Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The Linguistic Review

Editor-in-Chief: van der Hulst, Harry


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.463
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.789

CiteScore 2018: 0.69

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.643
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.679

Online
ISSN
1613-3676
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 35, Issue 3

Issues

Dative intervention is a gang effect

Andrew Murphy
Published Online: 2018-06-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2018-0004

Abstract

This paper addresses two restrictions regarding agreement with nominative arguments in Icelandic DAT-NOM constructions. The first is the reported asymmetry in intervention effects in mono-clausal versus bi-clausal environments. The second regards the well-known Person Restriction that prohibits agreement with non-3rd person arguments. It is argued that both of these phenomena can be viewed as instances of cumulative constraint interaction, where less important constraints in the grammar ‘gang up’ to block some higher constraint. In order to account for this, I adopt a model of syntax with both weighted constraints and serial optimization that is known as Serial Harmonic Grammar in the phonological literature. It will be demonstrated that such a system can offer a more principled analysis of the construction-specific nature of the aforementioned phenomena.

Keywords: agreement; dative intervention; Icelandic; person restriction

References

  • Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman. 1998. Optimal questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(3). 443–490.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Adger, David. 2006. Combinatorial variability. Journal of Linguistics 42(3). 503–530.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Adger, David & Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint. Syntax 10(1). 2–37.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Adger, David & Gillian Ramchand. 2003. Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3). 325–359.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Adger, David & Jennifer Smith. 2010. Variation in agreement: A lexical feature-based approach. Lingua 120. 1109–1134.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2006. From hierarchies to features: Person splits and direct-inverse alternations. In C. Boeckx (ed.), Agreement Systems, 41–62. John Benjamins: Amsterdam.Google Scholar

  • Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis. In L. Heggie & F. Ordónez (eds.), Clitic and affix combinations: Theoretical perspectives, 199–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Árnadóttir, Hlíf & Einar Freyr Sigursson. 2012. Case in disguise. In B. Fernández & R. Etxepare (eds.), Variation in Datives: A Micro-comparative Perspective, 96–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Arregi, Karlos & Gainko Molina-Azaola. 2004. Restructuring in basque and the theory of agreement. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 23, 101–114. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

  • Bailyn, John. 2001. The syntax of Slavic predicate case. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 22. 1–23.Google Scholar

  • Bailyn, John & Barbara Citko. 1999. Case and agreement in Slavic predicates. In K. Dziwirek, H. Coats & C. Vakareliyska (eds.), Formal approaches to slavic linguistics 7: The seattle meeting, 17–39. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.

  • Barbosa, Pilar, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis & David Pesetsky (eds.). 1998. Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Becker, Michael & Kathryn Flack Potts. 2011. The emergence of the unmarked. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume & K. Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, vol. 3, 1363–1379. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(3). 291–352.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bennis, Hans, Norbert Corver & Marcel den Dikken. 1998. Predication in nominal phrases. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1. 85–117.Google Scholar

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s Phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In D. Harbour, D. Adger & S. Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Susi Wurmbrand. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(4). 809–865.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boeckx, Cedric. 1998. Agreement constraints in Icelandic and Elsewhere. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 62. 1–35.Google Scholar

  • Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54(3). 354–380.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Aspects of the Syntax of Agreement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Boeckx, Cedric. 2009. On long-distance agree. Iberia 1(1). 1–32.Google Scholar

  • Boersma, Paul & Joe Pater. 2016. Convergence properties of a gradual learning algorithm for harmonic grammar. In J. J. McCarthy & J. Pater (eds.), Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism, 389–434. London: Equinox.

  • Bondaruk, Anna. 2015. Polish equatives as symmetrical structures. In A. Bondaruk, G. Dalmi & A. Grosu (eds.), Advances in the syntax of DPs, 61–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2003. Agree, phases and intervention effects. Linguistic Analysis 33. 54–96.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of move and agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4). 589–644.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2008. On successive-cyclic movement and the freezing effect of feature checking. In J. Hartmann, V. Hegedus & H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Sounds of silence: Empty elements in syntax and phonology, 195–233. Elsevier: Amsterdam.

  • Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 591–656.Google Scholar

  • Bowers, John. 2001. Predication. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 299–333. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Bowers, John. 2002. Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2). 183–224.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bresnan, Joan. 2001. The emergence of the unmarked pronoun. In G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw & S. Vikner (eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax, 241–277. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Broekhuis, Hans. 2008. Derivations and evaluations: Object shift in Germanic languages. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Broekhuis, Hans & Wim Klooster. 2007. Merge and move as costly operations. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 45. 17–37.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, J. Uriagereka & S. J. Keyser (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Citko, Barbara. 2008. Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua 118. 261–295.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Citko, Barbara. 2011. Symmetry in syntax: Merge, move and labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Citko, Barbara. 2014. Phase theory: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Coetzee, Andries W. & Shigeto Kawahara. 2013. Frequency biases in phonological variation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(1). 47–89.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Collins, Chris. 2000. Eliminating labels. In S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely (eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, 42–64. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • D’Alessandro, Roberta. 2003. On quirky subjects and the person restriction in Icelandic and Italian. In M. van Koppen, J. Sio & M. de Vos (eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE XI, 1–16. Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Binding, expletives and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 26(2). 347–354.Google Scholar

  • den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • den Dikken, Marcel. 2007. Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 1–41.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Frampton, John & Sam Gutmann. 1999. Cyclic computation, a computationally efficient minimalist syntax. Syntax 2(1). 1–27.Google Scholar

  • Frank, Robert. 2002. Phrase structure composition and syntactic dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Franks, Steven. 2015. The overgeneration problem and the case of semipredicates in Russian. In A. Bondaruk, G. Dalmi & A. Grosu (eds.), Advances in the syntax of DPs, 13–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Gallego, Ángel J. 2010. Phase theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28(3). 373–422.Google Scholar

  • Haegeman, Liliane, Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández & Andrew Radford. 2014. Deconstructing the subject condition in terms of cumulative constraint violation. The Linguistic Review 31(1). 73–150.

  • Harley, Heidi. 1995. Abstracting away from abstract case. In J. Beckman (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 25, 207–221. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

  • Harley, Heidi & Elisabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3). 482–526.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harves, Stephanie. 2002. Where have all the phases gone? (Non-)defective categories and case alternations in Russian. In J. Toman (ed.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 10: The second ann arbor meeting, 97–118. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, MI.Google Scholar

  • Hayes, Bruce. 2017. Varieties of noisy harmonic grammar. In K. Jesney, C. S. C. O’Hara & R. Walker (eds.), Proceedings of the 2016 annual meeting on phonology, 1–17. Washington, D.C.: LSA.Google Scholar

  • Heck, Fabian. 2008. On pied-piping: Wh-movement and beyond. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Heck, Fabian & Gereon Müller. 2000. Successive-cyclicity, long-distance superiority and local optimization. In R. Billerey & B. D. Lillehaugen (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 19, 218–231. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

  • Heck, Fabian & Gereon Müller. 2003. Derivational optimization of Wh-movement. Linguistic Analysis 33(1–2). 97–148.Google Scholar

  • Heck, Fabian & Gereon Müller. 2007. Extremely local optimization. In E. Brainbridge & B. Agbayani (eds.), Proceedings of WECOL 26, 170–183. Fresno: California State University.Google Scholar

  • Heck, Fabian & Gereon Müller. 2013. Extremely local optimization. In H. Broekhuis & R. Vogel (eds.), Linguistic derivations and filtering: Minimalism and optimality theory, 136–165. Sheffield: Equinox.

  • Heck, Fabian & Gereon Müller. 2016. On accelerating and decelerating movement: From minimalist preference principles to harmonic serialism. In G. Legendre, M. T. Putnam, H. de Swart & E. Zaroukian (eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax, semantics and pragmatics: From uni- to bidirectional optimization, 78–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Heck, Fabian, Gereon Müller, Ralf Vogel, Silke Fischer, Sten Vikner & Tanja Schmid. 2002. On the nature of the input in optimality theory. The Linguistic Review 19(4). 345–376.Google Scholar

  • Heggie, Lorie H. 1988. The syntax of copula structures. PhD thesis, University of Southern California.

