The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects

Journal of Linguistics

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 439-472

  Barddal, Jóhanna ^a   Eythórsson, Thórhallur ^b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33744937972     PISSN: 00222267     EISSN: 14697742     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S002222670300207X     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Aikhenvald, A. Y., Dixon, R. M. W. & Onishi, M. (eds.) (2001). Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2. Allen, C. L. (1986). Reconsidering the history of like. Journal of Linguistics 22. 375-409.
3. Allen, C. L. (1995). Case marking and reanalysis: grammatical relations from Old to Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Allen, C. L. (1996). A change in structural case marking in Early Middle English. In Thráinsson, H., Epstein, S. D. & Peter, S. (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax II. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 3-20.
5. Anderson, L. B. (1986). Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: typologically regular asymmetries. In Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (eds.), Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 273-312.
6. Anderson, S. R. (1990). The grammar of Icelandic verbs in-st. In Maling & Zaenen (eds.), 235-273.
7. Andrews, A. D. (1976). The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 6. 1-21. (Reprinted (’ lightly revised') in Maling & Zaenen (eds.), 165-185.)
8. Andrews, A. D. (1990). Case structures and control in Modern Icelandic. In Maling & Zaenen (eds.), 187-234.
9. Askedal, J. O. (2001). ‘Oblique subjects’, structural and lexical case marking: some thoughts on case assignment in North Germanic and German. In Faarlund (ed.), 65-97.
10. Barddal, J. (1998). Argument structure, syntactic structure and morphological case of the impersonal construction in the history of Scandinavian. Scripta Islandica 49. 21.33.
11. Barddal, J. (2000a). Oblique subjects in Old Scandinavian. NOWELE 37. 25.51.
12. Barddal, J. (2000b). The Subject is nominative! On obsolete axioms and their deep-rootedness. In Lindberg, C.-E. & Lund, S. N. (eds.), 17th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Odense: Institute of Language and Communication. 93.117.
13. Barddal, J. (2001). The perplexity of Dat-Nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24. 47.70.
14. Barddal, J. (2003). The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: beyond thematic roles. To appear in Abraham, W. (ed.) (2004), Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 57.
15. Barnes, M. P. (1986). Subject, nominative and oblique case in Faroese. Scripta Islandica 37. 13.46.
16. Bickel, B. (2001). The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Bhaskararao, P. (ed.), Working Papers of the International Symposium on Non-Nominative Subjects, Tokyo, December 18.21, 2001. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. 207.237. (Paper available at http://www.spw.unizh.ch/mitarbeiter/bickel/papers)
17. Bobaljik, J. D. & Jonas, D. (1996). Subject positions and the role of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 195.236.
18. Butler, M. C. (1977). Reanalysis of object as subject in Middle English impersonal constructions. Glossa 11. 155.170.
19. Cleasby, R. & Vigfusson, G. (1957). An Icelandic-English dictionary (2nd edn. with a supplement by Sir W. A. Craigie). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
20. Cole, P., Harbert, W., Hermon, G. & Sridhar, S. N. (1980). The acquisition of subjecthood. Language 56. 719.743.
21. Faarlund, J. T. (1990). Syntactic change: toward a theory of historical syntax. Berlin: Mouton.
22. Faarlund, J. T. (2001a). The notion of oblique subject and its status in the history of Icelandic. In Faarlund (ed.), 99.135.
23. Faarlund, J. T. (ed.) (2001b). Grammatical relations in change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
24. Falk, C. (1997). Fornsvenska upplevarverb [Old Swedish experiencer verbs]. Lund: Lund University Press.
25. van der Gaaf, W. (1904). The transition from the impersonal to the personal construction in Middle English. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. (Reprinted 1967, Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.)
26. Harris, A. C. (1973). Psychological predicates in Middle English. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego.
27. Haugan, J. (2001). Old Norse word order and information structure. Ph.D. dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).
28. Hermon, G. (1985). Syntactic modularity. Dordrecht: Foris.
29. Holmberg, A. (2000). Scandinavian stylistic fronting: how any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 445.483.
30. Jespersen, O. (1927). A Modern English grammar on historical principles (vol. 3). London: Allen & Unwin.
31. Kristoffersen, K. E. (1991). Kasus, semantiske roller og grammatiske funksjonar i norront [Case, semantic roles and grammatical functions in Old Norse]. Institutt for nordistikk og litteraturvitskap, University of Oslo.
32. Kristoffersen, K. E. (1994). Passiv i norront og nyislansk. ei samanlikning [The passive in Old Norse and Modern Icelandic. a comparison]. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 12. 43.69.
33. Kristoffersen, K. E. (1996). Infinitival phrases in Old Norse: aspects of their syntax and semantics. Oslo: University of Oslo.
34. Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Lightfoot, D. (1999). The development of language: acquisition, change, and evolution. London: Blackwell.
36. Maling, J. (1998). Review of Kristoffersen (1996). Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 16. 219.231.
37. Maling, J. & Zaenen A. (eds.) (1990). Modern Icelandic syntax (Syntax and Semantics 24). San Diego: Academic Press.
38. Masica, C. P. (1976). Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Moore, J. & Perlmutter, D. M. (2000). What does it take to be a dative subject? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18. 373.416.
40. Morck, E. (1994). The distribution of subject properties and the acquisition of subjecthood in the West Scandinavian languages. In Swan, T., Morck, E. & Westwik, O. J. (eds.), Language change and language structure: older Germanic languages in a comparative perspective. Berlin: de Gruyter. 159.194.
41. Neeleman, A. & Weerman, F. (1999). Flexible syntax: a theory of case and arguments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
42. Onishi, M. (2001). Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: parameters and properties. In Aikhenvald et al. (eds.), 1.51.
43. Schwegler, A. (1990). Analyticity and syntheticity: a diachronic perspective with special reference to Romance languages. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
44. Smith, H. (1994). Dative Sickness in Germanic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12. 675.736.
45. Smith, H. (1996). Restrictiveness in Case Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Steever, S. (ed.) (1998). The Dravidian languages. London: Routledge.
47. Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 57. 33.65.
48. Verma, M. K. & Mohanan, K. P. (eds.) (1990). Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages. Stanford: CSLI.
49. Vincent, N. (1997). Synthetic and analytic structures. In Maiden, M. & Parry, M. (eds.), Dialects of Italy. London: Routledge. 99.105.