Abstract
This chapter details aspects of the morphosyntax of the -st clitic that played such an important role in Chaps. 3–5 but were not directly relevant to the analysis and argumentation there. Its purpose is both to support the general view of -st presented in previous chapters, as well as to provide a broader picture of Icelandic morphosyntax, which should allow for more thorough comparisons with other languages. Section 6.2 focuses on verbs which seem to be derived from nouns by using the -st clitic. It is argued that this is not quite the right characterization: rather, denominal verbs tend to be syntactically transitive, so in order to form semantic intransitives, some kind of expletive argument must be used. English uses it (in sentences like He’s guitaring it up), while Icelandic uses -st. This is consistent with, and evidence in favor of, the claim that -st is an expletive clitic that occupies an argument position. Section 6.3 turns to generic middles and so-called modal passive -st verbs, where, with certain modals, -st verbs seem to be interpreted as passive. It is argued that these facts support the analysis of -st anticaustives in Chap. 3, where the impossibility of anticausativizing agentive verbs was taken to be a basically semantic constraint. Section 6.4 reviews a similar data set with -st verbs that are licensed in the presence of the causative verb láta ‘let’; the facts there point in a similar direction as in Sect. 6.5. Section 6.6 takes a brief look at reciprocal -st verbs, and proposes that they may have either anticausative or reflexive morphosyntax. It is proposed that the reciprocal reading should be analyzed as a particular interpretation of v, rather than as an interpretation of Voice, as in some other recent analyses. Section 6.6 takes a final look at reflexive -st verbs that did not fit directly into the discussion in Chaps. 3–5, and proposes various ways that they may be integrated with the overall views presented there.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I use the term ‘stem’ instead of root in this section, because many denominal -st verbs have complex nominal morphology, and are thus likely not derived from roots, but from ‘nouns’, i.e. a [\(_\text {n}{\surd }\,n\) ] structure. Thus, kennarast in (2a) ‘teacher-st’ has the agentive -ar(i) ‘-er’ suffix (from the verb kenna ‘teach’), and fjarstýringast ‘remote control-st’ in (4) has the nominalizing -ing suffix attaching to the verb fjarstýra ‘operate remotely/by remote control’ (which is itself a morphologically complex compound).
- 2.
Example (2a) taken from http://drifalind.blogcentral.is/blog/2006/3/31/langthrad-helgi/ and (2b) taken from http://nz.myspace.com/62454103/classic.
- 3.
Example (3a) was found on the internet in August 2009, but was no longer there at the time of writing this book and (3b) taken from http://gummig.blogcentral.is/?page=9.
- 4.
Example (4) taken from http://addster.blogspot.com/2004/12/tknibull-og-hamskipti.html.
- 5.
Example (5a) taken from http://gummiogolof.vitum.net/comments/recent?page=10 and (5b) taken from http://www.hugi.is/metall/threads.php?page=view&contentId=4648643.
- 6.
Example (6a) taken from http://www.hugi.is/tilveran/threads.php?page=view&contentId=3116309 and (6b) taken from http://katrinabjorg.blogcentral.is/blog/2006/5/6/gledinlegann-solrikann-laugardag/.
- 7.
Example (7a) taken from http://rakelprinsessa.blog.is/blog/rakelprinsessa/category/1/?offset=140, (7b) taken from http://oskimon.com/2004/07/gsmbloggi-og-vodafone_25.html and (7c) taken from http://sjuklingur.blogspot.com/2004/09/tveggja-mnaa-bull.html.
- 8.
Example (8) was found on the internet in August 2009, but was no longer there at the time of writing this book.
- 9.
Example (9b) taken from http://alexandra89.blogcentral.is/?page=2.
- 10.
(12a–c) were taken from the web; only (12d) is taken from Rimell (2011, p. 84).
- 11.
Postal and Pullum (1988) call these cases ‘unlinked expletives.’ Postal (1992) explicitly argues that they are not expletives, in that they have a host of properties that distinguish them from extraposition expletives, weather expletives, existential expletives, etc. What is important for the point in this section is that this it is not a thematic argument, and this is consistent with Postal (1992).
- 12.
Example (16) taken from http://auspaus4.blogspot.com/2002_07_21_archive.html.
- 13.
Matthew Whelpton (p.c.) points out to me that some denominal -st verbs occur with overt um ‘about/around’, such as fíflast um ‘fool around’. See Barðdal (2001, p. 271) for a list of similar examples.
- 14.
These judgments are due to Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Ásgrímur Angantýsson.
- 15.
Example (18a) taken from http://blogg.visir.is/addirock/.
- 16.
- 17.
Example (22a) taken from http://www.gamlinoi.is/page/11459/ and (22b) taken from http://timarit.is/view_page_init.jsp?pageId=2216223&issId=161126&lang=en
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
Example (32) taken from http://heimur.takeforum.com/2008/11/06/faldir-vefir-hljomsveita/.
- 21.
Wood and E.F. Sigurðsson (2014a) propose a slightly more articulated structure than (31a)/(33), but the latter is sufficient for present purposes. I ignore here the introduction of the thematic internal argument, which might be a null operator, as in the analysis of adjectival passives in Bruening (2014).
- 22.
Example (37a) taken from http://timarit.is/files/16043043.txt.
- 23.
- 24.
By-phrases might be possible in some cases, such as when láta ‘let’ has an impersonal subject; see the example in E.F. Sigurðsson (2012, p. 5).
- 25.
Thanks to Anton Karl Ingason for discussing (44) with me.
- 26.
Example (45a) taken from http://thjodarheidur.blog.is/blog/thjodarheidur/month/2011/12/, (45c) taken from http://www.mbl.is/greinasafn/grein/1023306/, (45d) taken from http://timarit.is/view_page_init.jsp?pageId=2167253, (45e) taken from http://disadora.blog.is/blog/disadora/entry/664086/ and (45f) taken from http://evahardar.blogdrive.com/comments?id=527.
- 27.
For one of my consultants, hugga ‘comfort’, sefa ‘soothe’, and róa ‘calm’ are more natural than the others in the (39a) construction, with an anticausative reading. See Labelle (2008, p. 850, ex. 47) for a similar kind of example from French.
- 28.
Example (47b) taken from http://this.is/harpa/sidblinda/den_paene_psykopat.html.
- 29.
See also E.F. Sigurðsson and Wood (2012) and Wood and E.F. Sigurðsson (2014b) for a similar kind of analysis of Icelandic fá ‘get’.
- 30.
German uses the reflexive pronoun sich to mark anticausatives much as Icelandic uses the -st clitic.
- 31.
Irie (1996) has a finer-grained division than this, but his other subclasses are distinguished on such subtle grounds that it is not clear to me that they should be treated as separate classes altogether.
- 32.
The lists in this section are based on the study in Irie (1996).
- 33.
Thanks to Einar Freyr Sigurðsson for discussing this with me.
- 34.
Replacing this with the notion of \(\upvarphi \)-licensing in H.Á. Sigurðsson (2012b) would not change the content of Kayne’s proposal, since it was licensing and not morphological case that was important to the analysis.
- 35.
Kayne (1994) actually proposes movement out of the with phrase, and of course did not advocate for the sort of right-adjoined phrase structure in (70). An LCA-compatible analysis would be compatible with the present suggestion if the við phrase could be merged in SpecVoiceP, with one argument moving out of the við phrase. This would also require further movements to get the word order [some of which may be necessary anyway (cf. footnote 45 in Chap. 2)]. Since this is orthogonal to the issues here, I set it aside for now.
- 36.
While the present system should have no trouble allowing an intransitive v to take a transitive denotation, the difficulty is that we have seen all along that roots decide whether they combine with transitive or intransitive v prior to the semantics; this is why -st is needed in some cases (see Sect. 4.3.4). Therefore, if this sort of mismatch were possible, the logic of the system developed here would lead us incorrectly to expect that intransitive verbs/roots would be reciprocal, while transitive verbs/roots would not.
- 37.
This is one of the aforementioned over-simplifications; I would suspect that the v + pP combination would compositionally build up the (at present unsatisfyingly complex) “write-to” predicate, but I have to gloss over this for now.
- 38.
It is only exceptionally possible for Voice to introduce an agent role in this case if the reciprocal semantics of v is set up to provide a way to saturate that role, as shown above.
- 39.
In McGinnis (1999), v does the work of Voice here.
- 40.
- 41.
Example (88a) taken from http://www.persona.is/index.php?template=print&action=faqs&method=display&pid=17&fid=166, (88b) taken from http://reden-795549.blogcentral.is/blog/2007/4/20/joos/ and (88c) taken from http://www.visir.is/kobe-bryant-thakkar-michael-jackson-fyrir-god-rad/article/2010536128074.
- 42.
Example (89a) taken from http://timarit.is/view_page_init.jsp?pageId=2155341&issId=152486&lang=da and (89b) taken from http://www.ferlir.is/?id=7538.
- 43.
Example (91b) taken from http://www.dv.is/frettir/2011/5/28/eg-umgengst-adeins-huldufolk/ and (91c) taken from http://www.dv.is/brennidepill/2010/10/25/kenndi-sjalfri-mer-um-dauda-hans/.
- 44.
Such an analysis, if taken seriously, would have to have the effect that the case of the preposition’s complement is no longer determined by the preposition after incorporation.
- 45.
One possible problem facing this analysis might be that we would expect to see overt expressions of this \(\mathrm {v_{\{p\}}}\) head, so that prepositional prefixes would co-occur with a special verbal suffix, making the resulting expression look circumfixal; I leave it as an open possibility that such a phenomenon might be attested, in Icelandic or in some other language.
- 46.
That is, since the latter alternations are built outside of the first phase, they will not have much to say about how roots interact with syntactic structures; that interaction will be complete by the time the perfect/progressive aspectual distinction comes into play.
- 47.
Andrews referred to this as a passive reading, but these constructions generally do not have the syntactic and semantic properties of passives; there is no sign of an implicit agent identifiable by a by-phrase, for example.
- 48.
Nor would it do to adopt a weaker movement theory of control, which allows movement from a non-\(\uptheta \)-position to a \(\uptheta \)-position, such as the theory developed by Hornstein (1999, 2001), Boeckx and Hornstein (2006) and Boeckx et al. (2010). This theory has been argued to be incompatible with the Icelandic facts in the first place (H.Á. Sigurðsson 2008; Bobaljik and Landau 2009; Wood 2012, submitted), and in any event would predict that a uniform, unremarkable nominative case as in (100c) would be generally found across speakers. That is, if this theory were invoked to explain the variation in case preservation, it would leave unexplained all the other control verbs that do not show such variation.
- 49.
- 50.
Example (103) taken from http://dalur.is/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=52&Itemid=62.
- 51.
I thank Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson (p.c.) for pointing this out to me.
- 52.
30 of these speakers accepted at least one dative subject sentence like (100b). Thanks to Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson for finding the students to participate in the survey, and for discussing it with me beforehand, and to Einar Freyr Sigurðsson for helping me construct the survey in the first place.
References
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2009. On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes: The case of (Greek) derived nominals. In Quantification, definiteness and nominalization, ed. Anastasia Giannakidou, and Monika Rathert, 253–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Samioti Panagiota. To appear. Domains within words and their meanings: A case study. In The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, and Florian Schäfer, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1990. The grammar of Icelandic verbs in -st. In Modern Icelandic syntax, ed. Joan Maling, and Annie Zaenen, 235–273. New York: Academic Press.
Andrews, Avery. 1982. The representation of case in Modern Icelandic. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 427–503. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Andrews, Avery. 1990. Case structures and control in Modern Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic syntax, ed. Joan Maling, and Annie Zaenen, 427–503. New York: Academic Press.
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001. Case in Icelandic: A Synchronic, Diachronic, and Comparative Approach. University of Lund Doctoral Dissertation.
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2004. The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In Focus on Germanic typology, ed. Werner Abraham, 105–137. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2003. The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39(3): 439–472.
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2006. Control infinitives and case in Germanic: ‘Performance error’ or marginally acceptable constructions? In Case, valency and transitivity, eds. Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov, and Peter de Swart, 147–177. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Biskup, Petr, and Michael Putnam. 2012. One P with two Spell-Outs: the ent-/aus- alternation in German. Linguistic Analysis 38(1–2): 69–109.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Idan Landau. 2009. Icelandic control is not A-movement: The case from case. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1): 113–132.
Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein. 2006. Control in Icelandic and theories of control. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4): 591–606.
Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein, and Jairo Nunes. 2010. Icelandic control really is A-movement: Reply to Bobaljik and Landau. Linguistic Inquiry 41(1): 111–130.
Borer, Hagit. 2012. In the event of a nominal. In The theta system: Argument structure at the interface, eds. Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj, and Tal Siloni, 103–149. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bošković, Z̆eljko. 1994. D-structure, theta-criterion, and movement into theta-positions. Linguistic Analysis 24(3–4): 247–286.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2006. The morphosyntax and semantics of verbal reciprocals. Manuscript: University of Delaware.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2013. By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16(1): 1–41.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Word formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(2): 363–422.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2006. Restructuring and functional heads: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at Large. MIT Doctoral Dissertation.
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Edelstein, Elspeth. 2014. This syntax needs studied. In Micro-syntactic variation in North American English, eds. Raffaella Zanuttini, and Laurence R. Horn, 242–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Embick, David. 2003. Locality, listedness, and morphological identity. Studia Linguistica 57(3): 143–169.
Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 355–392.
Eythórsson, Thórhallur, and Jóhanna Barðdal. 2005. Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language 81(4): 824–881.
Fabb, Nigel. 1984. Syntactic Affixation. MIT Doctoral Dissertation.
Folli, Raffaella, and Heidi Harley. 2013. The syntax of argument structure: Evidence from Italian complex predicates. Journal of Linguistics 49(1): 93–125.
Holmberg, Anders, and Christer Platzack. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horn, Laurence R. 1980. Affixation and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Chicago Linguistics Society 16: 134–146.
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 69–96.
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.
Irie, Koji. 1996. Modern Icelandic -st reciprocal verbs. Tokyo University Linguistics Papers 15: 273–296.
Jespersen, Otto. 1942. A Modern English Grammar on historical principles. Part VI: Morphology. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic. University of Massachusetts, Amherst Doctoral Dissertation.
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1997–1998. Sagnir með aukafallsfrumlagi [Verbs with oblique subjects]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 19–20: 11–43.
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2000. Case and double objects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 8: 71–94.
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.
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.
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2009. 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.
Kayne, Richard S. 1981. Unambiguous paths. In Levels of syntactic representation, eds. Robert May, and Jan Koster, 143–183. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Malden: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 2010. A note on auxiliary alternations and silent causation. In Comparisons and contrasts, ed. Richard S. Kayne, 146–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kissock, Madelyn. 1997. Middle verbs in Icelandic. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics 9(1): 1–22.
Labelle, Marie. 2008. The French reflexive and reciprocal se. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26(4): 833–876.
Langendoen, Terence. 1978. The logic of reciprocity. Linguistic Inquiry 9(2): 177–197.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2012. Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language 88(3): 495–525.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lundin, Katarina. 2003. Small Clauses in Swedish: Towards a Unified Account. University of Lund Doctoral Dissertation.
Maling, Joan. 1990. The hierarchical assignment of grammatical cases. Handout from talk at Stofnun Sigurðar Nordals.
Maling, Joan. 2001. Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles. Lingua 111(4–7): 419–464.
Maling, Joan. 2002. 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.
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Malden: MIT Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1991/2000. Case and licensing. In Arguments and case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization, ed. Eric Reuland, 11–30. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Marantz, Alec. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Distributed Morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, eds. Ora Matushansky, and Alec Marantz, 95–115. Cambridge: MIT Press.
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax-Morphology Interface. University of Pennsylvania Doctoral Dissertation.
McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-movement. MIT Doctoral Dissertation.
McGinnis, Martha. 1999. Reflexive clitics and the specifiers of vP. In MIT working papers in linguistics: Papers from the UPenn/MIT round table on the Lexicon, vol. 35, ed. Liina Pylkkänen, Heidi Harley, and Angeliek van Hout, 137–160. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
Myler, Neil. 2014. Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences. New York University Doctoral Dissertation.
Nevins, Andrew. 2002. One -able, two attachment sites. Manuscript, MIT.
Oltra-Massuet, Maria Isabel. 2010. On the Morphology of Complex Adjectives. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Doctoral Dissertation.
Ottósson, Kjartan. 1986. Mörk orðmyndunar og beygingar: Miðmynd í nútímaíslensku [The boundaries between derivation and inflection: The middle in Icelandic]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 8: 63–119.
Ottósson, Kjartan. 1989. The anticausative middle and other voices of Modern Icelandic. Manuscript.
Pitteroff, Marcel. 2014. Non-Canonical Lassen Middles. University of Stuttgart Doctoral Dissertation.
Pitteroff, Marcel. To appear. Non-canonical middles: A study of let-middles in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics.
Pitteroff, Marcel, and Artemis Alexiadou. 2012. On the properties of German Sich-Lassen middles. 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, 214–222. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Pitteroff, Marcel, and Cinzia Campanini. 2013. Variation in analytic causative constructions: A view on German and Romance. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16(2–3): 209–230.
Platzack, Christer. 1986. The structure of infinitive clauses in Danish and Swedish. In Scandinavian Syntax: Papers from the ninth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, ed. Östen Dahl, 123–137. Stockholm: University of Stockholm, Institute of Linguistics.
Platzack, Christer. 1987. The Scandinavian languages and the null-subject parameter. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5(2): 377–401.
Postal, Paul M. 1992. Strange pronouns. Manuscript, T.J: Watson Research Center, IBM.
Postal, Paul M., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1988. Expletive noun phrases in subcategorized positions. Linguistic Inquiry 19(4): 635–670.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. MIT Doctoral Dissertation.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rimell, Laura D. 2011. Nominal Roots as Event Predicates in English Denominal Conversion Verbs. New York University Doctoral Dissertation.
Roehrs, Dorian. 2005. Icelandic case fluctuation and movement into theta-positions. University of Connecticut Working Papers in Linguistics 13: 195–229. http://goo.gl/qYXIGe.
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 267–310.
Roeper, Thomas, and Angeliek van Hout. 1999. The impact of nominalization on passive, -able, and middle: Burzio’s Generalization and feature-movement in the lexicon. In MIT working papers in linguistics: Papers from the UPenn/MIT round table on the Lexicon, vol. 35, ed. Liina Pylkkänen, Heidi Harley, and Angeliek van Hout, 185–211. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Roeper, Thomas, and Angeliek van Hout. 2009. The representation of movement in -ability nominalizations. Evidence for covert category movement, edge phenomena, and local LF. In Quantification, definiteness and nominalization, eds. Anastasia Giannakidou, and Monika Rathert, 344–364. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The syntax of (anti-)causatives. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schäfer, Florian. 2012. The passive of reflexive verbs and its implications for theories of binding and case. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 213–268.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120.
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.
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr, and Jim Wood. 2012. Case alternations in Icelandic ‘get’-passives. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35(3): 269–312.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. University of Lund Doctoral Dissertation.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2008. The case of PRO. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26(2): 403–450.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2010. Mood in Icelandic. In Mood in the languages of Europe, eds. Björn Rothstein, and Rolf Thieroff, 33–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2011. Conditions on argument drop. Linguistic Inquiry 42(2): 267–304.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012a. Case variation: Viruses and star wars. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35(3): 313–342.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012b. Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43(2): 191–227.
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1983. Parametric Variation in Phrase Structure: A Case Study. University of Tromsø Doctoral Dissertation.
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1984. Some phrase structure dependent differences between Swedish and Norwegian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 9: 1–45.
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On Complementation in Icelandic. Harvard University Doctoral Dissertation.
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1993. On the structure of infinitival complements. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 3(1): 181–213.
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Valfells, Sigríður. 1970. Middle voice in Icelandic. In The Nordic languages and modern linguistics, ed. Hreinn Benediktsson, 551–571. Reykjavík: Vísindafélag Íslendinga.
Vikner, Sten. 1987. Case assignment differences between Danish and Swedish. In Proceedings of the seventh conference of Scandinavian studies in Great Britain, eds. Robert Allan, and Michael Barnes, 262–281. London: University College London.
Volpe, Mark J. 2005. Japanese Morphology and its Theoretical Consequences: Derivational Morphology in Distributed Morphology. State University of New York, Stony Brook Doctoral Dissertation.
Wood, Jim. 2011. Icelandic let-causatives and case. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 87: 1–52.
Wood, Jim. 2012. Against the ‘Movement Theory of Control’: Another argument from Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry 43(2): 322–330.
Wood, Jim. Submitted. Icelandic Object Extraposition is still a problem for the MTC: A reply to Drummond and Hornstein. Manuscript: Yale University.
Wood, Jim, and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson. 2014a. Building deverbal ability adjectives in Icelandic. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 20(1): 351–360.
Wood, Jim, and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson. 2014b. ‘Get’-passives and case alternations: The view from Icelandic. In Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Robert E. Santana-LaBarge, 493–503. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Wood, Jim, and Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson. 2014. Let causatives and (a)symmetric dat-nom constructions. Syntax 17(3): 269–298.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 1998. Infinitives. MIT Doctoral Dissertation.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2004. Two types of restructuring—lexical versus functional. Lingua 114(8): 991–1014.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2013. Complex predicate formation via voice incorporation. Manuscript: University of Connecticut. Available on http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001968.
Yip, Moira, Joan Maling, and Ray Jackendoff. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63(2): 217–250.
Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3(4): 441–483.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wood, J. (2015). More on the Syntax of -st Verbs. 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_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09138-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09137-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09138-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)