Case in Disguise

Árnadóttir, Hlíf; Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199937363.003.0004

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We might then expect to find the same kind of variation in varieties of Icelandic, and indeed we do. Sigurðsson & Holmberg (), Árnadóttir & Sigurðsson (), and Ussery () all report that there are speakers of Icelandic (“Icelandic C” speakers) who never allow agreement with the object in oblique‐subject constructions like (66). Following Ussery, we analyze this as a reflection of the choice between Multiple Agree and Single Agree in the grammar of Icelandic: “Standard” Icelandic allows Multiple Agree, “Icelandic C” allows only Single Agree, such that T agreeing with the direct object is never possible, the oblique subject intervening regardless of its feature content…”

Section: Extension To Icelandicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… There are also innovative (mostly young) Icelandic speakers who do sometimes allow plural agreement with dative subjects, according to Árnadóttir & Sigurðsson () (also pointed out to us by an anonymous reviewer). However, this seems to be notably rarer for Icelandic than for Faroese: it is fully accepted by eight out of 36 speakers who Árnadóttir & Sigurðsson surveyed (129–131).…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…In Muş Kurmanji, where agreement with the object is blocked, the object has oblique case, not nominative. In Icelandic, the object that cannot be agreed with can nevertheless be nominative (although there is some tendency to shift to having an accusative object in these varieties, as has happened more generally in Faroese; see Árnadóttir & Sigurðsson ). So, our suggestion (footnote 24) that T assigns direct case to the object in AK would not carry over to Icelandic.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On Partial Agreement and Oblique Case

Atlamaz

Baker

2018

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many languages, overt case marking hides ϕ‐features from agreement probes. In some languages, such as Hindi, this effect is absolute. But in Adıyaman Kurmanji, our focus here, the effect is partial: the number feature of third‐person oblique subjects can be registered on the verb. We account for the difference by saying that overtly case‐marked nominals are in fact agreed with in the syntax, but the actual transfer of ϕ‐feature values happens at PF, where it is sensitive to postsyntactic operations like Fusion. All and only heads that fuse with case (a K head) can feed valuation and thus be realized on the agreement probe. Adıyaman Kurmanji is a language where number fuses with K and this feeds agreement, resulting in partial agreement with overtly case‐marked nominals (in number but not person), whereas Hindi is not. The possibility of object agreement in these languages is, we claim, the result of Multiple Agree, which creates complex feature bundles on agreement probes that are only partially realized morphologically at PF. We further support our theory by applying it to Icelandic and Faroese, languages that are often thought not to have agreement with oblique subjects but that may allow agreement in very specific situations, which our theory elucidates.

show abstract

Section: Extension To Icelandicmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 92%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On Partial Agreement and Oblique Case

Atlamaz

Baker

2018

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Speakers of a dialect described in Jónsson :177 allow nominative objects to become accusative in a wider range of ECM constructions, so such speakers might not find the accusative in (3c) unacceptable. See Jónsson, & Eythórsson , ; Sigurðsson, , ; and Árnadóttir & Sigurðsson for recent studies of case variation in Icelandic.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, default agreement on the verb can lead to acceptable first/second‐person nominative objects in some dat‐nom structures, and morphological syncretism between the third person form of the verb and the would‐be first or second person agreeing form can improve first/second‐person nominative objects quite a bit. See also Árnadóttir & Sigurðsson for a recent discussion of speaker variation with respect to the status of nominative‐object agreement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

LetCausatives and (A)symmetricdat‐nomConstructions

Wood

Sigurðsson

2014

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The verb láta ‘let/make’ in Icelandic provides a unique opportunity to understand the behavior of symmetric versus asymmetric dat‐nom constructions, as well as the nature of nominative‐accusative case alternations. In this paper, we take a close look at láta and examine a set of cases where dat‐nom verbs are embedded under láta, resulting in the otherwise nominative object becoming accusative in some cases and remaining nominative in others. We propose that phase extension of an Appl head underlies both the availability of accusative in an embedded dat‐nom verb and the possibility of A‐moving a nominative object past the dative to the subject position. We further hypothesize that the base‐generated position of the verbal root in the syntax underlies the lexical difference between symmetric and asymmetric dat‐nom verbs.

show abstract