Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure pp 1–60Cite as

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory ((SNLT,volume 90))

Abstract

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the empirical and theoretical issues that form the basis for the rest of the book. After a general discussion of the division of labor between syntax and semantics, with a focus on recent neo-constructionist theories, the discussion turns first to a presentation of the theory to be developed and the notation to be adopted. This presentation includes the basics of phrase structure and syntactic primitives, as well as the translation of those primitives to morphophonological strings and semantics representations. The discussion then turns to a brief overview of Icelandic morphosyntax, for those who are interested in references for further reading as well. This overview provides a birds-eye view of some long established conclusions as well as on-going debates in work on Icelandic syntax, and should be taken as a backdrop for the rest of the study and as a reference for further reading.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For Ramchand, run is an activity by being specified to associate syntactically with two verbal heads, Proc (for ‘Process’) and Init (for ‘Initiator’) (Ramchand 2008, p. 195) (on which see below).

  2. 2.

    Alec Marantz (p.c.) points out that this insight is reflected in the way that lexical insertion works in Chomsky (1965).

  3. 3.

    I replace Cuervo’s ‘closed’ with ‘open’ and the argument positions with ‘x’ and ‘y’.

  4. 4.

    For example, Ramchand (2008, p. 59) states, “Merge of syntactic features in the wrong order will create gibberish at the interface.”

  5. 5.

    More precisely, Init (\(\mathrm{e}_\mathrm{1}\)) leads to a complex event in which Proc (\(\mathrm{e}_\mathrm{2}\)) leads to Res (\(\mathrm{e}_\mathrm{3}\)), so (\(\mathrm{e}_\mathrm{1} \rightarrow \) (\(\mathrm{e}_\mathrm{2} \rightarrow \mathrm{e}_\mathrm{3}\))).

  6. 6.

    They can also show up in the form of non-concatenative morphology; for example, a certain kind of little v head might condition a morphophonological rule on a nearby element.

  7. 7.

    I focus on event structure here because this study focuses mostly on verb phrases. However, the same distinction applies in other domains. Entity-denoting noun phrases, for example, will involve a lexical root that contributes encyclopedic meaning to the DP structure, and nominal heads will compute the structured meanings of noun phrases (including count/mass distinctions and pluralities, for instance). A similar division of labor applies in the adjectival and prepositional domain (assuming that prepositions may contain lexical roots, cf. Acedo-Matellán 2010; Haselbach and Pitteroff 2014).

  8. 8.

    Crucially, roots can only choose among structures on the basis of the properties of those structures that are accessible within the ‘first phase’ within which the root is merged (Arad 2003, 2005; Marantz 2007, 2013a), which is VoiceP (that is, the layer responsible for introducing external arguments) for the structures discussed in this book (cf. Marantz 2007, p. 194; Marantz 2013a, Anagnostopoulou and Samioti to appear). Syntactic features occurring above VoiceP cannot be specifically chosen by lexical roots.

  9. 9.

    See Chomsky (2013) for the details of labeling, where however labeling is argued not to be part of Merge, but instead, to occur at the phase level. See also the references in footnote 17.

  10. 10.

    These issues include, for example, Interarboreal/Sideward Movement (Bobaljik and Brown 1997; Nunes 2001, 2004), Multidominance (or ‘Parallel Merge’; Citko 2005), Labeling (Lohndal 2012; Chomsky 2013), Unary or Nonbranching Projections (Kayne 2008a; Adger 2013), Ternary Branching (Kayne 2010d), Tuck-In Movement (Richards 2001), Feature Splitting Movement (Obata and Epstein 2008, 2012), and the feature structure of syntactic primitives (Adger and Svenonius 2011; H.Á. Sigurðsson 2012b), to name a few.

  11. 11.

    See, for example, the following studies: Kayne (1975, 1989, 1991, 1992, 2008b, 2010a); Zwicky and Pullum (1983); Sells et al. (1987); Marantz (1988); Ćavar and Wilder (1994); Bošković (1995); Uriagereka (1995); Sportiche (1996); Terzi (1999); Poletto (2000); Manzini and Savoia (2001, 2011); Tortora (2002); Anagnostopoulou (2003, 2006); Anderson (2005); Harris and Halle (2005); Russi (2008); Kallulli and Tasmowski (2008); Cattaneo (2009); Săvescu Cuicivara (2009); Mavrogiorgos (2010); Roberts (2010); Bermúdez-Otero and Payne (2011); Nevins (2011a, b); Myler to appear.

  12. 12.

    Chomsky (2013, pp. 45–47) discusses other cases where a head does not project its own label, including conjunction heads and lexical roots.

  13. 13.

    See also Platzack (2013) for a related proposal.

  14. 14.

    I also assume that the syntactic system establishes dependencies via an Agree relation, as in Chomsky (2007, 2008), but this will not play major role in the present study.

  15. 15.

    Throughout this book, I will refer to roots merged immediately under verbal structure as ‘verbal roots’. This terminology should not be taken to imply that the roots themselves have categorial features; much of what follows is compatible with roots having or not having categorial features. It is simply intended to refer to the roots that make up verb words, syntactically constructed. In this study I will assume that roots do not project XPs but that they can select for features of the immediate structures that they occur in. For debate regarding the syntactic properties of roots, see De Belder and van Craenenbroeck (2011), De Belder (2011) (for arguments that they have almost no syntactic features) and Harley (2005, to appear) (for arguments that they do have syntactic features).

  16. 16.

    The term ‘event introducer’ is meant to distinguish v from argument-introducing heads such as Voice, Appl and p. Anton Karl Ingason (p.c.) correctly points out that it is a somewhat misleading term because in the present proposal, some roots have event variables in their meaning (so that they can act as semantic modifiers to events introduced in other ways), event variables can also be introduced by interpretive rules of coercion, and occur as subparts of the denotations of argument-introducing heads. Moreover, nothing in the present proposal would prevent, say, a nominalizing n head from introducing an event. Finally, there is mounting evidence that v will, in some contexts, introduce no event variable at all (Myler 2014; Anagnostopoulou and Samioti to appear). The intuition is that v is generally the syntactic and semantic locus of the construction of event structure; it is, for example, where the decision is made determining whether an event will be causative or not. But the shortcomings of the terminology are hereby noted and acknowledged.

  17. 17.

    See also Chomsky (2013) for an argument against the existence of specifiers as phrase structural entities; Kayne (1994) for a reduction of the specifier/adjunct distinction; H.Á. Sigurðsson (2012a) and Lohndal (2012) for additional proposals to do away with specifiers; and H.Á. Sigurðsson (2010) for an account of movement without the use of privative [epp] features.

  18. 18.

    See Chap. 5 for further discussion of the distinction between Icelandic and German applicatives. In Wood (2013), I attempt to derive the absence of high applicatives in Icelandic from other properties of the language, so c-selection might not be at issue.

  19. 19.

    For example, CPs in Icelandic very frequently occur as the complements to prepositions (Thráinsson 1979); this difference between the two languages is in need of an explanation.

  20. 20.

    See Bošković (2004) for a further parallel between the verbal projection and the prepositional projection based in part on Icelandic data.

  21. 21.

    For example, Richard Kayne (p.c.) points out to me that ergative case seems to be incompatible with strict SVO languages; if so, then perhaps the possibility of a case requirement defines the difference between Voice and Appl (especially ‘high’ Appl, which Icelandic does not seem to have; cf. Sect. 5.2.1). This might fit in with the view that some Voice head is always present in every sentence, but Appl is somehow ‘extra’ (see Sect. 3.5.3). If this turns out to be right, then ergative case would not be the ‘dative’ of Voice, and a different analysis of ergative case would be necessary.

  22. 22.

    That is, this is distinct from the use of the ordered pair notation to indicate labeling, where {\(\upalpha ,\{\upalpha ,\upbeta \)}} = \(\langle \) \(\upalpha ,\upbeta \) \(\rangle \). In Kayne’s proposal, \(\langle \) \(\upalpha ,\upbeta \) \(\rangle \) is immediate linear precedence, so that \(\upalpha \) precedes \(\upbeta \) and nothing else precedes \(\upbeta \) without also preceding \(\upalpha \).

  23. 23.

    Anton Karl Ingason (p.c.) points out to me that in order to get the correct results in (25), pruning of v must precede Vocabulary Insertion at T. But it is not obvious how this should be achieved, given that upon concatenation, the syntactic bracketing is lost, and what we need is essentially to replicate this bracketing, inserting material from the inside out (Bobaljik 2000). One possible solution would be to assume that VI must redetermine phonological content on remaining nodes after pruning. Another option, which is discussed already by Embick (2010b), would be to apply pruning prior to concatenation and VI.

  24. 24.

    It may seem that I am taking a different position from Chomsky (2013), who argues that the design of language is better-suited for constructing thought/meaning than for constructing PF strings. I’m not sure that the present proposal commits me one way or the other; it could be that the hierarchical structures generated by the syntax are particularly well-suited for “thought”—whatever that is—but that does not entail that “thoughtstuff” is present in the syntax.

  25. 25.

    In this book, I use the bracket notation ‘[[ ]]’ to indicate the denotation of the material within the brackets; I omit the usual superscripts, such as the assignment function, context and world variables, since they play no role in this book.

  26. 26.

    This, of course, glosses over many issues in the semantics of past tense, among other things. Its purpose here is simply to illustrate how Functional Application works.

  27. 27.

    See also Kratzer (2009, p. 194) for another use of Predicate Conjunction with the same types used here, i.e. two expressions of type \(\langle {}e,\langle {}s,t\rangle {}\rangle {}\).

  28. 28.

    This has been adapted for consistency in non-crucial ways. Also, for notational clarity, I write overlap(e,s) instead of \(\mathrm{e}_{o}\mathrm{s}\).

  29. 29.

    The structure of destroying events will be assumed to be more complex than this in Chap. 3 of this book, but the text example suffices for present purposes.

  30. 30.

    Thanks to Anton Karl Ingason and Benjamin George for (independently) pointing out to me the importance of stating this assumption explicitly.

  31. 31.

    For different versions of the idea that “causative” is the interpretation of an activity in the immediate context of a state, see also Hoekstra (1988), von Stechow (1995), Higginbotham (2000), Beck and Snyder (2001), Rothstein (2001), Ramchand (2008), and within a DM framework, Schäfer (2008, 2012b).

  32. 32.

    A variant of (51a) would have the same hierarchical structure but allow the root to project instead of the DP (Schäfer 2008; Harley to appear). In the present study, I assume with Marantz (2013b) and Irwin (2012) that roots are syntactic an semantic modifiers, and do not have the kinds of features necessary to project their category (see also De Belder (2011) for a related idea, and Kayne 2008a, where nouns have this status). However, this is not a necessary assumption for most of what follows, and the syntactic, phrase structural status of roots will not play a major role. What is more important is the view that roots contribute their semantics in a way that is distinct from the semantics of functional heads around them (cf. Borer 2005a, b).

  33. 33.

    There are, of course, many important topics which I cannot begin to address or mention. For example, there is no discussion here of DP structure, on which see Magnússon (1984), H.Á. Sigurðsson (1993, 2006a), Julien (2005), Pfaff (2007, 2009, 2013a, b, 2014), Norris (2011, 2012).

  34. 34.

    I’d like to thank Höskuldur Thráinsson for discussing much of the material in this section with me, including the term frumlagsígildi.

  35. 35.

    In Wood and Livitz (2012), we propose that certain oblique subjects in other languages occupy a position higher than TP and lower than CP, and that this position is not independently available in Icelandic.

  36. 36.

    In fact, Angantýsson (2001, 2007, 2011) analyzes the relevant word orders as resulting from a different positioning of the adverb rather than lack of verb movement; see also Thráinsson (2010).

  37. 37.

    Actually, the number would be at least four, in the typology of Reuland (2011), including the non-reflexive pronoun+self constructions discussed there. These play no role in this book.

  38. 38.

    See also Harðarson (2011) on locally bound non-reflexive pronouns in PPs, and Wood and E.F. Sigurðsson (2014) for restrictions on non-locally bound non-reflexive pronouns.

  39. 39.

    According to Thráinsson et al. (2013, p. 66), the NIP was first mentioned in a newspaper article by Jónsson (1979).

  40. 40.

    He judged another example, Það var leikið sér allan daginn ‘There was playing all day’, which takes a dative object, with only one question mark.

  41. 41.

    It seems likely to me that this is related to or is an example of what H.Á. Sigurðsson (2006b) calls the ‘fate accusative’ construction, a construction which has been extensively discussed in the literature (Zaenen and Maling 1984; Ottósson 1988; H.Á. Sigurðsson 1989, 2006b, 2009, 2011, 2012b; Haider 2001; Svenonius 2002, 2005, 2006; Platzack 2006; Schäfer 2008, p. 304ff., 2012a, pp. 251–253). See Sect. 3.2 for a brief discussion. A number of speakers (including speakers of identifiably distinct idiolects) have pointed out to me that (75) strikes them as quite archaic, and not possible for them in the modern language, and it is thus marked with a moon symbol. [This example can be found on snara.is, and a similar dative-accusative example is found in Cleasby and Vigfusson (1874, p. 91)]. It clearly has a very different status from the other dative-accusative constructions discussed in this subsection.

  42. 42.

    Example (79) taken from http://www.hugi.is/rokk/greinar/520785/muse/#4940211.

References

  • Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2010. Argument Structure and the Syntax-Morphology Interface: A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages. Universitat de Barcelona Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adger, David. 2013. A syntax of substance. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adger, David, and Peter Svenonius. 2011. Features in minimalist syntax. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 27–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Mouton: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2006. Clitic doubling. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert, and Henk van Riemsdijk, vol. I, Chap. 14, 519–581. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Panagiota Samioti. To appear. Domains within words and their meanings: A case study. In The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, and Florian Schäfer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Stephen R. 1986. The typology of anaphoric dependencies: Icelandic (and other) reflexives. In Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, eds. Lars Hellan, and Kirsti Koch Christensen, 65–88. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Stephen R. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, Avery. 1976/1990. The VP-complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic syntax, eds. Joan Maling, and Annie Zaenen, 165–185. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, Avery. 1982. Long distance agreement in Modern Icelandic. In The nature of syntactic representation, eds. Pauline Jacobson, and Geoffrey K Pullum, 1–33. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angantýsson, Ásgrímur. 2001. Skandinavísk orðaröð í íslenskum aukasetningum [Scandinavian word order in Icelandic embedded sentences]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 23: 95–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angantýsson, Ásgrímur. 2007. Verb-third in embedded clauses in Icelandic. Studia Linguistica 61(3): 237–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angantýsson, Ásgrímur. 2011. The Syntax of Embedded Clauses in Icelandic and Related Languages. University of Iceland Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 737–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew Morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Árnadóttir, Hlíf, and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson. 2012. Case in disguise. In Variation in datives: A micro-comparative perspective, eds. Beatriz Fernández, and Ricardo Etxepare, 96–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Árnadóttir, Hlíf, Thórhallur Eythórsson, and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson. 2011. The passive of reflexive verbs in Icelandic. Nordlyd 37: 39–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic Construction Grammar account. Lingua 121: 60–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Valeria Molnár. 2000. Passive in Icelandic—compared to Mainland Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65: 109–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, Michael. 1986. Subject, nominative and oblique case in Faroese. Scripta Islandica 37: 13–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid, and William Snyder. 2001. Complex predicates and goal PPs: Evidence for a semantic parameter. In Proceedings of the 25th annual Boston University conference on language development, eds. Anna H.-J. Do, Laura Domínguez, and Aimee Johansen, 114–122. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentzen, Kristine. 2005. What’s the better move? On verb placement in Standard and Northern Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28(2): 153–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentzen, Kristine. 2007. The degree of verb movement in embedded clauses in three varieties of Norwegian. Nordlyd 34: 125–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentzen, Kristine, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir and Anna-Lena Wiklund. 2007a. Extracting from V2. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 79: 119–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentzen, Kristine, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir and Anna-Lena Wiklund. 2007b. The Tromsø guide to the Force behind V2. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 79: 93–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, and John Payne. 2011. There are no special clitics. In Morphology and its interfaces, eds. Alexandra Galani, Glyn Hicks, and George Tsoulas, 57–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernódusson, Helgi. 1982. Ópersónulegar setningar [Impersonal clauses]. University of Iceland M.A. Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 35–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Dianne Jonas. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27(2): 195–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Samuel Brown. 1997. Interarboreal operations: Head movement and the extension requirement. Linguistic Inquiry 28(2): 345–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1(1): 37–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring sense, Volume 1: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borer, Hagit. 2005b. Structuring sense Volume 2: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bošković, Z̆eljko. 1995. Participle movement and second position cliticization in Serbo-Croatian. Lingua 96(4): 245–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bošković, Z̆eljko. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 681–742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruening, Benjamin. 2010a. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4): 519–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruening, Benjamin. 2010b. Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2): 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanini, Cinzia, and Florian Schäfer. 2011. Optional se-constructions in Romance: Syntactic encoding of conceptual information. Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW) 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo, Andrea. 2009. It is All About Clitics: The Case of a Northern Italian Dialect Like Bellinzonese. New York University Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ćavar, Damir, and Chris Wilder. 1994. “Clitic Third” in Croatian. Linguistics in Potsdam 1: 25–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Malden: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, eds. Uli Sauerland, and Hans-Martin Gärtner, 1–29. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, eds. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Citko, Barbara. 2005. On the nature of merge: External merge, internal merge, and parallel merge. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 475–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleasby, Richard, and Gudbrand Vigfusson. 1874. An Icelandic-English dictionary based on the ms. collections of the late Richard Cleasby. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Chris, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1996. VP-internal structure and object shift in Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry 27(3): 391–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at Large. MIT Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Belder, Marijke. 2011. Roots and Affixes: Eliminating Lexical Categories from Syntax. Utrecht University/UiL-OTS and HUBrussel/CRISSP Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Belder, Marijke, and Jeroen van Craenenbroeck. 2011. How to merge a root. Manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embick, David. 1997. Voice and the Interfaces of Syntax. University of Pennsylvania Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 355–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Embick, David. 2010a. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Malden: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Embick, David. 2010b. Stem alternations and stem distributions. Manuscript: University of Pennsylvania. http://goo.gl/vpyzn7.

  • Everaert, Martin. 1988. The syntax of reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 1996. Að vera að gera eitthvað–arfur Kelta? In Höskollu gefið: Höskuldur Þráinsson fimmtugur, eds. Friðrik Magnússon, Guðrún Kvaran, Jón G. Friðjónsson, Kristján Árnason and Margrét Jónsdóttir, 80–81. Reykjavík.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2000. Dative versus nominative: Changes in quirky subjects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 8: 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2002. Changes in subject case marking in Icelandic. In Syntactic effects of morphological change, ed. David Lightfoot, 196–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2008. The new passive in Icelandic really is a passive. In Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers, ed. Thórhallur Eythórsson, 173–219. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eythórsson, Thórhallur, and Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson. 2003. The case of subject in Faroese. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 72: 207–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, Gisbert. 2000. Optimal exceptions. In The lexicon in focus, vol. 45, eds. Barbara Stiebel, and Dieter Wunderlich, 173–209. Studia Grammatica Berlin: Akademie Verlag GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folli, Raffaella, and Heidi Harley. 2004. Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In Aspectual inquiries, eds. Roumyana Slabakova and Paula Kempchinsky, 95–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folli, Raffaella, and Heidi Harley. 2006. On the licensing of causatives of directed motion: Waltzing Matilda all over. Studia Linguistica 60(2): 121–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friðjónsson, Jón G. 1982. Um lýsingarhátt nútíðar [On the present participle]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 4: 191–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gísladóttir, Rósa Signý. 2007. The new passive in Icelandic: A dynamic syntax perspective. King’s College, University of London Master’s Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haider, Hubert. 2001. How to stay accusative in insular Germanic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 68: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Kenneth Hale, and Samuel Jay Keyser, 53–109. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halldórsson, Halldór. 1982. Um méranir: Drög að samtímalegri og sögulegri athugun [On using mér: An attempt at a synchronic and diachronic study]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 4: 159–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harðarson, Gísli Rúnar. 2011. Short-distance pronominals. Nordlyd 37(1): 5–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, Events and Licensing. MIT Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, Heidi. 2005. One-replacement, unaccusativity, acategorial roots and Bare Phrase Structure. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 637–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, Heidi. 2013. Getting morphemes in order: merger, affixation, and head movement. In Diagnosing syntax, eds. Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver, 44–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, Heidi. To appear. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, James, and Morris Halle. 2005. Unexpected plural inflections in Spanish: Reduplication and metathesis. Linguistic Inquiry 36(2): 195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haselbach, Boris, and Marcel Pitteroff. 2014. A morphological case approach to PPs. Manuscript, University of Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellan, Lars. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, James. 2000. Accomplishments. Proceedings of GLOW in Asia II: 72–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Structure. MIT Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74: 101–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, Anders. 1985. Icelandic word order and binary branching. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 8(2): 161–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. University of Stockholm Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, Anders. 1999. Remarks on Holmberg’s Generalization. Studia Linguistica 53(1): 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, Anders. 2002. Expletives and agreement in Scandinavian passives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 85–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, Anders, and Christer Platzack. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, Anders, and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2004. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 114: 651–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn and Anna-Lena Wiklund. 2009. General embedded V2: Icelandic A, B, C, etc. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 84: 21–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hróarsdóttir, Þorbjörg. 2000a. Parameter change in Icelandic. In The derivation of VO and OV, ed. Peter Svenonius, 153–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hróarsdóttir, Þorbjörg. 2000b. Word-order change in Icelandic: From OV to VO. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hróarsdóttir, Þorbjörg, Anna-Lena Wiklund, Kristine Bentzen and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson. 2007. The afterglow of verb movement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80: 45–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyams, Nina, and Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir. 1990. The development of “long-distance anaphora”: A cross-linguistic comparison with special reference to Icelandic. Language Acquisition 1(1): 57–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingason, Anton Karl. 2010. Productivity of non-default case. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 85: 65–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingason, Anton Karl, Julie Anne Legate, and Charles Yang. 2012. The evolutionary trajectory of the Icelandic new passive. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 18(2): 91–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, Patricia. 2012. Unaccusativity at the Interfaces. New York University Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jóhannsdóttir, Kristín M. 2005. Temporal adverbs in Icelandic: Adverbs of quantification versus frequency adverbs. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 76: 31–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jóhannsdóttir, Kristín M. 2007. Temporal adverbs in Icelandic: Adverbs of quantification versus frequency adverbs. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 30(2): 157–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jóhannsdóttir, Kristín M. 2011. Aspects of the Progressive in English and Icelandic. University of British Columbia, Vancouver Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Kyle, and Sten Vikner. 1995. The position of the verb in Scandinavian infinitives. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 53: 61–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, Dianne. 1996a. Clause Structure and Verb Syntax in Scandinavian and English. Harvard University Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, Dianne. 1996b. Clause structure, expletives and verb movement. In Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework, eds. Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson and Jan-Wouter Zwart, 167–188. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Gísli. 1979. Íslenskt mál. Morgunblaðið May 20th. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic. University of Massachusetts, Amherst Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2000a. Case and double objects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 8: 71–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2000b. Definites in Icelandic existentials. In The Nordic languages and modern linguistics, ed. Guðrún Thórhallsdóttir, X, 125–134. University of Iceland, Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2005. Merkingarhlutverk, rökliðir og fallmörkun [Thematic roles, arguments and case-marking]. In Setningar [Sentences] Íslensk tunga III [The Icelandic Language III], ed. Höskuldur Thráinsson, 265–349. Reykjavík: Almenna bókafélagið.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2009a. Covert nominative and dative subjects in Faroese. Nordlyd 36(2): 142–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2009b. The new impersonal as a true passive. In Advances in comparative Germanic syntax, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Jorge Hankamer, Thomas McFadden, Justin Nuger, and Florian Schäfer, 281–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2011. Reflexive sig is an argument. Nordlyd 37: 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli, and Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2005. Variation in subject case marking in Insular Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28(2): 223–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli, and Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2011. Structured exceptions and case selection in Insular Scandinavian. In Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar, eds. Horst J. Simon and Heike Wiese, 213–241. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julien, Marit. 2005. Nominal phrases from a Scandinavian perspective. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kallulli, Dalina, and Liliane Tasmowski. 2008. Clitic doubling, core syntax and the interfaces. In Clitic doubling in the Balkan languages, eds. Dalina Kallulli and Liliane Tasmowski, 1–32. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 1981. Unambiguous paths. In Levels of syntactic representation, eds. Robert May, and Jan Koster, 143–183. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 1989. Null subjects and clitic climbing. In The null subject parameter, eds. Osvaldo A. Jaeggli, and Kenneth J. Safir, 239–261. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 647–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 1992. Italian negative infinitival imperatives and clitic climbing. In De la musique a la linguistique. Hommages a Nicolas Ruwet, eds. Liliane Tasmovski and Ann Zribi-Hertz, 300–312. Ghent: Communication & Cognition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Malden: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 2000. Microparametric syntax: Some introductory remarks. In Parameters and universals, ed. Richard S. Kayne, 3–9. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 2008a. Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8(1): 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 2008b. Expletives, datives, and the tension between morphology and syntax. In The limits of syntactic variation, ed. Theresa Biberauer, 175–217. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 2010a. Toward a syntactic reinterpretation of Harris and Halle (2005). In Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Groningen 2008, vol. 2 Romance languages and linguistic theory, eds. Reineke Bok-Bennema, Kampers-Manhe Brigitte and Bart Hollebrandse, 145–170. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 2010b. Why are there no directionality parameters? In Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds. Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer and Barbara Tomaszewicz, 1–23. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjartansson, Helgi Skúli. 1991. Nýstárleg þolmynd í barnamáli. Skíma 14: 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobele, Gregory M. 2010. Inverse linking via function composition. Natural Language Semantics 18: 183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck, and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2): 187–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kučerova, Ivona. 2007. Agreement in Icelandic: An argument for derivational theory of intervention effects. In Proceedings of the 34th Western Conference on Linguistics, eds. Erin Bainbridge and Brian Agbayani, 272–284. Fresno: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupula, Mikko. 2011. A phase extension approach to double object constructions: Evidence from Modern Greek. Studia Linguistica 65(2): 147–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, Winfried. 2006. An interpretive effect of head movement. In Phases of interpretation, ed. Mara Frascarelli, 45–71. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Legate, Julie Anne. 2002. Warlpiri: Theoretical Implications. MIT Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 55–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohndal, Terje. 2012. Without Specifiers: Phrase Structure and Events. University of Maryland Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnússon, Friðrik. 1984. Um innri gerð nafnliða í íslensku [On the internal structure of noun phrases in Icelandic]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 6: 81–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan. 1984. Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7(3): 211–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan. 1986. Clause-bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic. In Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, eds. Lars Hellan and Kirsti Koch Christensen, 53–63. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan. 1987. Existential sentences in Swedish and Icelandic: Reference to thematic roles. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 28: 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan. 1988. Variations on a theme: Existential sentences in Swedish and Icelandic. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 168–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan. 1990. The hierarchical assignment of grammatical cases. Handout from talk at Stofnun Sigurðar Nordals.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan. 2002. Það rignir þagufalli á Íslandi: Sagnir sem stjórna þagufalli á andlagi sínu [It’s raining dative in Iceland: Verbs with dative objects in Icelandic]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 24: 31–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan. 2006. From passive to active: Syntactic change in progress in Icelandic. In Demoting the agent: Passive and other voice-related phenomena, eds. Benjamin Lyngfelt and Torgrim Solstad, 197–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan, and Annie Zaenen. 1985. Preposition-stranding and passive. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 8(2): 197–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan, and Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir. 1997. The ‘new passive’ in Icelandic. Proceedings of the annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 21(2): 378–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan, and Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir. 2002. The ‘new impersonal’ construction in Icelandic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 97–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan, and Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir. 2012. Syntactic change in progress: The Icelandic “New Construction” as an active impersonal. In Comparative Germanic syntax: The state of the art, eds. Peter Ackema, Rhona Alcorn, Caroline Heycock, Dany Jaspers, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd, 249–278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan, and Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir. 2013. Nothing personal? A system-internal syntactic change in Icelandic. In From quirky case to representing space: Papers in Honor of Annie Zaenen, eds. Tracy H. King, and Valeria de Paiva, 109–126. Standford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan, and Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir. In press. From passive to active: Stages in the Icelandic “New Impersonal”. In Syntax over time: Lexical, morphological, and information-structural interactions studies in diachronic and historical linguistics, eds. Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzini, M. Rita, and Leonardo M. Savoia. 2001. The syntax of object clitics: si in Italian dialects. In Current studies in Italian syntax. Essays to Honour Lorenzo Renzi, eds. Guglielmo Cinque and Giampaolo Salvi, 234–264. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzini, M. Rita, and Leonardo M. Savoia. 2011. Mesoclisis in the imperative: Phonology, morphology or syntax? Lingua 121: 1101–1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Malden: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In Theoretical morphology, eds. M. Hammond, and M. Noonan, 253–270. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 1991/2000. Case and licensing. In Arguments and case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization, ed. Eric Reuland, 11–30. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Phases in the theory of grammar, eds. Sook-Hee Choe, Dong-Wee Yang, Yang-Soon Kim, Sung-Hun Kim, and Alec Marantz, 191–222. Soeul: Dong-In Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 2009a. Resultatives and re-resultatives: Direct objects may construct events by themselves. Paper presented at the University of Pennsylvania Linguistics Speaker Series, Philadelphia, February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 2009b. Roots, re-, and affected agents: can roots pull the agent under little v? Talk given at Roots workshop, Universität Stuttgart, June 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 2013a. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Distributed Morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 95–115, eds. Ora Matushansky, and Alec Marantz. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 2013b. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130: 152–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 69–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavrogiorgos, Marios. 2010. Clitics in Greek: A minimalist account of proclisis and enclisis. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax-Morphology Interface. University of Pennsylvania Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Gereon. 1998. Incomplete category fronting: A derivational approach to remnant movement in German. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Myler, Neil. 2014. Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences. New York University Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myler, Neil. To appear. Cliticization feeds agreement: A view from Quechua. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevins, Andrew. 2011a. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity versus omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29: 939–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nevins, Andrew. 2011b. Prospects and challenges for a clitic analysis of (A)SL agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 3(4): 173–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, Mark. 2011. Extraposition and definiteness effects in Icelandic DPs. In Morphology at Santa Cruz, eds. Nicholas LaCara, Anie Thompson, and Matthew Tucker. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, Mark. 2012. Towards an analysis of concord (in Icelandic). In Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds. Jaehoon Choi, E. Alan Hogue, Jeffrey Punske, Deniz Tat, Jessamyn Schertz and Alex Trueman, 205–213. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 303–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obata, Miki, and Samuel David Epstein. 2008. Deducing improper movement from phase-based C-to-T phi transfer: Feature-splitting internal merge. In Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds. Natasha Abner and Jason Bishop, 353–360. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obata, Miki, and Samuel David Epstein. 2012. Feature-splitting internal merge: The case of tough-constructions. In Ways of structure building, eds. Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, and Vidal Valmala, 366–384. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottósson, Kjartan. 1988. A feature-based approach to thematic roles. In Papers from the tenth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, ed. Victoria Rosén, vol. 2, 136–150. Bergen: University of Bergen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfaff, Alexander. 2007. Eitt eða tvennt? Ákveðinn greinir í íslensku [One or Two? The Definite Article in Icelandic]. University of Iceland B.A. Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfaff, Alexander. 2009. Structural Relations between Free and Suffixed Articles in Icelandic. University of Tübingen M.A. Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfaff, Alexander. 2013a. Some issues in the upper middle field of the extended nominal projection. Manuscript: University of Tromsø.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfaff, Alexander. 2013b. Some notes on a former analysis. Handout from LingLunch, University of Tromsø. http://goo.gl/MxPuIq.

  • Pfaff, Alexander. 2014. Inside and outside—before and after: Weak and strong adjectives in Icelandic. In Adjectives in Germanic and Romance: Variation and change, eds. Petra Sleeman, Freek Van de Velde, and Harry Perridon, 217–244. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platzack, Christer. 1987. The Scandinavian languages and the null-subject parameter. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5(2): 377–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platzack, Christer. 2006. Case as Agree marker. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 77: 71–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platzack, Christer. 2013. Head movement as a phonological operation. In Diagnosing syntax, eds. Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver, 21–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The higher functional field: Evidence from North Italian Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3): 365–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. MIT Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, eds. Miriam Butt and Wilhem Geuder, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuland, Eric, and Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir. 1997. Long distance ‘binding’ in Icelandic: Syntax or discourse? In Atomism and binding, eds. Hans Bennis, Pierre Pica, and Johan Rooryck, 323–40. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuland, Eric, and Martin Everaert. 2001. Deconstructing binding. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, eds. Chris Collins, and Mark Baltin, 634–669. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuland, Eric. 2006a. Agreeing to bind. In Organizing Grammar: Linguistic studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, eds. Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz, and Jan Koster, 505–513. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuland, Eric. 2006b. Icelandic logophoric anaphora. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. II, eds. Martin Everaert, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 544–557. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and language design. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. On the fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–338. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Ian G. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1986. Some comments on reflexivization in Icelandic. In Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, eds. Lars Hellan and Kirsti Koch Christensen, 89–102. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1990. On Icelandic word order once more. In Modern Icelandic syntax, eds. Joan Maling, and Annie Zaenen, 3–38. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, Susan. 2001. Predicates and their subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russi, Cinzia. 2008. Italian clitics: An empirical study. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Săvescu Cuicivara, Oana. 2009. A Syntactic Analysis of Pronominal Clitic Clusters in Romance: The View from Romanian. New York University Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The syntax of (anti-)causatives. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, Florian. 2012a. The passive of reflexive verbs and its implications for theories of binding and case. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 213–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, Florian. 2012b. Two types of external argument licensing—The case of causers. Studia Linguistica 66(2): 128–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, Florian. 2013a. On passives of reflexive verbs and the nature of (natural) reflexivity. In Proceedings of the forty-first annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 2, eds. Yelena Fainleib, Nicholas LaCara, and Yangsook Park, 205–218. Amherst: GLSA Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, Florian. 2013b. Passives of reflexive verbs: The repair of a Principle A violation. In Repairs: The added value of being wrong, eds. Patrick Brandt, and Eric Fuss, 335–364. Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sells, Peter, Annie Zaenen, and Draga Zec. 1987. Reflexivization variation: Relations between syntax, semantics, and lexical structure. In Working papers in grammatical theory and discourse structure: Interactions of morphology, syntax, and discourse, eds. Masayo Iida, Stephen Wechsler and Draga Zec, 169–238. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr. 2012. Germynd en samt þolmynd: Um nýju þolmyndina í íslensku [Active but still passive: On the New Passive in Icelandic]: University of Iceland M.A. Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1986a. Moods and (long distance) reflexives in Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 25: 1–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1986b. Verb post-second in a V2 language. In Scandinavian Syntax, eds. Östen Dahl, and Anders Holmberg, 138–149. Stockholm: Institute of Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. University of Lund Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1990. Long distance reflexives and moods in Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic syntax, eds. Joan Maling, and Annie Zaenen, 309–346. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1993. The structure of the Icelandic NP. Studia Linguistica 47(2): 177–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2000. The locus of case and agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65: 65–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2006a. The Icelandic noun phrase: Central traits. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 121: 193–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2006b. The nom/acc alternation in Germanic. In Comparative studies in Germanic syntax, eds. Jutta M. Hartmann, and László Molnárfi, 13–50. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2009. The no case generalization. In Advances in comparative Germanic syntax, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Jorge Hankamer, Thomas McFadden, Justin Nuger, and Florian Schäfer, 249–279. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2010. On EPP effects. Studia Linguistica 64(2): 159–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2011. On the New Passive. Syntax 14(2): 148–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012a. On UG and materialization. Linguistic Analysis 37(3–4): 367–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012b. Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43(2): 191–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann and Anders Holmberg. 2008. Icelandic dative intervention: Person and number are separate probes. In Agreement restrictions, eds. Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 251–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurjónsdóttir, Sigríður. 1992. Binding in Icelandic: Evidence from Language Acquisition. University of California, Los Angeles Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurjónsdóttir, Sigríður. To appear. Nýja þolmyndin nú og þá [The new passive now and then]. In Tilbrigðí í íslenskri setningager ð III [Variation in Icelandic Syntax III], Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, eds. Höskuldur Thráinsson, Ásgrímur Angantýsson and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurjónsdóttir, Sigríður, and Nina Hyams. 1992. Reflexivization and logophoricity: Evidence from the acquisition of Icelandic. Language Acquisition 2(4): 359–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurjónsdóttir, Sigríður, and Joan Maling. 2001. Það var hrint mér á leiðinni í skólann: Þolmynd eða ekki þolmynd? [There was pushed me on the way to school: Passive or not passive?]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 23(1): 123–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, 213–276, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, Arnim. 1995. Lexical decomposition in syntax. In Lexical knowledge in the organisation of language, eds. Urs Egli, Peter E. Pause, Christoph Schwarze, Arnim von Stechow, and Götz Wienold, 81–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svavarsdóttir, Ásta. 1982. Þágufallssýki: Breytingar á fallnotkun í frumlagssæti ópersónulegra setninga [Dative sickness: changes in the subject case of impersonal sentences]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 4: 19–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Icelandic case and the structure of events. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5(1–3): 197–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svenonius, Peter. 2005. The Nanosyntax of the Icelandic passive. Paper presented at the Lund Grammar Colloquium. http://goo.gl/vvmeHo.

  • Svenonius, Peter. 2006. Case alternations and the Icelandic passive and middle. In Passives and impersonals in European languages, eds. Satu Manninen, Diane Nelson, Katrin Hiietam, Elsi Kaiser and Virve Vihman, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://goo.gl/Ihgh4S.

  • Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Merge, Project, and Bundle. Manuscript: University of Tromsø CASTL. http://goo.gl/N8mfwn.

  • Terzi, Arhonto. 1999. Clitic combinations, their hosts and their ordering. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17: 85–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1975. Reflexives and subjunctives in Icelandic. In Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, eds. Alan Ford, John Reighard and Rajendra Singh, 225–239. Montreal: Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On Complementation in Icelandic. Harvard University Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1986. V1, V2, V3 in Icelandic. In Verb-second phenomena in Germanic languages, eds. Hubert Haider, and Martin Prinzhorn, 169–194. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1990. A semantic reflexive in Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic syntax, ed. Joan Maling, and Annie Zaenen, 289–307. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1991. Long-distance reflexives and the typology of NPs. In Long distance anaphora, eds. Jan Koster, and Eric Reuland, 49–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1993. On the structure of infinitival complements. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 3(1): 181–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1999. Íslensk setningafræði [Icelandic Syntax]. Reykjavík: Málvísinda-stofnun Háskóla Íslands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2003. Syntactic variation, historical development, and minimalism. In Minimalist syntax, ed. Randall Hendrick, 152–191. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2010. Predictable and unpredictable sources of variable verb and adverb placement in Scandinavian. Lingua 120(5): 1062–1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2012. Ideal speakers and other speakers: The case of dative and some other cases. In Variation in datives: A micro-comparative perspective, eds. Beatriz Fernández, and Ricardo Etxepare, 161–188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Ásta Svavarsdóttir, Eiríkur Rögnvaldsson, Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson, Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir, and Þórunn Blöndal. 2013. Hvert stefnir í íslenskri setningagerð? Um samtímalegar kannanir og málbreytingar [Where is Icelandic syntax headed? On synchronic studies and linguistic change]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 35: 47–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Ásta Svavarsdóttir, and Þórunn Blöndal. To appear a. Fallmörkun [Case marking]. In Tilbrigðí í íslenskri setningagerð II [Variation in Icelandic Syntax II], eds. Höskuldur Thráinsson, Ásgrímur Angantýsson and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson. Málvísinda-stofnun Háskóla Íslands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir, Hlíf Árnadóttir, and Thórhallur Eythórsson. To appear b. Um þolmynd, germynd og það [On the passive, active and það ‘it’]. In Tilbrigðí í íslenskri setningagerð II [Variation in Icelandic Syntax II], eds. Höskuldur Thráinsson, Ásgrímur Angantýsson and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson. Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfadóttir, Theódóra A. 2008. Event typology and aspectual classes in Icelandic. Manuscript: University of Iceland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tortora, Christina. 2002. Romance enclisis, prepositions, and aspect. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20(4): 725–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ussery, Cherlon. 2009. Optionality and Variability: Syntactic Licensing Meets Morphological Spell-Out. University of Massachusetts, Amherst Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander. 1995. Referentiality and argument positions in Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 55: 89–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander. 2002. Icelandic expletive constructions and the distribution of subject types. In Subjects, expletives, and the EPP, ed. Peter Svenonius, 43–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viðarsson, Heimir Freyr. 2009. Tilbrigði í fallmörkun aukafallsfrumlaga: Þágufallshneigð í forníslensku? [Variation in oblique subject case: Dative Substitution in Old Icelandic]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 31: 15–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vikner, Sten. 1991. Verb Movement and the Licensing of NP-positions in the Germanic Languages. University of Geneva Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Bentzen Kristine, and Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2007. Rethinking Scandinavian verb movement. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10(3): 203–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Kristine Bentzen, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, and Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2009. On the distribution and illocution of V2 in Scandinavian that-clauses. Lingua 119(12): 1914–1938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, Jim. 2013. The unintentional causer in Icelandic. In Proceedings of the forty-first annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 2, eds. Yelena Fainleib, Nicholas LaCara, and Yangsook Park, 273–286. Amherst: GLSA Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, Jim, and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson. 2014. Icelandic verbal agreement and pronoun-antecedent relations. In Cross-linguistic studies of imposters and pronominal agreement, ed. Chris Collins, 196–237. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, Jim, and Inna Livitz. 2012. What isn’t an oblique subject in Icelandic and Russian? Paper presented at Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects within and across Languages and Language Families: Stability, Variation and Change, University of Iceland, June 5th, 2012. http://goo.gl/0qrVXH.

  • Wood, Jim, and Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson. 2014. Let causatives and (a)symmetric dat-nom constructions. Syntax 17(3): 269–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yip, Moira, Joan Maling, and Ray Jackendoff. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63(2): 217–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaenen, Annie, and Joan Maling. 1984. Unaccusative, passive, and quirky case. In Proceedings of the 3rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds. Mark Cobler, Susannah MacKaye, and Michael T. Wescoat, 317–329. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3(4): 441–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwicky, Arnold M., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language 59(3): 502–513.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Jim Wood

Authors
  1. Jim Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jim Wood .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wood, J. (2015). Introduction. In: Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 90. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09138-9_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation