherman, Thomas
2013The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1): 28–67.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smitherman, Thomas, Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður, Danesi, Serena, Jenset, Gard B. & McGillivray, Barbara
2012Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3): 511–547.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri & Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata
(eds) 2004Non-Nominative Subjects, Vols. I–II [Typological Studies in Language 60–61]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2004The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao, Vol. 1, 77–111.Google Scholar
2011Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Language Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður
2014The oblique anticausative in Lithuanian. Baltistica 49(1): 15–39.Crossref.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela, Barðdal, Jóhanna & van Gelderen, Elly
(eds) 2012Variation and change in argument realization. A special guest-edited issue in Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3): 311–442.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michela, Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Barðdal, Jóhanna
2015Semantic and (morpho)syntactic constraints on anticausativization: Evidence from Latin and Old Norse-Icelandic. Linguistics 53(4): 677–729.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1973The ergative: Variations on a theme. Lingua 32: 239–253.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conti, Luz
2008Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genitivs als Semisubjekt. Historische Sprachforschung 121: 94–113.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray
2005Simpler Syntax. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danesi, Serena, Johnson, Cynthia A. & Barðdal, Jóhanna
2017Between the historical languages and the reconstructed language: An alternative approach to the Gerundive + “Dative of Agent” construction in Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen 122: 143–188.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danesi, Serena, Cynthia A. Johnson & Jóhanna Barðdal
2018Where does the modality of Ancient Greek modal verbs come from? The relation between modality and oblique case marking. Journal of Greek Linguistics 18(1): 45–92.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C.
1997The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The Structure of the Clause, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
1997The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Cathryn & Barðdal, Jóhanna
(eds) 2011Empirical approaches to morphological case. A special guest-edited issue in Morphology 21(3–4): 481–654.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Martin
2006Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory. In Catching Language: The Standard Challenge of Grammar Writing, Felix Ameka, Alan Charles Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds), 207–234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
1997Are grammatical relations universal? In Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Dedicated to T. Givón, Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 117–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Barðdal, Jóhanna
2005Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language 81(4): 824–881.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Patrick
2005Grammatical Relations. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje
2001The notion of oblique subject and its status in the history of Icelandic. In Grammatical Relations in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 56], Jan Terje Faarlund (ed.), 99–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara
2011Experiential metaphors in Latin: Feelings were containers, movements and things possessed. Transactions of the Philological Society 109(3): 307–326.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Experiential Constructions in Latin. Leiden: Brill.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly, Cennamo, Michela & Barðdal, Jóhanna
(eds) 2013Argument Structure in Flux: The Naples-Capri Papers [Studies in Language Companion Series 131]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph
1963Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Björn
2016Beyond b-subjects: Testing subjecthood in Croatian modal constructions. Talk presented at the workshop “Forty Years after Keenan 1976: Subject Properties and Subject Tests”, 7–9 September, Ghent.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2004Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description? Studies in Language 28: 554–579.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Huumo, Tuomas
(eds) 2015Subjects in Constructions – Canonical and Non-Canonical [Constructional Approaches to Language 16]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hermon, Gabriella
1985Syntactic Modularity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus & Kaiser, Georg A.
2011Affectedness and differential object marking in Spanish. Morphology 21(3–4): 593–617.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans H.
1990Oblique subjects in Sanskrit? In Verma & Mohanan (eds), 119–139.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Heinrich & Bashir, Elena
2016The Languages and Linguistics of South Asia: A Comprehensive Guide. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
2013Obliqueness, quasi-subjects and transitivity in Baltic and Slavonic. In Seržant & Kulikov (eds), 257–282.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter
(eds) 2008Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio & Klumpp, Gerson
(eds) 2014Differential object marking: Theoretical and empirical issues. A special issue of Linguistics 52(2): 271–602.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli
1996Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes G. & Eythórsson, Thórhallur
2005Variation in subject case marking in insular Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28(2): 223–245.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L.
1976Towards a universal definition of subject. In Li (ed.), 303–333.Google Scholar
Kikusawa, Ritsuko
2002Proto Central Pacific Ergativity: Its Reconstruction and Development in the Fijian, Rotuman and Polynesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej & de Swart, Peter
(eds) 2006Case, Valency and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan
2009The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Le Mair, Esther, Johnson, Cynthia A., Frotscher, Michael, Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Barðdal, Jóhanna
2017Position as a behavioral property of subjects: The case of Old Irish. Indogermanische Forschungen 122: 111–142.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N.
(ed.) 1976Subject and Topic. New York NY: Academic press.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
2016The dative of agent in Indo-European languages. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 69(1): 15–47.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L.
2008Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118(2): 203–221.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. & de Hoop, Helen
2011Tense, aspect, and mood based differential case marking. Lingua 121(1): 35–47.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. & Spencer, Andrew
(eds) 2009The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P.
1976Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2008The emergence of agentive systems. In The Typology of Semantic Alignment Systems, Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), 297–333. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moore, John & Perlmutter, David M.
2000What does it take to be a dative subject? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 373–416.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mørck, Endre
1994The distribution of subject properties and the acquisition of subjecthood in the West Scandinavian languages. In Language Change and Language Structure: Older Germanic Languages in a Comparative Perspective, Toril Swan, Endre Mørck & Olaf J. Westwik (eds), 159–194. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki
2001Introduction: Non-canonically marked subjects and objects; parameters and properties. In Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi (eds), 1–51.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
2011Case marking typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 303–321. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Queixalós, Francesc & Gildea, Spike
2010Manifestations of Ergativity in Amazonia. In Ergativity in Amazonia [Typological Studies in Language 89], Spike Gildea & Francesc Queixalós (eds), 1–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rákosi, György
2006Dative Experiencer Predicates in Hungarian. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga
1982Zum Subjektbegriff im Deutschen. In Satzglieder im Deutschen. Vorschläge zur syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Fundierung, Werner Abraham (ed.), 171–211. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Sandal, Catrine
2011Akkusative subjekt og antikausativitet i norrønt (Accusative Subjects and Anticausativity in Old Norse). MA thesis, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1978Subjekt und Ergativ: Zur pragmatischen Grundlage primärer grammatischer Relationen. Folia Linguistica 12: 219–252.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seržant, Ilja
2013The diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects. In Seržant & Kulikov (eds), 313–360.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. & Kulikov, Leonid
(eds) 2013The Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series 140]. Amsterdam. John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1999Dative subject constructions twenty-two years later. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29(2): 45–76.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann
1989Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. PhD dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
1991Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–362.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á.
2003Case: Abstract vs. morphological. In New Perspectives on Case Theory, Ellen Brandner & Heike Zinsmeister (eds), 223–268. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Steever, Sanford B.
(ed.) 1998The Dravidian Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2002Icelandic case and the structure of events. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5(1–3): 197–225.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku
1985Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2): 385–396.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D.
1991Another look at Icelandic case marking and grammatical relations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 145–194.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Case in role and reference grammar. In The Handbook of Case, Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 102–120. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy J.
1997Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verma, Mahendra K. & Mohanan, Karravanur Puthanvettil
(eds) 1990Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen
2006Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 111–130.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, James H.
2004Non-nominative (major) subjects and case stacking in Korean. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao, Vol. 2, 265–314.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan & Thráinsson, Höskuldur
1985Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483.CrossrefGoogle Scholar