  • Heycock, Caroline. 1995. The internal structure of small clauses: New evidence from inversion. In J. Beckman (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 25, 223–238. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

  • Heycock, Caroline & Anthony Kroch. 1999. Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30(3). 365–397.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heycock, Caroline & Anthony Kroch. 2002. Topics, focus and syntactic representation. In L. Mikkelsen & A. Kroch (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 21, 141–165. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

  • Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. PhD thesis, MIT.

  • Hoekstra, Teun & René Mulder. 1990. Unergatives as copula verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7(1). 1–79.Crossref

  • Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack. 1995. The role of inflection in scandinavian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Holmberg, Anders & Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2003. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 113. 997–1019.

  • Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn. 2001. An optimality theoretic analysis of agreement in Icelandic DAT-NOM constructions. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 68. 15–47.Google Scholar

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

  • Jäger, Gerhard. 2007. Maximum entropy models and stochastic optimality theory. In J. Grimshaw, J. Maling, C. Manning, J. Simpson & A. Zaenen (eds.), A festschrift for Joan Bresnan, 467–479. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

  • Johnson, Kyle & Sten Vikner. 1994. The position of the verb in scandinavian infinitives: In V0 or in C0 but not in I0. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 53. 61–84.Google Scholar

  • Jonas, Diane. 1996. Clause structure, expletives and verb movement. In W. Abraham, S. D. Epstein, H. Thráinsson & C. J.-W. Zwart (eds.), Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework,167–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. PhD thesis, UMass, Amherst.

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2003. Not so quirky: On subject case in Icelandic. In E. Brandner & H. Zinsmeister (eds.), New perspectives on case and case theory, 127–164. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

  • Kager, René. 1999. Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2016. Testing agreement with nominative objects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 97. 57–75.Google Scholar

  • Kaplan, Aaron. 2016. Long-distance licensing in Harmonic grammar. In G. Ó. Hansson, A. Farris-Trimble, K. McMullin & D. Pulleyblank (eds.), Proceedings of the 2015 annual meeting on phonology, 1–11. Washington, D.C.: LSA.Google Scholar

  • Keine, Stefan. 2010. Case and agreement from fringe to core: A minimalist approach. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Kimper, Wendell. 2011. Competing triggers: Transparency and opacity in vowel Harmony. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Kimper, Wendell. 2016. Positive constraints and finite goodness in Harmonic serialism. In J. J. McCarthy & J. Pater (eds.), Harmonic grammar and Harmonic serialism, 221–235. Sheffield: Equinox.

  • Koopman, Hilda. 2006. Agreement configurations: In defense of ‘Spec Head’. In C. Boeckx (ed.), Agreement systems, 159–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Kučerova, Ivona. 2007. Agreement in Icelandic: An argument for a derivational theory of intervention effects. In E. Bainbridge & B. Agbayani (eds.), Proceedings of 34th western conference on linguistics, 272–284. Fresno, CA: Department of Linguistics, California State University.Google Scholar

  • Kučerová, Ivona. 2016. Long distance agreement in Icelandic: Locality restored. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 49(1). 49–74.Google Scholar

  • Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Landau, Idan. 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Jaecheol. 2003. Phase sensitivity in Wh-dependencies. Korean Journal of Linguistics 28. 67–89.Google Scholar

  • Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3). 506–516.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Legendre, Géraldine, Jane Grimshaw & Sten Vikner (eds.), 2001. Optimality-theoretic syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

  • Legendre, Géraldine, Yoshiro Miyata & Paul Smolensky. 1990. Can connectionism contribute to syntax? Harmonic grammar, with an application. Report CU-CS-485-90, Computer Science Department, University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar

  • Lionnet, Florian. 2015. Phonological teamwork as quantal markedness. In K. Finney, M. Katz, L. Shorten, Q. Chan, S. Nickel-Thompson, T. Cheng & T. Block (eds.), Proceedings of the poster session of the 33rd west coast conference on formal linguistics (Simon fraser university working papers in linguistics 5), 76–85. Burnaby, BC: SFU Linguistics Graduate Student Association.Google Scholar

  • Martinović, Martina. 2016. Not all specificational sentences are reversible. Ms. Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar

  • Marušič, Franc, Andrew Nevins & Bill Badecker. 2015. The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax 18(1). 39–77.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Matushansky, Ora. 2000. The instrument of inversion: Instrumental case and verb raising in the Russian copula. In R. Billery & B. Lillehaugen (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 19, 101–115. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

  • McCarthy, John J. 2008a. The gradual path to cluster simplification. Phonology 25(2).271–319.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McCarthy, John J. 2008b. The serial interaction of stress and syncope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(3). 499–546.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McCarthy, John J. 2010. An introduction to Harmonic serialism. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(10). 1001–1018.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McCarthy, John J. 2016. {The theory and practice of Harmonic serialism}. In J. J. McCarthy & J. Pater (eds.), {Harmonic grammar and harmonic serialism}, 47–87. Sheffield: Equinox.

  • McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In M. González (ed.), Papers from the Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society 24333–379. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

  • McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. Beckman, L. W. Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (eds.), Papers in optimality theory. University of Massachusetts occasional papersvol. 18. 249–384. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

  • McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in a-movement. PhD thesis, MIT.

  • McGinnis, Martha. 2005. On markedness asymmetries in person and number. Language 81(3). 699–718.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic asymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Moro, Andrea. 2007. Some notes on unstable structures. Ms. Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele.

  • Müller, Gereon. 2000. Elemente der optimalitätstheoretischen Syntax. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Gereon. 2011. Constraints on displacement: A phase-based approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Müller, Gereon & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), 2001. Competition in syntax. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Mullin, Kevin. 2011. Strength in Harmony systems: Trigger and directional asymmetries. Ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Murphy, Andrew. 2017. Cumulativity in syntactic derivations. PhD thesis, Universität Leipzig.

  • Nomura, Masashi. 2005. Nominative Case and AGREE(ment). PhD thesis, University of Connecticut.

  • Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2007. The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 315–347.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pater, Joe. 2009. Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33. 999–1035.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pater, Joe. 2012. Serial Harmonic grammar and berber syllabification. In T. Borowsky, S. Kawahara, T. Shinya & M. Sugahara (eds.), Prosody matters: Essays in honor of Elisabeth O. Selkirk 43–72. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

  • Pater, Joe. 2016. Universal Grammar with weighted constraints. In J. J. McCarthy & J. Pater (eds.), Harmonic grammar and Harmonic serialism, 1–46. Sheffield: Equinox.

  • Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2001. On the nature of intra-clausal relations. PhD thesis, McGill University.

  • Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007. Copular sentences in Russian: A theory of intra-clausal relations. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Perlmutter, David M. 1980. Relational grammar. In E. A. Moravcsik & J. R. Wirth (eds.), Current approaches to syntax. New York: Academic Press. 195–229.Google Scholar

  • Perlmutter, David M. & Paul M. Postal (eds.), 1983. Studies in relational grammar, vol. 1. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Potts, Christopher, Joe Pater, Karen Jesney, Rajesh Bhatt & Michael Becker. 2010. Harmonic grammar with linear programming: From linear systems to linguistic typology. Phonology 27(1). 77–117.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Preminger, Omer. 2011. Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: A commentary on Baker’s SCOPA. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(4). 917–937.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky (1993/2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Rezac, Milan. 2004. Elements of cyclic syntax: Agree and merge. PhD thesis, University of Toronto.

  • Rezac, Milan. 2008a. The forms of dative displacement: From Basauri to Itelmen. In X. Artiagoitia & J. A. Lakarra (eds.), Gramatika jaietan: Patxi Goenagaren omenez, [Supplements of Anuario del Seminario de Filolog&’ıa Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” LI], 709–724. Zarautz: Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia eta Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.Google Scholar

  • Rezac, Milan. 2008b. Phi-agree and theta-related case. In D. Harbour, D. Adger & S. Béjar (eds.), Phi Theory: Phi-Features Across Interfaces and Modules, 83–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Rezac, Milan & Beatriz Fernández. 2013. Dative displacement in Basque. In B. Fernández & R. Etxepare (eds.), Variation in datives: A micro-comparative perspective, 256–282. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Rice, Keren. 2007. Markedness in phonology. In P. de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, 79–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 2011. Minimality. In C. Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, 220–238. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ryan, Kevin. 2017. Attenuated spreading in sanskrit retroflex Harmony. Linguistic Inquiry 48(2). 299–340.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schütze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, case and licensing. PhD thesis, MIT.

  • Schütze, Carson T. 2003. Syncretism and double agreement with Icelandic nominative objects. In L.-O. Delsing, C. Falk, G. Josefsson & H. A. Sigursson (eds.), Grammatik i focus/Grammar in focus. Festschrift for Christer Platzack, 295–303. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar

  • Sigursson, Halldór {Ár}mann. 1989. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. PhD thesis, University of Lund.

  • Sigursson, Halldór {Ár}mann. 1991. Beygingarsamrmi [Agreement]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfri 12. 31–77.Google Scholar

  • Sigursson, Halldór {Ár}mann. 1992. The case of quirky subjects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 49. 1–26.Google Scholar

  • Sigursson, Halldór {Ár}mann. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57. 1–46.Google Scholar

  • Sigursson, Halldór {Ár}mann. 2004. Agree and agreement: Evidence from Germanic. In W. Abraham (ed.), Focus on Germanic Typology, 61–104. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Sigursson, Halldór {Ár}mann & Anders Holmberg. 2008. Icelandic dative intervention: Person and number are separate probes. In R. D’Alessandro, G. Hrafnbjargarson & S. Fischer (eds.), Agreement restrictions, 251–280. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar

  • Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Stegovec, Adrian. 2016. Not two sides of one coin: Clitic person restrictions and Icelandic quirky agreement. In F. Marušič & R. Žaucer (eds.), Formal studies in slovenian syntax: In honor of Janez Orešnik, 283–312. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Stepanov, Arthur, Gisbert Fanselow & Ralf Vogel. 2008. Introduction. In A. Stepanov, G. Fanselow & R. Vogel (eds.), Minimality effects in syntax, 1–13. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Stjepanović, Sandra & Shoichi Takahashi. 2001. Eliminating the phase impenetrability condition. Ms. Kanda University of International Studies.

  • Tanaka, Tomoyuki & Azusa Yokogoshi. 2010. The rise of a functional category in small clauses. Studia Linguistica 64(3). 239–270.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1995. On agreement and nominative subjects in Icelandic. In H. Haider, S. Olsen & S. Vikner (eds.), Studies in comparative germanic syntax, 307–327. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland Publishing.

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

  • Ussery, Cherlon. 2009. Optionality and variability: Syntactic licensing meets morphological spell-out. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Ussery, Cherlon. 2015. Agreement and the icelandic passive. Linguistic Analysis 40(1–2). 19–54.Google Scholar

  • Ussery, Cherlon. 2017. Dimensions of variation: Agreement with nominative objects in Icelandic. In H. Thráinsson, C. Heycock, H. P. Petersen & Z. S. Hansen (eds.), Syntactic variation in insular scandinavian, 166–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Watanabe, Akira. 1993. AGR-based case theory and its interaction with the A-bar system. PhD thesis, MIT.

  • Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Wood, Jim & Halldór Ármann Sigursson. 2014. Let causatives and (A)symmetric DAT-NOM constructions. Syntax 17(3). 269–298.Crossref

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

  • Zeller, Jochen. 2013. Locative inversion in bantu and predication. Linguistics 51(6). 1107–1146.Google Scholar

  • Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. Hierarchies of Person. In W. A. Beach, S. E. Fox & S. Philosoph (eds.), Papers from the thirteenth regional meeting of the chicago linguistics society, 714–733. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-06-12

Published in Print: 2018-09-25


Citation Information: The Linguistic Review, Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 519–574, ISSN (Online) 1613-3676, ISSN (Print) 0167-6318, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2018-0004.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in