Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Applicatives and Applied Datives

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure

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

  • 797 Accesses

Abstract

Chapter 5 focuses on dative arguments that are introduced by Appl(icative) heads; such arguments have played a major role in the theory of argument structure in recent years, and they are a robust aspect of Icelandic syntax. Sect. 5.1 provides an overview of different kinds of applicative structures, and argues that Icelandic does not have so-called “high applicatives,” but does have “low” and “high-low” applicatives. Sect. 5.2 turns to the analysis of valency reduction in ApplP structures. It starts by studying structures closer to those studied in Chap. 3, where the external argument is prevented from merging, forming “anticausatives” of ditransitives. Here, an important morphosyntactic property of Appl is revealed: while the dative case of direct objects is systematically lost (as shown in Chap. 3), the dative case of arguments introduced by Appl is retained. This, it is proposed, underlies a somewhat surprising gap in the overall set of structures: while -st can merge in SpecVoiceP, and SpecpP, it generally cannot merge in SpecApplP. Given the analysis in Chap. 4, we know exactly what the empirical situation would look like if -stcould merge in SpecApplP, and that is simply not what we find.

However, given the analysis in Chaps. 3 and 4, there is another possibility we would expect: that Appl may introduce a semantic role but no syntactic specifier. It is argued that so-called “ingestive” verbs like ‘learn’ have exactly the properties we would expect of such a structure. The chapter closes in section 5.3 with an analysis of dative-nominative psych-verbs, and proposes that they instantiate a distinct interpretive option for the syntactic structure structure that derived anticausative ditransitives in section 5.2.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    However, if ergative case is, in some languages, a case assigned by Voice to its specifier (cf. Legate 2008), then this might not be a qualitative difference between the two heads. Still, individual languages exploit case to distinguish between arguments introduced by Appl and Voice.

  2. 2.

    The distinction does matter in general, however. For example, the derivation of figure reflexives proposed in Chap. 4, and the derivation of ingestives proposed in Sect. 5.3.3, would not work with the denotation of Voice given in (4a).

  3. 3.

    Icelandic (9b) is not the structural equivalent of German (9a), but suffice it to say that no sentence similar to (9a) in the relevant respects is possible in Icelandic.

  4. 4.

    See also the Aff head of Hole (2006) and the related analysis in Bosse et al. (2012).

  5. 5.

    I thank a reviewer for providing (13a–b) and their judgments. According to Marcel Pitteroff (p.c.), (13b) is acceptable if the dative is understood as the possessor of the bag, but is degraded if the accusative contains an overt DP-internal possessor, or if it is indefinite.

  6. 6.

    This decision is based in part on his analysis of a restriction on unintentional causers in German, where the unintentional causer reading disappears if an anticausative is marked with a reflexive, and in part on the assumption that Appl might disrupt the relation between Voice and v.

  7. 7.

    Researchers differ in what they take the categorial nature of Appl to be. Harley (1995) proposes that low Appl is a kind of preposition (similar to Pesetsky 1995); Legate (2002) proposes that a low Appl is prepositional while a high Appl is verbal; Johnson (1991) proposes that low Appl (or rather abstract HAVEP) is a kind of DP. In the present book, these issues do not make a major difference, but there are reasons to assume that at least argument introducers like high Appl and Voice have important properties in common with certain prepositions, as proposed in Wood (2013).

  8. 8.

    Example (42b) taken from http://vu2043.ispcp-01.zebra.is/gamli/frettir.php?id_teg=13&cmd=eldri&start=2009-10-01.

  9. 9.

    Eiríkur Rögnvaldsson (p.c.) tells me that he actually does not find (43b) possible, but does allow an analogous alternation with hefna(st) ‘avenge’. The conclusion is the same, however: the dative argument of hefna(st) ‘avenge’ behaves just like the dative argument of hegna(st) ‘punish’, in the relevant respects, and cannot, for example, correspond to the á PP of the nominalization hefnd ‘vengeance’ (*Endurtekin hefnd þeirra á Ingólfi stóð yfir í marga daga ‘*Their repeated vengeance of Ingólfur lasted for many days’).

  10. 10.

    According to Halldór Sigurðsson (p.c.), (57a) is a bit odd because it sounds tautological. I have no explanation for the oddness of (57b), but for present purposes the contrast between (57a–b) on the one hand and (58a–b) on the other will suffice.

  11. 11.

    Example (82) taken from http://goo.gl/MLBHJ1.

  12. 12.

    Stephen Anderson (p.c.) asks how the sentences in (79) can be claimed to be related to each other, given that the lexical root seems to mean something different in each sentence. Recall that what we are dealing with is the same root in two distinct structures, so its lexical contribution will interact with the meanings of those structures. Here it is relevant that svelgja does not just mean ‘swallow’ (which is the translation given in Anderson 1990), but ‘gulp’. That is, svelgja implies a series of punctual, fast gulping gestures while swallowing. (The more neutral word for ‘swallow’ is kyngja.) It is not much of a stretch to imagine that a non-agentive gulping experience would be construed as choking.

  13. 13.

    According to Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson (p.c.), the drekkjast in (82) would not be possible with a DP object.

  14. 14.

    In Icelandic, sjá ‘see’ can be agentive with a meaning similar to English look.

  15. 15.

    The decomposition of sárna ‘hurt’ and batna ‘improve’ into root+-\(na\) is morphologically clear, since \(\sqrt{\mathrm{S}\scriptstyle {\acute{\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{R}}}\) independently occurs (in words like ‘wound’), and \(\sqrt{\textsc {bat}}\) alternates in a related construction with b æ ta/batna ‘improve’ (see (21) in Sect. 3.3.2). There may be some reluctance in accepting that this is the same -\(na\), since the intuition is that the semantics are different when a dative is present. Nevertheless, the analysis of -\(na\) presented in this book is that it is the realization of \({\text {Voice}_{\{\}}}\) in an inchoative structure, but it, by itself, is not contributing any lexical semantics.

  16. 16.

    For some verbs, the nominative of the structure in (95) can raise to become the subject (see Barðdal 1999, 2001b; Platzack 1999; Wood and H.Á. Sigurðsson 2014). Many object experiencers are nom-acc, though some are nom-dat (see Maling 2002a, b; Jónsson 2003 for discussion). I assume that these have different underlying structures from (95), but I must set their analysis aside for now.

  17. 17.

    This denotation has been simplified for presentational purposes. The full denotation from (Bosse and Bruening (2011), p.75) would be as in (i):

    figure ca

    This difference involves an additional universal quantification over the source event, and the colon represents semantic meaning projected on a different ‘tier’ from the assertion ‘tier’. These issues are not directly relevant here, since the point is to show how the experiencer denotation of Appl can force the general type-shifting of the DP to be interpreted as an event or state. The denotation in (i) would work equally well for present purposes, but involves details not necessary here, so I stick to the simplified version in the text.

  18. 18.

    However, blöskra ‘outrage’ and ofbjóða ‘shock’ differ from sárna ‘hurt’ and gremjast ‘anger’ in that the latter verbs allow a human argument to be expressed in a PP headed by við ‘with/at’ (much like líka ‘like’ below), whereas blöskra ‘outrage’ and ofbjóða ‘shock’ do not allow this.

  19. 19.

    Note that the transitive use of virða(st) ‘seem’ illustrated in (104) involves a PP fyrir sér ‘before oneself’ which conditions the overall meaning of the verb phrase.

References

  • Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2009. ‘Eating’, ‘drinking’ and ‘smoking’: A generic verb and its semantics in Manambu. In The linguistics of eating and drinking, ed. John Newman, 91–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alexiadou, Artemis, and Jane Grimshaw. 2008. Verbs, nouns and affixation. In SinSpeC (1): Working Papers of the SFB 732, ed. Florian Schäfer, 1–16. Stuttgart. University of Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amberber, Mengistu. 1996. Transitivity Alternations, Event Types, and Light Verbs. McGill University Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amberber, Mengistu. 2002. Quirky alternations of transitivity: The case of ingestive predicates. In Language universals and variation, eds. Mengistu Amberber, and Peter Collins, 1–20. Westport: Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Stephen R. 1990. The grammar of Icelandic verbs in -st. In Modern Icelandic syntax, eds. Joan Maling, and Annie Zaenen, 235–273. New York: Academic Press.

    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 

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1993. Accusative and dative case of objects of some transitive verbs in Icelandic and the semantic distinction between them. In Flyktförsök. Kalasbok till Christer Platzack på femtioårsdagen 18 november 1993, från doktorander och dylika, 1–13. Lund: Lunds universitet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1999. The dual nature of Icelandic psych-verbs. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 64: 79–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001a. Case in Icelandic: A Synchronic, Diachronic, and Comparative Approach. University of Lund Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001b. The perplexity of dat-nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24(1): 47–70.

    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 

  • Beck, Sigrid, and Kyle Johnson. 2004. Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 35(1): 97–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosse, Solveig, and Benjamin Bruening. 2011. Benefactive versus experiencer datives. In Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Mary Byram Washburn, 69–77. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosse, Solveig, Benjamin Bruening, and Masahiro Yamada. 2012. Affected experiencers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30: 1185–1230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, Patrick. 2003. Cipient Predication: Unifying Double Object, Dative Experiencer and Existential/Presentational Constructions. Utrecht University Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 233–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruening, Benjamin. 2013. By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16(1): 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • Den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgin, Suzette Haden, and Rebecca Haden. 1991. A celebration of Ozark English: A collection of articles from the LONESOME NODE-1980 to 1990. Huntsville: OCLS Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hole, Daniel. 2006. Extra argumentality—affectees, landmarks and voice. Linguistics 44(2): 383–424.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingason, Anton Karl. 2013. The Icelandic causation of experience construction. Paper presented at the 25th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9: 577–636.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2003. Not so quirky: On subject case in Icelandic. In New perspectives on case theory, eds. Ellen Brandner, and Heike Zinsmeister, 127–163. Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2005. Merkingarflokkar nafnliða og setningagerð [Semantic classes of noun phrases and the structure of sentences]. In Setningar [Sentences] Íslensk tunga III [The Icelandic Language III], ed. Höskuldur Thráinsson, 435–458. Reykjavík: Almenna bókafélagið.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2010. Dative/accusative variation and event structure in Icelandic. Paper presented at 4th European Dialect Syntax Meeting, ‘Variation in datives: A micro-comparative perspective’, Donostia/San Sebastián, June 21–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2012. Dative versus accusative and the nature of inherent case. In Variation in datives: A micro-comparative perspective, eds. Beatriz Fernández, and Ricardo Etxepare, 144–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2013. Two types of case variation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36(1): 5–25.

    Article  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 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 2004. Prepositions as probes. In Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, ed. Adriana Belletti, vol. 3, 133–166. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 2010. The DP-internal origin of datives. Invited talk at the 4th European Dialect Syntax Meeting, ‘Variation in datives: A micro-comparative perspective’, Donostia/San Sebastián, June 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krejci, Bonnie Jean. 2012. Causativization as antireflexivization: A study of middle and ingestive verbs. University of Texas, Austin M.A. Thesis.

    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 

  • Lockwood, W.B. 1955. An introduction to modern Faroese, 4th edn. Tórshavn: Føroya Skúlabókagrunnur.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan. 2002a. Það rignir þágufalli á Íslandi: Sagnir sem stjórna þágufalli 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. 2002b. Icelandic verbs with dative objects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 70: 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling, Joan, and Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson. 1995. On nominative objects in Icelandic and the feature [+human]. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 56: 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 1989. Relations and configurations in Georgian. Manuscript, MS: University of North Carolina.

    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. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu Grammar, ed. Sam A. Mchombo, 113–151. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    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. 2013. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130: 152–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massam, Diane. 1999. Thing is constructions: The thing is, is what’s the right analysis? English Language and Linguistics 3(2): 335–352.

    Article  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 

  • McFadden, Thomas. 2006. German inherent datives and argument structure. In Datives and other cases: Between argument structure and event structure, eds. Daniel Hole, André Meinunger, and Werner Abraham, 49–77. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, Martha. 2008. Applicatives. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(6): 1225–1245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, Andrew. 2006. The interpretation of German datives and English have. In Datives and other cases: Between argument structure and event structure, eds. Daniel Hole, André Meinunger, and Werner Abraham, 185–212. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelioudakis, Dimitris. 2011. Dative arguments and abstract case in Greek, St. Catharine’s College. University of Cambridge Doctoral Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myler, Neil. 2013. On coming the pub in the North West of England: Accusative unaccusatives, dependent case and preposition incorporation. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16(2–3): 189–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platzack, Christer. 1999. The subject of Icelandic psych-verbs: A minimalistic account. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 64: 103–115.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr, and Jim Wood. 2012. Case alternations in Icelandic ‘get’-passives. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35(3): 269–312.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 1–46.

    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. 2012. Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43(2): 191–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. The different readings of wieder ‘again’: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13(2): 87–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinbach, Markus. 2002. Middle voice: A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Svenonius, Peter. 2003. Limits on P: Filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd 31(2): 431–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenonius, Peter. 2007. Adpositions, particles and the arguments they introduce. In Argument Structure, eds. Eric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya and Giorgos Spathas, 63–103. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1994. Reflexives, pronouns, and subject/verb agreement in Icelandic and Faroese. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 54: 43–58.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  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, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Ásta Svavarsdóttir, and Þórunn Blöndal. To appear. Fallmörkun [Case marking]. In Tilbrigði í íslenskri setningagerð II [Variation in Icelandic syntax II], eds. Höskuldur Thráinsson, Ásgrímur Angantýsson and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson. Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tungseth, Mai Ellin. 2007. Benefactives across Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80: 187–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valfells, Sigríður. 1970. Middle voice in Icelandic. In The Nordic languages and modern linguistics, ed. Hreinn Benediktsson, 551–571. Reykjavík: Vísindafélag Íslendinga.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, Jim. 2011. Icelandic let-causatives and case. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 87: 1–52.

    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 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 

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). Applicatives and Applied Datives. 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_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation