Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure

Wood, Jim

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09138-9

Cited by 145 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 147 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By contrast, arguments bearing lexical/inherent Case are licensed by their theta-assigners, V or a zero P in monotransitives, applicative v in ditransitives and, perhaps, certain monotransitives as well. In this vein, McFadden (2006) andMcIntyre (2006) propose that there are applicative monotransitives, and Wood (2012) argues that arguments bearing dative case in German and Icelandic are not licensed in a uniform way.…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 97%

Case alternations in Ancient Greek passives and the typology of Case

Anagnostopoulou¹,

Sevdali²

2015

lan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents and discusses evidence that genitive and dative objects regularly become nominative in Ancient Greek passives of monotransitives and ditransitives. This is a typologically and theoretically significant state of affairs for two reasons. (i) As is well known, nonaccusative objects are, in many languages, not allowed to enter into Case alternations, a fact that has been accounted for in the government-binding/principles-and-parameters literature on the basis of the assumption that nonaccusative objects-prototypically datives-bear inherent, lexical, or quirky Case. By this reasoning, Ancient Greek genitives and datives must be concluded to have structural Case. (ii) Even in languages where dative-nominative (DAT-NOM) alternations do obtain, they are often limited to ditransitives, a fact that can been taken to suggest that dative qualifies as structural Case only in ditransitives. A language like Ancient Greek, which allows genitive and dative objects to become nominative in all passives (monotransitives and ditransitives), shows that it is, in principle, possible to have a linguistic system where genitive and dative qualify as structural Cases in both monotransitives and ditransitives. Case theories must be designed in such a way as to allow for this option. We argue for an analysis of Case alternations that combines the view that alternating datives and genitives enter the formal operation Agree with a morphological case approach to the distribution of overt case morphology. We furthermore compare Ancient Greek DAT-NOM and genitive-nominative (GEN-NOM) alternations in passives to Icelandic DAT-NOM and GEN-NOM alternations in middles, pointing to a number of interesting differences in the two types of alternations that depend on (i) the types of nonaccusative arguments entering Agree, (ii) the verbal head (Voice or v) entering Agree with nonaccusative objects, and (iii) the rules of dependent case assignment in connection to the role of nominative in the two languages.*

show abstract

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 97%

Case alternations in Ancient Greek passives and the typology of Case

Anagnostopoulou¹,

Sevdali²

2015

lan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I assume, following Wood (2015) and Myler (2016), that there are two syntactically distinct types of v: substantive v, and meaningless copula v (the latter will henceforth be referred to as v BE ). Substantive v may introduce a state variable or an event variable, and also has a causative variant (Wood 2015: 28).…”

Section: (7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 Example (6) illustrates one subtype ative structure in the present theory (on PredP, see section 4.1 below). For discussion pes of unaccusative, such as anticausatives, see Cuervo (2003); Schäfer (2008) ;Irwin exiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer (2015); Wood (2015) for a variety of approaches within this general framework. Voice {D} vP √ An unergative verb phrase, on the other hand, would look as in (5) -note the presence of a specifier requirement ({D}), and the absence of a phi-probe.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Complex copula systems as suppletive allomorphy

Myler

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Languages are known to vary in the number of verbs they exhibit corresponding to English be, in the distribution of such copular verbs, and in the presence or absence of a distinct verb for possession sentences corresponding to English have. This paper offers novel arguments for the position that such differences should be modeled in terms of suppletive allomorphy of the same syntactic element (here dubbed v BE ), employing a Late Insertion-based framework. It is shown that such a suppletive allomorphy approach to complex copula systems makes three predictions that distinguish it from non-suppletion-based alternatives (concerning decomposition, possible and impossible syncretisms, and Impoverishment), and that these predictions seem to be correct (although a full test of the possible and impossible syncretisms prediction is not possible in the current state of knowledge).

show abstract

“…These reservations notwithstanding, developing applications of Reuland's index-free minimalist theory of binding to the constructions mentioned in this paper is an intriguing and challenging research task, worth pursuing independently of this contribution. Third, they can bind anaphors: (94) Icelandic (Zaenen, Maling & Thráinsson 1985: 450) This has led many researchers to conclude that dative subjects in Icelandic occupy [Spec, TP] (Zaenen, Maling & Thráinsson 1985;Poole 2015;Wood 2015, for example). We maintain this view, and take Icelandic subjects to occupy a lower position than the Slavic ones, following in this respect Williams (2002) and Baker (2008).…”

Section: Icelandicmentioning

confidence: 99%

If you cannot agree, move on! On labels and non-nominative subjects

Citko

Germain

Witkoś

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the predictions of Chomsky's (2013; Labeling Algorithm for structures with non-nominative, non-agreeing elements in what looks like a subject position: since such non-nominative subjects do not agree with the verb, the resulting structure cannot be labeled through feature sharing. Thus, the only option for such subjects is to move from [Spec, TP] or never land there. We argue for the latter option, motivating it for PPs in Polish locative inversion, instrumental DPs in Polish predicate inversion, dative subjects in Russian and Polish, genitive subjects in Lithuanian Inferential Evidentials, and accusative DPs in Russian and Polish Adversity Impersonals. We conclude by showing that under certain very restricted circumstances (i.e. when partial Agree takes place or Agree for structural case holds but Agree for phi-features is attempted and fails for independent reasons), the non-nominative elements can remain in [Spec, TP].

show abstract

Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure

Cited by 145 publications

References 147 publications

Case alternations in Ancient Greek passives and the typology of Case

Case alternations in Ancient Greek passives and the typology of Case

Complex copula systems as suppletive allomorphy

If you cannot agree, move on! On labels and non-nominative subjects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About