The nominative puzzle and the low nominative hypothesis

Linguistic Inquiry

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 289-308

  Sigurosson, Halldór Armann ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Burzio's Generalization; Condition A; Intervention; Move; Quirky Case; Structural Case

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646680807     PISSN: 00243892     EISSN: 00243892     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/ling.2006.37.2.289     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Abraham, Werner. 1986, Unaccusatives in German. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 28: 1-72.
2. Åfarli, Tor A, 1992, The syntax of Norwegian passive constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
3. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2001. The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of Case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32:193-231.
4. Alien. Cynthia L. 1996. A change in structural Case marking in Early Middle English. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax II, ed, by Höskuldur Thráinsson, Samuel David Epstein. and Steve Peter, 3-20, Dordrecht: Kluwer,
5. Anagnostopoulou, Elena, 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, Baker.
6. Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Barodal, Jóhanna. 1999. The dual nature of Icelandic psych-verbs. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 64:79-101.
8. Barodal, Jóhanna, 2001, The perplexity of Nom-Dat verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24: 47-70,
9. Belletti. Adrians. 1988. The Case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19:1-34,
10. Bernódusson. Helgi. 1982. Ópersónulegar setningar (Impersonal sentences). Master's thesis. University of Iceland, Reykjavik.
11. Bianchi, Valentina. and Cristiano Chesi. 2005. Phases, strong islands, and computational nesting. Ms., University of Siena. (Presented at the 28th GLOW Colloquium, Geneva.)
12. Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54:354-380.
13. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.
14. Chomsky. Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
15. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.
16. Chomsky. Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
17. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. hy Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
18. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed, by Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
19. Chomsky, Noam. 2004, Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, ed. by Adriana Belletti, 104-131. New York: Oxford University Press.
20. Cinque, Guglielmo, 1999, Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Dalmi. Gréte. 2005. The role of agreement in non-finite predication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22. Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Eide, Kristin Melum. 2002. Norwegian modals. Doctoral dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). Trondheim.
24. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22:1-25.
25. Everaert. Martin. 2001. Paradigmatic restrictions on anaphors. In WCCFL 20, ed. by Karine Megerdoomian and Eeora Anne Bar-el, 178-191. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.
26. Eythórsson, Thórhallur. and Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson. 2003. The Case of subject in Faroese. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 72:207-231.
27. Frampton, John, and Sam Gutmann. 2002. Crash-proof syntax. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. by Samuel David Epstein and T. Daniel Seely, 90-105. Oxford: Blackwell.
28. Haider, Hubert. 1984. The Case of German. In Studies in German grammar, ed. by Jindrich Toman, 65-101. Dordrecht: Foris.
29. Hale, Ken, and Samuel Jay Keyser, 2002, Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
30. Heinat, Fredrik, 2003. Pronouns in a derivational syntax. In The Department of English in Lund: Working papers in linguistics 3, ed, by Henrik Gyllstad and Fredrik Heinat, 29-42. Lund University.
31. Heycock, Caroline, and Edit Doron, 2003, Categorial subjects. Gengo Kenkyu 123:95-135.
32. Heycock, Caroline, and Anthony Kroch. 2002. Topic, focus, and syntactic representations. In WCCFL 21. ed. by Line Mikkelsen and Christopher Potts, 101-125. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.
33. Holmberg. Anders. 1986. Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stockholm.
34. Holmberg. Anders. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31:445-483.
35. Julien, Mark. 2001. The syntax of complex tenses. The Linguistic Review 18:125-167.
36. Kayne, Richard S. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. by Samuel David Epstein and T. Daniel Seely, 133-166. Oxford: Blackwell.
37. Lehmann, Thomas. 1993. A grammar of modern Tamil. Pondicherry: Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture.
38. López, Luis. 2003, Complex dependencies: The person-number restriction in Icelandic, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 72:55-90.
39. Maling, Joan. 1980. Inversion in embedded clauses in Icelandic. IsJenskt mal og almenn may'reed 11:175-193.
40. Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
41. Mensching, Guido. 2000. Infinitive constructions with specified subjects: A syntactic analysis of the Romance languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
42. Nomura, Masashi. 2003. The true nature of nominative objects in Japanese. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, ed. by Elsi Kaiser and Sudha Arunachalam. 169-183. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 9.1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Penn Linguistics Club.
43. Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34:37-90.
44. Platzaek, Christen 1999. The subject of Icelandic psych-verbs: A minimalist account. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 64:103-115.
45. Platzack, Christer, 2003, Agreement and the Person Phrase Hypothesis. Ms., Lund University, (Presented at LingLunch, MIT. 6 November 2003.)
46. Quinn, Heidi, 2005, The distribution of pronoun Case forms in English, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
47. Richards, Norvin, 1997. What moves where when in which language? Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass,
48. Richards, Norvin. 1998. The Principle of Minimal Compliance. Linguistic Inquiry 29:599-629.
49. Rivero, María-Luisa. 2004. Spanish quirky subjects, person restrictions, and the Person-Case Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 35:494-502.
50. Schütze, Carson T. 2003. Syncretism and double agreement with Icelandic nominative objects. In Grammatik i fokus I Grammar in focus: Festschrift for Christer Platzack 18 November 2003, ed. by Lars-Olof Delsing, Cecilia Falk, Gunlög Josefsson, and Halldór Ármann Sigurosson, 2:295-303. Lund: Lund University. Scandinavian Department.
51. Sigurosson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal syntax and Case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University. (Published, Reykjavik: Institute of Linguistics, 1992.)
52. Sigurosson, Halldór Ármann. 1990-1991. Beygingarsamræ mi (Agreement). ÍsJenskt mál og almenn málfrœoi 12-13:31-77.
53. Sigurosson, Halldór Ármann. 1991. Icelandic Case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9:327-363,
54. Sigurosson. Halldór Ármann. 1994. Ókurteist fornafn (An impolite pronoun), In Jónína hans Jóns Friojónsso- nar (Festschrift for Jón Friojónsson), 38-49, Reykjavik: University of Iceland, Faculty of Arts.
55. Sigurosson. Halldór Ármann. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57:1-46.
56. Sigurosson. Halldór Ármann, 2000, The locus of Case and agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65:65-108,
57. Sigurosson, Halldór Ármann. 2001. Inflectional features and clausal structure. In Nordic and Baltic morphology, ed. by Jussi Niemi and Janne Heikkinen, 99-111. University of Joenssu.
58. Sigurosson, Halldór Ármann. 2003. Case: Abstract vs. morphological. In New perspectives on Case theory, ed. by Ellen Brandner and Heike Zinsmeister, 223-268. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
59. Sigurosson, Halldór Ármann. 2004a. Agree and agreement: Evidence from Germanic. In Focus on Germanic typology, ed. by Werner Abraham, 59-99. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
60. Sigurosson, Halldór Ármann. 2004b. Agree in syntax, agreement in signs. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 74:1-42.
61. (Also to appear in Agreement systems, ed. by Cedric Boeckx. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.)
62. Sigurosson, Halldór Ármann. 2004c. The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Rivista di Linguistica I Italian Journal of Linguistics 16:219-251,
63. Sigurosson, Halldór Ármann. 2005. Accusative and the Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic. Paper presented at the Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop (CGSW) 20, Tilburg.
64. Starke, Michal, 2001. Move dissolves into Merge: A theory of locality. Doctoral dissertation. University of Geneva.
65. Svenonius, Peter. 2005. The nanosyntax of the Icelandic passive. Paper presented at the Grammar Colloquium, Lund University. 26 May.
66. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1995. On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, ed. by Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner, 307-327. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
67. Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979, On complementation in Icelandic, New York: Garland.
68. Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2001. Object shift and scrambling. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. by Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 148-202. Oxford: Blackwell.
69. Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way Case systems: Ergative. nominative, objective and accusative. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15:181-227.
70. Woolford, Ellen. 2003. Burzio's Generalization, markedness, and locality constraints on nominative objects. In New perspectives on Case theory, ed. by Ellen Brandner and Heike Zinsmeister, 301 -329. Stanford, Calif.: CSEI Publications.
71. Yip, Moira, Joan Maling, and Ray Jackendoff. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63:217-250.
72. Zwart. C. Jan-Wouter. 2002. Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. by Samuel David Epstein and T. Daniel Seely. 269-304. Oxford: Blackwell.