Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-l8wb7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-25T08:08:19.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Thórhallur Eythórsson  and
Jóhanna Barđdal
Thórhallur Eythórsson*
Affiliation:
University of Iceland
Jóhanna Barđdal*
Affiliation:
University of Bergen
*
Eythórsson, Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland, Nýja Garði, IS-101 Reykjavik, Iceland [tolli@hi.is]
Barđdal, Department of Scandinavian Languages and Literature, University of Bergen, Sydnesplassen 7, N-5052 Bergen, Norway [johanna.barddal@nor.uib.no]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue that subject-like obliques of the impersonal construction show behavioral properties of syntactic subjects in Old Germanic, contrary to standard assumptions (Cole et al. 1980). Subject tests, including control infinitives, reveal that subject-like obliques in Old and Early Middle English, Old Swedish, and Old Norse-Icelandic exhibit behavioral properties of subjects, as they do in Modern Icelandic and Faroese. We also present new data from Modern German, illustrating the same syntactic behavior of corresponding arguments in that language. Thus, we conclude that subject-like obliques exhibit behavioral properties of syntactic subjects from the earliest attested Germanic period onwards. Our findings contradict the standard view that these arguments were objects, which gradually acquired subject properties. We show that data from Gothic intended to support the standard view has been misinterpreted. Given the validity of our findings there are no grounds for reconstructing a stage at which subject-like obliques were objects in Germanic

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 81 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 824 - 881
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abraham, Werner. 1993. Null subjects in the history of German: From IP to CP. Lingua 89. 117–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramov, Boris A. 1967. Modelle der subjektlosen Sätze im Deutschen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 4. 361–74.Google Scholar
Ackema, Peter. 2002. A morphological approach to the absence of expletive PRO. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 291–319.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., Dixon, R. M. W.; and Onishi, Masayuki (eds.) 2001. Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 1986. Reconsidering the history of like. Journal of Linguistics 22. 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 1996. A change in structural case marking in Early Middle English. Studies in comparative Germanic syntax 2, ed. by Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Epstein, Samuel D., and Peter, Steve, 3–20. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1990. The grammar of Icelandic verbs in -st. Modern Icelandic syntax (Syntax and semantics 24), ed. by Maling, Joan and Zaenen, Annie, 235–73. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery D. 1976. The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. North Eastern Linguistic Society 6. 1–21.Google Scholar
Angantýsson, Ásgrímur. 2003. Um orðaröð í íslensku með hliðsjón af setningaráherslu og tónfalli [On word order in Icelandic with regard to nuclear stress and intonation]. Reykjavík: University of Iceland master's thesis.Google Scholar
Askedal, John Ole. 2001. ‘Oblique subjects’, structural and lexical case marking: Some thoughts on case assignment in North Germanic and German. In Faarlund 2001b, 65–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna. 1998. Argument structure, syntactic structure and morphological case of the impersonal construction in the history of Scandinavian. Scripta Islandica 49. 21–33.Google Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna. 2000a. The subject is nominative! On obsolete axioms and their deeprootedness. 17th Scandinavian conference of linguistics, ed. by Lindberg, Carl-Erik and Lund, Steffen Nordahl, 93–117. Odense: Institute of Language and Communication.Google Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna. 2000b. Oblique subjects in Old Scandinavian. North-Western European Language Evolution 37. 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna. 2001a. Case in Icelandic—A synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach. Lund: Lund University dissertation. [Published as Lundastudier i nordisk språkvetenskap A57, Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages, 2001].Google Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna. 2001b. The perplexity of Dat-Nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24. 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna. 2001c. The role of thematic roles in constructions? Evidence from the Icelandic inchoative. In Holmer, et al. vol. 1, 127–37.Google Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna. 2002. ‘Oblique subjects’ in Icelandic and German. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 70. 61–99.Google Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna. 2004. The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. Studies in Germanic typology (Studia Typologica 6), ed. by Abraham, Werner, 101–30. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 16, to appear.Google Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna. 2006-7. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. (Constructional approaches to language.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, to appear.Google Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna, and Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2003a. The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39. 439–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna, and Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2003b. Icelandic vs. German: Oblique subjects, agreement and expletives. Chicago Linguistic Society 39.1.1–14.Google Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna, and Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2005. Case and control constructions in German, Faroese and Icelandic: Or how to evaluate marginally-acceptable data? Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 75. 1–36.Google Scholar
Barnes, Michael. 1986. Subject, nominative and oblique case in Faroese. Scripta Islandica 38. 3–35.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 2004. Non-nominative subjects in comparison. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao vol. 1, 31–58.Google Scholar
Bernódusson, Helgi. 1982. Ópersónulegar setningar [Impersonal sentences]. Reykjavík: University of Iceland master's thesis.Google Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri, and Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata (eds.) 2004. Non-nominative subjects. (2 vols.) (Typological studies in language 60-61.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2004. The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao vol. 2, 25–60.Google Scholar
Butler, Milton C. 1977. Reanalysis of objects as subject in Middle English in impersonal constructions. Glossa 11.2.155–70.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2001. A reexamination of the accusative to ergative shift in Indo-Aryan. Time over matter: Diachronic perspectives on morphosyntax, ed. by Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway, 105–41. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1990. Impersonal constructions and sentential arguments in German. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela. 2004. (In)transitivity and object marking: Some current issues. Romance objects, ed. by Fiorentino, Guiliana, 51–87. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chung Sandra, D. 1976. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation. [Revised version published, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978].Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, Harbert, Wayne, Hermon, Gabriella; and Sridhar, S. N.. 1980. The acquisition of subjecthood. Language 56. 719–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth A. 1988. What is a subject? Non-nominative subjects in Icelandic. North Eastern Linguistic Society 18. 94–108.Google Scholar
Croft, William, 1998. Event structure in argument linking. The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. by Butt, Miriam and Geuder, Wilhelm, 21–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Verbs: Aspect and argument structure. Manchester: University of Manchester, ms. Online: http://lings.ln.man.ac.uk/Info/staff/WAC/WACpubs.html.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal, Ingerid. 1966. Kurze Deutsche Syntax auf historischer Grundlage. 3rd edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1991. Om genitivens utveckling i fornsvenskan [On the development of the genitive in Old Swedish]. Studier i svensk språkhistoria 2, ed. by Malmgren, Sven-Göran and Ralph, Bo, 12–30. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1995. Prepositionsstrandning och kasus i äldre svenska [Preposition stranding and case in older Swedish]. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 110. 141–78.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2006. Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory. Catching language: The standard challenge of grammar writing, ed. by Felix Ameka, Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, to appear.Google Scholar
Elmer, Willy. 1981. Diachronic grammar: The history of Old and Middle English subjectless constructions. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 1995. Verbal syntax in the early Germanic languages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2001. Dative vs. nominative: Changes in quirky subjects in Icelandic. In Holmer et al. vol. 2, 37–52.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2002. Changes in subject case marking in Icelandic. Syntactic effects of morphological change, ed. by Lightfoot, David, 196–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur, and Barđdal, Jóhanna. 2003. Oblique subjects: A Germanic inheritance! Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 71. 145–202.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur, and Jónsson, Jóhannes G.. 2003. The case of subject in Faroese. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 72. 207–31.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan T. 1990. Syntactic change: Toward a theory of historical syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan T. 2001a. The notion of oblique subject and its status in the history of Icelandic. In Faarlund 2001b, 99–135.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan T. (ed.) 2001b. Grammatical relations in change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan T. 2004. The syntax of Old Norse: With a survey of the inflectional morphology and a complete bibliography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Falk, Cecilia. 1995. Lexikalt kasus i svenska [Lexical case in Swedish]. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 110. 141–78.Google Scholar
Falk, Cecilia. 1997. Fornsvenska upplevarverb [Old Swedish experiencer verbs]. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 1992. Die Struktur des Deutschen Mittelfeldes und die Ergativitäts-problematik. Deutsche Syntax: Ansichten und Aussichten, ed. by Hoffman, Lutz, 276–303. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2002. Quirky subjects and other specifiers. More than words: A festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, ed. by Kaufmann, Ingrid and Stiebels, Barbara, 227–50. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., and Kay, Paul. 1993. Construction grammar coursebook, chs. 1-11 (Reading materials for Ling X20). Berkeley: University of California, ms.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul; and O'Connor, Mary Kay. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga C. M., and van der Leek, Frederike C.. 1983. The demise of the Old English impersonal construction. Journal of Linguistics 19. 337–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga C. M., van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem F.; and van, Wim Wurff, der. 2000. The syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susann, and Blaszczak, Joanna. 2001. Diachronic perspective of quirky subjects. Working papers of the international symposium on ‘non-nominative subjects‘, ed. by Bhaskararao, Peri, 42–56. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
Foreman, John. 2004. Experiencer subjects in Macuiltianguis Zapotec. Paper presented at the Conference on Oto-Manguean and Oaxacan Languages, University of California, Berkeley, March 2004. Online: http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/grads/jforeman/COOL_Handout_2004_Experiencer_Subjects_in_Macuiltianguis_Zapotec_Revised.pdf.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther. 1989. Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2002. Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions: Cross-linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1991. Null subjects and expletives in Romance and Germanic languages. Issues in Germanic syntax, ed. by Abraham, Werner, Kosmeijer, Wim, and Reuland, Eric, 49–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2005. How to turn German into Icelandic—and derive the OV-VO contrasts. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8. 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hálfdanarson, Helgi (ed.) 1984. Gætum tungunnar [Let's watch our language]. Reykjavík: Hið íslenska bókmenntafélag.Google Scholar
Halldórsson, Halldór. 1982. Um méranir [On dativizings]. Íslenskt mál 4. 159–89.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 1973. Psychological predicates in Middle English. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C., and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Aikhenvald, et al., 53–83.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description? Studies in Language 28. 554–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, and Caruana, Sandro. 2000. Subject diffuseness in Maltese: On some subject properties of experiential verbs. Folia Linguistica 34. 3–4.245–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugan, Jens. 1998. Passiv av norrøne dobbelt objekt-konstruktionar og subjektspørsmålet [The passive of Old Norse double object constructions and the issue of subjecthood]. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 16. 157–84.Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard, and Buscha, Joachim. 1988. Deutsche Grammatik: Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. 11th edn. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Hermon, Gabriella. 1985. Syntactic modularity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Holmer, Arthur, Svantesson, Jan-Olof; and Viberg, Åke (eds.) 2001. Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. (2 vols.) Lund: Department of Linguistics and Phonetics.Google Scholar
Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar H. 2001. An optimality theory analysis of agreement in Icelandic Dat-Nom constructions. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 68. 15–47.Google Scholar
Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar H. 2004. Oblique subjects and stylistic fronting in the history of Scandinavian and English: The role of IP-Spec. Aarhus: University of Aarhus dissertation.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, and Culicover, Peter W.. 2003. The semantic basis of control in English. Language 79. 517–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard D., and Joseph, Brian D.. 2003. Introduction: On language, change, and language change—or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In Joseph & Janda, 3–180.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. 3. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jonas, Dianne. 2002. Recent change in Faroese experiencer constructions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes G. 1996. Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes G. 1997-98. Sagnir með aukafallsfrumlagi [Verbs selecting for oblique subjects]. Íslenskt mál 19-20.11–43.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes G. 2000. Case and double objects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 8. 1–94.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes G., and Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2005. Variation in subject case marking in Insular Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28.2.23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1981. On the synchrony and diachrony of Modern Greek na. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 7. 139–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2002. On some control structures in Hellenistic Greek: A comparison with Classical and Modern Greek. Linguistic Discovery 1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D., and Janda, Richard D. (eds.) 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. Subject and topic, ed. by Lee, Charles N., 303–34. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank, and Lapata, Maria. 2003. Using the web to obtain frequencies for unseen bigrams. Computational Linguistics 29. 459–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Frank, Lapata, Maria; and Ourioupina, Olga. 2002. Using the web to overcome data sparseness. Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, ed. by Hajic, Jan and Matsumoto, Yuji, 230–37. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Kikusawa, Ritsuko. 2002. Proto Central Pacific ergativity: Its reconstruction and development in the Fijian, Rotuman and Polynesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kiss, Tibor. 2003. Die Genese der Ausnahmeanapher. Arbeiten zur Reflexivierung, ed. by Gunkel, Lutz, Müller, Gereon, and Zifonun, Gisela, 157–88. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Klaiman, M. H. 1991. Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, Kristian E. 1994. Passiv i norrønt og nyislansk—ei samanlikning [The passive in Old Norse-Icelandic and Modern Icelandic—a comparison]. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 12. 43–69.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, Kristian E. 1996. Infinitival phrases in Old Norse: Aspects of their syntax and semantics. Oslo: University of Oslo dissertation.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1994. L'Actance. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Leirbukt, Oddleif. 1997. Untersuchungen zum bekommen-Passiv im heutigen Deutsch. (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 177.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin. 2002. Kontroll i svenskan. Den optimala tolkningen av infinitivers tankesubjekt [Control in Swedish: The optimal interpretation of the unexpressed subject of infinitives]. Göteborg: Göteborg University dissertation. [Published as Nordistica Gothoburgensia 25, Göteborg: Elanders Novum, 2002].Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1976. Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Jim. 1997. Subjecthood and subject positions. Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative grammar, ed. by Haegeman, Liliane, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, Terence. 1985. Infinitival complements in German: lassen, scheinen and the verbs of perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, John, and Perlmutter, David M.. 2000. What does it take to be a dative subject? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18. 373–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mørck, Endre. 1992. Subjektets kasus i norrønt og mellomnorsk [The case of the subject in Old Norse-Icelandic and Middle Norwegian]. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 107. 53–99.Google Scholar
Mørck, Endre. 1994. The distribution of subject properties and the acquisition of subjecthood in the West Scandinavian languages. Language change and language structure: Older Germanic languages in a comparative perspective, ed. by Swan, Toril, Mørck, Endre, and Westwik, Olaf J., 159–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Simon. 2000. A note on animacy hierarchy effects in Sasak and Sumbawan. Sasak: Working Papers in Sasak 2. 49–56.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, and Weerman, Fred. 1999. Flexible syntax: A theory of case and arguments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In Joseph & Janda, 283–310.Google Scholar
Ottósson, Kjartan G. 1992. The middle voice in Icelandic. Lund: Lund University dissertation.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M., and Moore, John. 2002. Language-internal explanation: The distribution of Russian impersonals. Language 78. 619–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, Hjalmar P. 2002. Quirky case in Faroese. Fróðskaparrit 50. 63–76.Google Scholar
Peterson, John M. 1998. Grammatical relations in Pali and the emergence of ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1982. Zum Subjektbegriff im Deutschen. Satzglieder im Deutschen: Vorschläge zur syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Fundierung, ed. by Abraham, Werner, 171–211. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa. 2004. Spanish quirky subjects, person restrictions, and the person-case constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 494–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1991. Quirky subjects in Old Icelandic. Papers from the twelfth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, ed. by Sigurðsson, Halldór Á., 369–78. Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1995. Old Icelandic: A non-configurational language? Northwestern European Language Evolution 26. 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1996. Frumlag og fall að fornu [Subject and case in Old Icelandic]. Íslenskt mál 18. 37–69.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 1997. Infl in child and adult language: Agreement, case and licensing. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór Á. 1983. Um frásagnarumröðun og grundvallarorðaröð í forníslensku ásamt nokkrum samanburði við nútímamál [On narrative inversion and basic word order in Old Icelandic, with some comparison to Modern Icelandic]. Reykjavík: University of Iceland master's thesis. [Published, Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland, 1994].Google Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór A. 1989. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Lund: Lund University dissertation. [Published, Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland, 1992].Google Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór Á. 1990-91. Beygingarsamræmi [Agreement]. Íslenskt mál 12-13.31–77.Google Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór Á. 1991. Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 327–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór Á. 1992. The case of quirky subjects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 49. 1–26.Google Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór Á. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57. 1–46.Google Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór Á. 2002a. To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 691–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór A. 2002b. Agree and agreement: Evidence from Germanic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 70. 101–56.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry. 1994. ‘Dative sickness’ in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12. 675–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Henry. 1996. Restrictiveness in case theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 2001. Why quirky case really isn't quirky (or how to treat dative sickness in Icelandic). Polysemy in cognitive linguistics, ed. by Cuyckens, Hubert and Zawada, Britta, 115–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 2002. The polysemy of German es, iconicity, and the notion of conceptual distance. Cognitive Linguistics 13.1.67–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snædal, Magnús. 1998. A concordance to Biblical Gothic. Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland, and University of Iceland Press.Google Scholar
Steever, Sanford B. (ed.) 1998. The Dravidian languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur. 2003. On the ‘quirky’ difference Icelandic vs. German: A note of doubt. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 71. 1–32.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland, 1979].Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1998. Infinitival complements in some Old and Modern Germanic languages. Historische germanische und deutsche Syntax: Akten des internationalen Symposiums anläßlich des 100. Geburtstages von Ingerid Dal, ed. by Askedal, John-Ole, 335–63. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Petersen, Hjalmar P., Jacobsen, Jógvaní Lon; and Hansen, Zakaris Svabo. 2004. Faroese: An overview and reference grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya fróðskaparfelag.Google Scholar
van den Berg, Evert. 1985. Onpersoonlijke konstrukties, subjekten en nominatieve NP's in het Middelnederlands. De Nieuwe Taalgids 79.3.201–13.Google Scholar
van der Gaaf, Willem. 1904. The transition from the impersonal to the personal construction in Middle English. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. [Reprinted, Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1967].Google Scholar
Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander. 1995. Referentiality and argument positions in Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 55. 89–109.Google Scholar
Verma, Manindra K., and Mohanan, Karavannur P. (eds.) 1990. Experiencer subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Seefranz-Montag, Ariane. 1982. Syntaktische Funktionen und Wortstellungsveränderung: Die Entwicklung ‘subjektloser’ Konstruktionen in einigen Sprachen. Munich: University of Munich dissertation. [Published as Studien zur theoretischen Linguistik 3, Munich: Fink, 1983].Google Scholar
von Seefranz-Montag, Ariane. 1984. ‘Subjectless’ constructions and syntactic change. Historical syntax, ed. by Fisiak, Jacek, 521–53. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 2001. Verbs of affect from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. Structural aspects of semantically complex verbs, ed. by Dehé, Nicole and Wanner, Anja, 219–48. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2006. The force of lexical case: German and Icelandic compared. The nature of the word: Essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky, ed. by Kristin Hanson and Sharon Inkelas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan; and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 441–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar