Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T00:45:56.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Perplexity of Dat-Nom Verbs in Icelandic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Jóhanna Barðdal
Jóhanna Barðdal
Affiliation:
Department of Scandinavian Linguistics, Lund University, Helgonabacken 14, S-223 62 Lund, Sweden. Department of Linguistics, University of Manchester, M13 9PL Manchester, U.K. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This paper presents data from Modern Icelandic of a small group of Dat-Nom verbs which select for two arguments: a Dative human argument and a Nominative stimulus. When applying independently established subjecthood tests on these arguments it turns out that both pass the tests, i.e. both arguments can behave like subjects and like objects, but not at the same time. An examination of the lexical meanings of these predicates reveals that they can be divided into the following main groups: Emotive verbs, Perception Verbs, Cognition Verbs, Verbs of Attitude and Benefactive verbs. A Construction Grammar analysis is proposed, assuming two different syntactic constructions to exist in Icelandic, i.e. a Dat-Nom construction versus a Nom-Dat construction. It is argued that the occurrence of these predicates in the two constructions follows directly from their conceptual causal structure. Furthermore, the choice of subject seems to be contextually determined, i.e. the more topical argument takes on the subject function. The relation between the two constructions, i.e. the Dat-Nom and the Nom-Dat, seems to be like the relation between an ordinary transitive construction and its topicalization construction, in that when the lower argument is “topicalized” to first position the other construction is activated, hence the ordinary topicalization construction in Icelandic is not as readily available to these verbs as the other construction is.

Type
Articles
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , June 2001 , pp. 47 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, C. L. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis. Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. 1997. Oblique Subjects in Old Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 60: 25–50 [also in NOWELE 37: 25–51, 2000].Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. 1998. Argument Structure, Syntactic Structure and Morphological Case of the Impersonal Construction in the History of Scandinavian. Scripta Islandica 49: 21–33.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. 1999. The Dual Nature of Icelandic Psych-Verbs. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 64: 78–101.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2000. The Subject is Nominative. On Obsolete Axioms and their Deeprootedness. In Lindberg, C.-E. & Nordahl Lund, S. (eds), 17th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Odense: Institute of Language and Communication, pp. 93–117.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. (in press) Case Assignment of Nonce Verbs in Icelandic. SKY Journal of Linguistics 13.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. (in prep.) The Dative Experiencer First Construction in Icelandic and German. Ms. Lund University/University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Barlaams ok Josaphats saga. 1981. Magnus, Rindal (ed.) for the Kjeldeskriftfondet, Oslo.Google Scholar
Barnes, M. 1986. Subject, Nominative and Oblique Case in Faroese. Scripta Islandica 37: 13–46.Google Scholar
Bernódusson, H. 1982. Ópersónulegar setningar. [Impersonal Clauses] Master's thesis. University of Iceland, Reykjavík.Google Scholar
Brennu-Njálssaga, . 1987. In Halldórsson, B., Torfason, J., Tómasson, S. & Thórsson, Ö. (eds), Islendingasögur og pœttir. Fyrsta bindi. Reykjavík: Svart á hvítu.Google Scholar
Couvalis, G. 1997. The Philosophy of Science. Science and Objectivity. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1993. Case Marking and the Semantics of Mental Verbs. In Pustejovsky, J. (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 1998. Event Structure in Argument Linking. In Butt, M. & Geuder, W. (eds), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factor. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 21–63.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2000. Lexical Rules vs. Constructions: A False Dichotomy. In Cuyckens, H., Berg, Th., Dirven, R. & Panther, Kl.-U. (eds), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honour of Günter Radden. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, A. & Croft, W. (In prep.) Cognitive Linguistics [to appear in the Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics series].Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jónsson, J. G. 1997–1998. Sagnir með aukafallsfrumlagi. [Verbs selecting for Oblique Subjects]. íslenskt mál og almenn málfrœði 19–20: 11–43.Google Scholar
Jónsson, J. G. 1998. A List of Predicates That Take a Quirky Subject in Icelandic. Ms. Reykjavík: University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Fillmore, Ch. 1999. Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: the What's X Doing Y? Construction. Language 75: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1988. A Usage-Based Model. In Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 127–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maling, J. & Jónsson, J. G. 1995. On Nominative Objects in Icelandic and the Feature [+Human]. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 56: 71–79.Google Scholar
Platzack, Ch. 1999. The Subject of Icelandic Psych-Verbs: a Minimalistic Account. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 64: 103–115.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, E. 1996a. Frumlag og fall að fornu. [Subject and Case in Icelandic Middle Ages]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfrœði 18: 37–69.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, E. 1996b. Word Order Variation in the VP in Old Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 58: 55–86.Google Scholar
Seefranz-Montag, A. v. 1983. Syntaktische Funktionen und Wortstellungsveränderung. Die Entwicklung ‘subjektloser’ Konstruktionen in einigen Sprachen. Studien zur Theoretischen Linguistik 3. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 1983. Um frásagnarumröðun í forníslensku [On Narrative Inversion in Old Icelandic]. Master's thesis. University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 1989. Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 1990–1991. Beygingarsamræmi [Agreement]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfrœði 12–13: 31–77.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 1992. The Case of Quirky Subjects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 49: 1–26.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 1979. On Complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland PublishingGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, A., Maling, J. & Thráinsson, H. 1985. Case and Grammatical Functions: The Icelandic Passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar