Skip to main content
Log in

Long-Distance Agreement in Icelandic: locality restored

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The subject-predicate agreement system in Icelandic appears to show sensitivity to the morphological marking of case, instead of the syntactic position of the argument to be agreed with. Furthermore, agreement with the Nominative object appears to be optional and may be disrupted by an intervening Dative argument. This article contributes to the existing discussion by proposing a new empirical generalization about the nature of Long-Distance Agreement (lda), i.e., agreement which occurs in a bi-clausal environment, and its interaction with Dative interventions. Based on the new data from an Icelandic variety called Icelandic B, I argue that lda takes place only if the intervening Dative argument undergoes independently motivated A-movement to the edge of vP. The core idea is that the locus of agreement with the Nominative object is v—its Case licensor: lda arises only if v can probe the Nominative argument in the absence of the Dative argument. The proposed analysis thus accounts for the Icelandic patterns in a strictly derivational and locality-based manner, without any recourse to post-syntactic operations, optionality in agreement or significant modifications in the theory of \(\phi \)-feature Agree, thus restoring the Icelandic agreement system to normalcy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2001. The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 193–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Susi Wurmbrand. 2014. Movement vs. long distance Agree in raising: Disappearing phases and feature valuation. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 43, 1–12.

  • Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angantýsson, Ásgrímur. 2011. The syntax of embedded clauses in Icelandic and related languages. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Iceland.

  • Árnadóttir, Hlíf, and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson. 2012. Case in disguise. In Variation in datives: A micro-comparative perspective, ed. Beatriz Fernández, and Ricardo Etxepare, 96–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto.

  • Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4: 49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi–Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 757–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Where’s Phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi-theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Dianne Jonas. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 195–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Intricacies of Icelandic agreement. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard and University of Maryland.

  • Boeckx, Cedric. 2004. Long-distance agreement in Hindi: Some theoretical implications. Studia Linguistica 58: 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, John. 2002. Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 183–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, ed. R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Urigereka, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond, ed. A. Belletti, 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, Molly, and Eloise Jelinek. 1995. Distributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3: 123–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Dikken, Marcel. 2007. Phase extension contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endriss, Cornelia. 2009. Quantificational topics: A scopal treatment of exceptional wide scope phenomena. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgi, Doreen. 2014. Opaque interactions of Merge and Agree: On the nature and order of elementary operations. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Leipzig.

  • Hale, Ken, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prelogomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, Heidi. 1995. Abstracting away from abstract case. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting (NESL 25), 207–221. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.

  • Heim, Irene. 1987. Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In The representation of indefiniteness, ed. Eric Reuland, and Alice ter Meulen, 21–42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

  • Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word order and syntactic features. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Stockholm.

  • Holmberg, Anders. 1999. Remarks on Holmberg’s Generalization. Studia Linguistica 53: 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, Anders, and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2003. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 113: 997–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keine, Stefan. 2013. Long-distance agreement, improper movement and the locality of Agree. A talk presented at GLOW 36, Lund University, April 3.

  • Kučerová, Ivona. 2013. Perfect dependent case. In Proceedings of the 20th Formal Approaches to Slavic Languages. The MIT meeting, 117–136. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

  • Kučerová, Ivona. 2014. The syntax of null subjects. Syntax 17: 132–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, ed. German Westphal, Benjamin Ao, and Hee-Rahk Chae, 234–253. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistic Club Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Phases in the theory of grammar, ed. Sook-Hee Choe, Dong-Wee Yang, Yang-Soon Kim, Sung-Hun Kim, and Alec Marantz, 191–222. Seoul: Dong-In Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70: 369–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsen, Øystein. 2003. Eliminating positions: Syntax and semantics of sentence modification. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Utrecht.

  • Nomura, Masashi. 2005. Nominative Case and AGREEment. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut.

  • Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The representation of indefiniteness, ed. Eric Reuland, and Alice ter Meulen, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, David. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds, ed. Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy K. Wilkins, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 63–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezac, Milan. 2004. Elements of cyclic syntax: Agree and merge. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto.

  • Rezac, Milan. 2008a. Phi-Agree and theta-related Case. In Phi theory: Phi-features across interfaces and modules, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 83–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezac, Milan. 2008b. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and absolutive displacement in Basque. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26: 61–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Marc. 2008. Quirky expletives. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 181–213. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, Florian. 2012. The passive of reflexive verbs and its implications for theories of binding and case. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 213–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, Carson T. 1993. Towards a Minimalist account of quirky Case and licensing in Icelandic. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 19, 321–375.

  • Schütze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, case and licensing. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

  • Sigurðsson, H.Á., and A. Holmberg. 2008. Icelandic dative intervention: Person and number are separate probes. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunna Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 251–280. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1993. Agreement as head visible feature government. Studia Linguistica 47: 32–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, vol. 57, 1–46.

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012. Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 191–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skopeteas, Stavros, Ines Fiedler, Anne Schwarz, Sam Hellmuth, Ruben Stoel, Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry, and Manfred Krifka. 2006. In Questionnaire on information structure (QUIS): Reference manual, volume 4 of Working Papers of the SFB 632. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.

  • Svenonius, Peter. 2000. Quantifier movement in Icelandic. In The derivation of VO and OV, ed. Peter Svenonius, 255–292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1995. On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, ed. Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner, 307–327. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2001. Object shift and scrambling. In A handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Mark Baltin, et al., 147–202. New York: Blackwell.

  • Ussery, Cherlon. 2009. Optionality and variability: Syntactic licensing meets morphological spell-out. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Ussery, Cherlon. 2013. Variability in Icelandic agreement: An interaction of DP licensing and Multiple Agree. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. Seda Kan, Claire Moore-Cantwell, and Robert Staubs. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

  • Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander. 2002. Icelandic expletive constructions and the distribution of subject types. In Subjects, expletives, and the EPP, ed. Peter Svenonius, 43–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Watanabe, Akira. 1993. Larsonian CP recursion, factive complements, and selection. In Proceedings of NELS XXIII, ed. Amy J. Schafer, 523–537. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.

  • Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivona Kučerová.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kučerová, I. Long-Distance Agreement in Icelandic: locality restored. J Comp German Linguistics 19, 49–74 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-016-9077-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-016-9077-6

Keywords

Navigation