Cover not available
Part of
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. 1–20

Chapter 1
Introduction

The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers

| Ghent University
Article outline
  • 1.Background
  • 2.The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull conference
  • 3.Summaries
  • 4.Relevance for current research
  • 5.Visions for future research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.200.01bar
References (91)
References
Abraham, Werner. 2006. Bare 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). 2001. Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 435–448.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery D. 1976. The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. North Eastern Linguistic Society 6: 1–21.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2000. The 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
. 2004. The 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
. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17(1): 39–106.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The development of case in Germanic. In Barðdal & Chelliah (eds), 123–159.Google Scholar
. 2011. The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar approach. Lingua 121(1): 60–79.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Syntax 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. 2016. Dative 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. 2013. The story of ‘Woe’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 41(3–4): 321–377.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Chelliah, Shobhana L. (eds). 2009. The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case [Studies in Language Companion Series 108]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2009. The 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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Dewey, Tonya Kim. 2014. Alternating 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. 2013. The 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. 2012. Reconstructing 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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri & Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata (eds). 2004. Non-Nominative Subjects, Vols. I–II [Typological Studies in Language 60–61]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2004. The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao, Vol. 1, 77–111.Google Scholar
. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Language Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður. 2014. The oblique anticausative in Lithuanian. Baltistica 49(1): 15–39.DOI logo.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela, Barðdal, Jóhanna & van Gelderen, Elly (eds). 2012. Variation and change in argument realization. A special guest-edited issue in Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3): 311–442.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michela, Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2015. Semantic and (morpho)syntactic constraints on anticausativization: Evidence from Latin and Old Norse-Icelandic. Linguistics 53(4): 677–729.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1973. The ergative: Variations on a theme. Lingua 32: 239–253.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conti, Luz. 2008. Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genitivs als Semisubjekt. Historische Sprachforschung 121: 94–113.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danesi, Serena, Johnson, Cynthia A. & Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2017. Between 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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danesi, Serena, Cynthia A. Johnson & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2018. Where 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. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The Structure of the Clause, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1997. The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Cathryn & Barðdal, Jóhanna (eds). 2011. Empirical approaches to morphological case. A special guest-edited issue in Morphology 21(3–4): 481–654.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Martin. 2006. Descriptive 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. 1997. Are 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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2005. Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language 81(4): 824–881.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 2005. Grammatical Relations. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2001. The 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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara. 2011. Experiential metaphors in Latin: Feelings were containers, movements and things possessed. Transactions of the Philological Society 109(3): 307–326.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Experiential Constructions in Latin. Leiden: Brill.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly, Cennamo, Michela & Barðdal, Jóhanna (eds). 2013. Argument Structure in Flux: The Naples-Capri Papers [Studies in Language Companion Series 131]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Some 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. 2016. Beyond 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. 2004. Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description? Studies in Language 28: 554–579.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Huumo, Tuomas (eds). 2015. Subjects in Constructions – Canonical and Non-Canonical [Constructional Approaches to Language 16]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermon, Gabriella. 1985. Syntactic Modularity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus & Kaiser, Georg A. 2011. Affectedness and differential object marking in Spanish. Morphology 21(3–4): 593–617.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans H. 1990. Oblique subjects in Sanskrit? In Verma & Mohanan (eds), 119–139.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Heinrich & Bashir, Elena. 2016. The Languages and Linguistics of South Asia: A Comprehensive Guide. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2013. Obliqueness, quasi-subjects and transitivity in Baltic and Slavonic. In Seržant & Kulikov (eds), 257–282.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter (eds). 2008. Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio & Klumpp, Gerson (eds). 2014. Differential object marking: Theoretical and empirical issues. A special issue of Linguistics 52(2): 271–602.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes G. & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2005. Variation in subject case marking in insular Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28(2): 223–245.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of subject. In Li (ed.), 303–333.Google Scholar
Kikusawa, Ritsuko. 2002. Proto 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). 2006. Case, Valency and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2009. The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Le Mair, Esther, Johnson, Cynthia A., Frotscher, Michael, Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2017. Position as a behavioral property of subjects: The case of Old Irish. Indogermanische Forschungen 122: 111–142.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. (ed.). 1976. Subject and Topic. New York NY: Academic press.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2016. The dative of agent in Indo-European languages. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 69(1): 15–47.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118(2): 203–221.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. & de Hoop, Helen. 2011. Tense, aspect, and mood based differential case marking. Lingua 121(1): 35–47.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. & Spencer, Andrew (eds). 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1976. Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The emergence of agentive systems. In The Typology of Semantic Alignment Systems, Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), 297–333. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, John & Perlmutter, David M. 2000. What does it take to be a dative subject? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 373–416.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mørck, Endre. 1994. The 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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki. 2001. Introduction: Non-canonically marked subjects and objects; parameters and properties. In Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi (eds), 1–51.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2011. Case marking typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 303–321. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Queixalós, Francesc & Gildea, Spike. 2010. Manifestations of Ergativity in Amazonia. In Ergativity in Amazonia [Typological Studies in Language 89], Spike Gildea & Francesc Queixalós (eds), 1–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rákosi, György. 2006. Dative Experiencer Predicates in Hungarian. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1982. Zum 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. 2011. Akkusative subjekt og antikausativitet i norrønt (Accusative Subjects and Anticausativity in Old Norse). MA thesis, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1978. Subjekt und Ergativ: Zur pragmatischen Grundlage primärer grammatischer Relationen. Folia Linguistica 12: 219–252.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seržant, Ilja. 2013. The diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects. In Seržant & Kulikov (eds), 313–360.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. & Kulikov, Leonid (eds). 2013. The Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series 140]. Amsterdam. John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1999. Dative subject constructions twenty-two years later. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29(2): 45–76.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. PhD dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
. 1991. Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–362.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. 2003. Case: 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.) 1998. The Dravidian Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Icelandic case and the structure of events. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5(1–3): 197–225.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2): 385–396.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 1991. Another look at Icelandic case marking and grammatical relations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 145–194.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Case 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. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verma, Mahendra K. & Mohanan, Karravanur Puthanvettil (eds). 1990. Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 111–130.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoon, James H. 2004. Non-nominative (major) subjects and case stacking in Korean. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao, Vol. 2, 265–314.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan & Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483.DOI logoGoogle Scholar