Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Case mismatching in Icelandic clausal ellipsis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2019

JIM WOOD
Affiliation:
Yale University
MATTHEW BARROS
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis
EINAR FREYR SIGURÐSSON
Affiliation:
The Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies

Abstract

In this article, we take a detailed look at clausal ellipsis in Icelandic, a hitherto understudied phenomenon. We focus on case-matching and case-mismatching facts in fragment responses. We argue that although case matching is the norm, constrained instances of case mismatching strongly suggest that there must be silent structure in the ellipsis site, and some syntactic identity condition. We outline these patterns in detail, and provide an analysis that assumes a post-syntactic approach to case marking, and a hybrid identity condition along the lines of Chung (2013).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

We would like to thank the editors of JoL and the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on this manuscript, which have helped us improve it in many ways. We would also like to thank the Icelandic speakers who have shared their judgments of many sentences with us, including Dagbjört Guðmundsdóttir, Elín þórsdóttir, Hlíf Árnadóttir, Iris Edda Nowenstein, Kristín Jóhannsdóttir, Lilja Björk Stefánsdóttir, and Sigríður Sæunn Sigurðardóttir. For discussion of the content of this paper, we thank Anna Szabolcsi, Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson, and the audience and reviewers of NELS 48 at the University of Iceland.

References

Abeillé, Anne, Bîlbîie, Gabriela & Mouret, François. 2014. A Romance perspective on gapping constructions. In Boas, Hans C. & Gonzálvez-García, Francisco (eds.), Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar, 227267. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2012. Verb meaning, local context, and the syntax of roots in alternations. GLOW 35, University of Potsdam, March 28–30.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach. Oxford University Press: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AnderBois, Scott. 2011. Issues and alternatives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 1982. The representation of case in Modern Icelandic. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 427503. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Árnadóttir, Hlíf & Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr. 2013. Case in disguise. In Fernández & Etxepare (eds.), 96–143.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos & Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1993. Accusative and dative case of objects of some transitive verbs in Icelandic and the semantic distinction between them. Flyktförsök. Kalasbok till Christer Platzack på femtioårsdagen 18 november 1993, från doktorander och dylika, 113. Lund: Lunds universitet.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001. Case in Icelandic: A synchronic, diachronic, and comparative approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. The rise of Dative Substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic Construction Grammar account. Lingua 121, 6079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2013. Scopability and sluicing. Linguistics & Philosophy 36, 187223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barros, Matthew. 2014. Sluicing and identity in ellipsis. Ph.D. dissertation, The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers.Google Scholar
Barros, Matthew, Elliott, Patrick & Thoms, Gary. 2014. There is no island repair. Ms., Rutgers/University College London/University of Edinburgh (submitted).Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David & Béjar, Susana (eds.), Phi Theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, 295328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring sense volume 1: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005b. Structuring sense volume 2: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2013. Structuring sense volume 3: Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2006. Sluicing and the lexicon: The point of no return. BLS 31: General session and parasession on prosodic variation and change, 7391.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2013. Syntactic identity in sluicing: How much and why. Linguistic Inquiry 44.1, 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra, Ladusaw, William & McCloskey, James. 2011. Sluicing(:) between structure and inference. In Gutiérrez, Rodrigo, Mikkelsen, Line & Potsdam, Eric (eds.), Representing language: Essays in honor of Judith Aissen, 3150. UC Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center.Google Scholar
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2012. Same-except: A domain-general cognitive relation and how language expresses it. Language 88, 305340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deo, Ashwini & Sharma, Devyani. 2006. Typological variation in the ergative morphology of Indo-Aryan languages. Linguistic Typology 10.3, 369418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 1995. Verbal syntax in the early Germanic languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2000. Dative versus nominative: Changes in quirky subjects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 8, 2744.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2002. Changes in subject case-marking in Icelandic. In Lightfoot, David W. (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 196212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2009. Variation in Icelandic morphosyntax. In Dufter, Andreas, Fleischer, Jürg & Seiler, Guido (eds.), Describing and modeling variation in grammar, 8196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2017. Variation in oblique subject constructions in Insular Scandinavian. In Thráinsson, Heycock, Petersen & Hansen (eds.), 53–90.Google Scholar
Fernández, Beatriz & Etxepare, Ricardo (eds.). 2013. Variation in datives: A micro-comparative perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Griffiths, James & Lipták, Anikó. 2012. Contrast and island sensitivity in clausal ellipsis. Syntax 17.3, 661738.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2001. How to stay accusative in insular Germanic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 68, 114.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halldórsson, Halldór. 1982. Um méranir: Drög að samtímalegri og sögulegri athugun [On using mér: An attempt at a synchronic and diachronic study]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 4, 159189.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1971. Deletion in coordinate structures. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Ince, Atakan. 2012. Sluicing in Turkish. Sluicing: Cross-linguistic perspectives, 248269. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ingason, Anton Karl. 2010. Productivity of non-default case. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 85, 65117.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2016. The short answer: Implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa). Language 92.2, 331375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2000. Case and double objects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 8, 7194.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2003. Not so quirky: On subject case in Icelandic. In Brandner, Ellen & Zinsmeister, Heike (eds.), New perspectives on case theory, 127163. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2009. Verb-classes and dative objects in Insular Scandinavian. In Barðdal, Jóhanna & Chelliah, Shobhana L. (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 203224. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2013a. Dative versus accusative and the nature of inherent case. In Fernández & Etxepare (eds.), 144–160.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2013b. Two types of case variation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36.1, 525.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2017. Avoiding genitive in Icelandic. In Thráinsson, Heycock, Petersen & Hansen (eds.), 141–163.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2003. Breytingar á frumlagsfalli í íslensku [Changes in subject case in Icelandic]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 25, 740.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2005. Variation in subject case marking in Insular Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28.2, 223245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2011. Structured exceptions and case selection in Insular Scandinavian. In Simon, Horst J. & Wiese, Heike (eds.), Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar, 213241. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2015. Syntactic and semantic identity in Korean sluicing: A direct interpretation approach. Lingua 166, 260293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, Hiroko. 2007. Interface conditions and triggers of pied piping: A case study of sluicing. MA thesis, Tohoku Gakuin University.Google Scholar
Kimura, Hiroko. 2010. A wh-in-situ strategy for sluicing. English Linguistics 27.1, 4359.Google Scholar
Kroll, Margaret & Rudin, Deniz. 2017. Identity and interpretation: Syntactic and pragmatic constraints on the acceptability of sluicing. In Lamont, Andrew & Tetzloff, Katerina (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 177190. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 471498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2006. Severing the distribution of PRO from Case. Syntax 9.2, 153170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 2001. When can you save a structure by destroying it? In Kim, Minjoo & Strauss, Uri (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-First North East Linguistic Society, 301320. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Lavine, James E. & Babby, Leonard H.. To appear. A New Argument for the Lexical Underspecification of Causers. Linguistic Inquiry, https://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/ling/0/ja.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 2002a. Það rignir þágufalli á Íslandi: Sagnir sem stjórna þágufalli á andlagi sínu [Verbs with dative objects in Icelandic]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 24, 31106.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 2002b. Icelandic verbs with dative objects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 70, 160.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991/2000. Case and licensing. In Reuland, Eric (ed.), Arguments and case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization, 1130. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2006. German inherent datives and argument structure. In Hole, Daniel, Meinunger, André & Abraham, Werner (eds.), Datives and other cases: Between argument structure and event structure, 4977. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics & Philosophy 27, 661738.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2005. Revisiting syntactic identity conditions. Handout from Workshop on Ellipsis, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44.1, 77108.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1973. Sentence fragments and the notion ‘sentence’. In Kachru, Braj, Lees, Robert, Malkiel, Yakov, Pietrangeli, Angelina & Saporta, Sol (eds.), Issues in linguistics, 719751. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2014. Agree-link and agree-copy: Two separate steps. Slides from talk presented at the GETEGRA international thematic workshop on agreement, In Honor of Maria Denilda Moura, Recife-PE, Brazil.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew & Parrott, Jeffrey K.. 2007. Variable rules meet impoverishment theory. Formal Approaches to Variation; available on LingBuzz http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000522.Google Scholar
Nowenstein, Iris Edda. 2012. Mig langar sjálfri til þess. Rannsókn á innri breytileika í fallmörkun frumlaga [I myself want this. An investigation of intra-speaker variation in the case-marking of subjects]. BA thesis, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Nowenstein, Iris Edda. 2014a. Intra-speaker variation in subject case: Icelandic. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 20.1, 110. Available at https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol20/iss1/28/.Google Scholar
Nowenstein, Iris Edda. 2014b. Tilbrigði í frumlagsfalli á máltökuskeiði. Þágufallshneigð og innri breytileiki [Variation in subject case in acquisition. Dative substitution and intra-speaker variation]. MA thesis, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Nowenstein, Iris Edda. 2017. Determining the nature of intra-speaker subject case variation. In Thráinsson, Heycock, Petersen & Hansen (eds.), 91–112.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis. 2014. An ellipsis approach to contrastive left-dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 45.2, 269303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, Dennis & Struckmeier, Volker. 2016. Deletion in clausal ellipsis: Remnants in the middle field. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 22.1, 225234. Available at https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol22/iss1/25/.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis & Struckmeier, Volker. 2018. Particles and deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 49.2, 393407.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis & de Vries, Mark. 2016. Right-dislocation as deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34, 641690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2006. Case as Agree marker. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 77, 7199.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5, 169.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1969. Guess who? In Binnick, Robert, Davison, Alice, Green, Georgia & Morgan, Jerry (eds.), Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 252286. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, Karttunen, Lauri & Goldberg, Jeffrey. 1992. A lexical analysis of Icelandic case. In Sag, Ivan & Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical matters, 301318. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan & Nykiel, Joanna. 2011. Remarks on sluicing. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of HPSG11 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The syntax of (anti-)causatives. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2012. The passive of reflexive verbs and its implications for theories of binding and case. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15, 213268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4.3, 205238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF, and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7, 141177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðardóttir, Sigríður & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2017. Weather pro(s) and cons. Poster presented at DiGS 19, Stellenbosch, South Africa.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr. 2015. Particle incorporation, resultatives, and ‘re-’ prefixation. Qualifying Paper, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr.2017. Deriving case, agreement and Voice phenomena in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr. 2018. Thanking indirect objects while helping direct objects: On case preservation and the Definiteness Effect in Faroese. Talk given at the 11th Nordic Dialectologists Conference, Reykjavík, Iceland, August 20–22.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr, Sigurjónsdóttir, Sigríður & Örnólfsdóttir, Þórgunnar Anna. 2018. What a difference a D makes: On the New Impersonal Passive, voice mismatch and fragment answers. Ms., University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr & Stefánsdóttir, Brynhildur. 2014. ‘By’-phrases in the Icelandic New Impersonal Passive. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 20.1, 311320. Available at http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol20/iss1/33.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1991. Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9.2, 327363.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2000. The locus of case and agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65, 65108.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2008. The case of PRO. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26.2, 403450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2009. The No Case Generalization. In Alexiadou, Artemis, Hankamer, Jorge, McFadden, Thomas, Nuger, Justin & Schäfer, Florian (eds.), Advances in comparative Germanic syntax, 249279. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2011. On the New Passive. Syntax 14.2, 148178.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012a. Case variation: Viruses and star wars. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35.3, 313342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012b. Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43.2, 191227.Google Scholar
Svavarsdóttir, Ásta. 1982. Þágufallssýki: Breytingar á fallnotkun í frumlagssæti ópersónulegra setninga [Dative sickness: Changes in the subject case of impersonal sentences]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 4, 1962.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Icelandic case and the structure of events. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5.1–3, 197225.Google Scholar
Thoms, Gary.2012. Ellipsis licensing and verb movement in Scandinavian. Ms., University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Thoms, Gary. 2015. Syntactic identity, parallelism and accommodated antecedents. Lingua 166, 172198.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1975. Gapping in Icelandic: Functional explanations and the No Ambiguity Condition. In Grossman, Robin E., San, L. James & Vance, Timothy J. (eds.), Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 604614. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Heycock, Caroline, Petersen, Hjalmar P. & Hansen, Zakaris Svabo (eds.). 2017. Syntactic variation in Insular Scandinavian. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Eythórsson, Thórhallur, Svavarsdóttir, Ásta & Blöndal, Þórunn. 2015. Fallmörkun [Case marking]. In Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Angantýsson, Ásgrímur & Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr (eds.), Tilbrigði í íslenskri setningagerð II [Variation in Icelandic syntax II], 3376. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.Google Scholar
Vicente, Luis. 2015. Morphological case mismatches under sluicing. Snippets 29, 1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viðarsson, Heimir Freyr. 2009. Tilbrigði í fallmörkun aukafallsfrumlaga: Þágufallshneigð í forníslensku? [Variation in oblique subject case: Dative Substitution in Old Icelandic?]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 31, 1566.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. In Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas & Akmajian, Adrian (eds.), Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Weir, Andrew. 2014. Fragments and clausal ellipsis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2011. Icelandic let-causatives and case. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 87, 152.Google Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2014. Reflexive -stverbs in Icelandic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32.4, 13871425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2017. The Accusative-Subject Generalization. Syntax 20.3, 249291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim, Barros, Matthew & Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr. 2016. Clausal ellipsis and case (mis)matching in Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 96, 4990.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira, Maling, Joan & Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63.2, 217250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie & Maling, Joan. 1984. Unaccusative, passive, and quirky case. In Cobler, Mark, MacKaye, Susannah & Wescoat, Michael T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), 317329. Stanford, CA: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan & Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3.4, 441483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 25
Total number of PDF views: 173 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 07th June 2019 - 21st January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-2sjx4 Total loading time: 0.392 Render date: 2021-01-21T16:07:33.571Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Case mismatching in Icelandic clausal ellipsis
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Case mismatching in Icelandic clausal ellipsis
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Case mismatching in Icelandic clausal ellipsis
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *