Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T13:18:52.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cyclic cliticization in Icelandic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2019

Einar Freyr Sigurðsson  and
Jim Wood
Einar Freyr Sigurðsson*
Affiliation:
Department of Lexicography, The Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies, Laugavegur 13, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland
Jim Wood*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520USA
*
Emails for correspondence: einar.freyr.sigurdsson@arnastofnun.is and jim.wood@yale.edu
Emails for correspondence: einar.freyr.sigurdsson@arnastofnun.is and jim.wood@yale.edu

Abstract

This squib discusses the clitic DU (-du/-ðu/-tu) in Icelandic and compares it with other reduced forms of personal pronouns, such as ’ann (for hann ‘he’) and ’ún (for hún ‘she’). We show that there are various restrictions found on DU which are not found on other reduced forms of personal pronouns in Icelandic. We argue that whereas reduced forms such as ’ann and ’ún are morphophonologically conditioned, DU is syntactically conditioned; it is not only clause-bounded but also phase-bounded.

Keywords

cliticsdative subjectsIcelandicnominative objectsphasesphase extensionsyntax
Type
Short Communications
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , May 2019 , pp. 111 - 127
Copyright
© Nordic Association of Linguistics 2019 

1. Introduction

Some of the personal pronouns in Icelandic have reduced forms when unstressed (e.g., Einarsson Reference Einarsson1949, 28–29, Thráinsson Reference Thráinsson2007, 6–7; see also Smári Reference Smári1920, 32). Footnote 1 This is the case for at least 2nd person singular þú (and plural þið — not discussed further here for space reasons), and 3rd person singular masculine and feminine hann and hún, respectively. The a-examples below show non-reduced forms whereas the b-examples show reduced forms.

  1. (1)

  2. (2)

  3. (3)

In this squib, we discuss an important difference between the reduced 2nd person singular form and the 3rd person singular forms. Whereas the latter are simple clitics that seem to have to do with morphophonology first and foremost (they are what Sigurðsson (Reference Sigurðsson1989, 208) calls “PF-cliticized”), the former is a special clitic (in the sense of Zwicky Reference Zwicky1977; see also Zwicky Reference Zwicky1985, Pullum & Zwicky 1983): its distribution is determined by the syntax. Primarily, it cannot dock just anywhere, but must cliticize to a finite or imperative verb. In addition, however, we argue that the 2nd person clitic and the verb need to be part of the same phase.

In Icelandic, the 2nd person singular pronoun is realized in most environments, when it is neutrally or emphatically/contrastively stressed, as þú ‘you’ (IPA = [θu]). Footnote 2

  1. (4)

However, when it immediately follows a finite or imperative verb it is sometimes realized as -du, -ðu or -tu (IPA = [ty], [ðy], and [th y], respectively) — in such cases, it attaches to the verb, as in (5). In the presence of another coronal consonant, the coronal consonant of the clitic can be deleted, so it is realized as simply -u (IPA = [y]) (as shown in (5c)). Footnote 3,Footnote 4 We refer to the clitic as DU (also in glosses), irrespective of its realization (as -du/-ðu/-tu/-u).

  1. (5)

Note also that DU is a realization of structural nominative case. There are other phonologically reduced forms of the 2nd person pronoun: nom. (ð)ú, acc. (ð)ig, dat. (ð)er/(ð)ér, gen. (ð)ín (see also H.Á. Sigurðsson Reference Sigurðsson1989, 208–209). Footnote 5 Like ’ann and ’ún, but unlike DU, their use is not restricted to an environment immediately following a finite or imperative verb (but see H.Á. Sigurðsson Reference Sigurðsson1989, 208–209 for some restrictions). Footnote 6

  1. (6)

In what follows, we will discuss various restrictions on the use of DU. In Section 2, we show that DU must attach to a finite or imperative verb, and that even when the 2nd person pronoun is string-adjacent to a finite verb, DU is not possible if it is not in the same clause as the finite verb. Other reduced forms of personal pronouns are possible in this environment. This suggests that the use of DU is clause-bounded even though the use of other reduced forms is not. In Section 3, we show that DU is highly restricted as a nominative object, even when it immediately follows the finite verb. Other reduced forms of personal pronouns are grammatical in such contexts. We propose that this can be explained if the use of DU is not only clause-bounded, but phase-bounded. Finally, in Section 4 we show that DU can occur between the verb stem and the middle -st clitic, unlike other reduced pronouns. We conclude by sketching an approach to the syntax of clitic placement that may provide an account for the special properties of the DU clitic.

2. Clause-Bounded Cliticization

Whereas reduced forms like ’ann ‘he’ or ’ún ‘she’ can occur in a variety of environments, DU is only possible when it attaches to a finite verb. That this does not stem from an independent phonological requirement is shown by several contrasts. First, consider the examples in (7).

  1. (7)

The imperative stem of the verb semja ‘write/compose’ is sem (though see note 3 for an alternative), which is identical to the relative complementizer sem. However, we see that in (7) that while DU can attach to the verb form sem, it cannot attach to the complementizer sem. This shows that DU requires a finite verb as an attachment point, and that this is not for phonological reasons. Footnote 7

The same conclusion follows from other forms, such as those in (8).

  1. (8)

There is no phonological reason why DU should not be possible in (8). These examples further illustrate that DU is not a simple clitic, but a special clitic that needs to attach to a finite verb.

On the other hand, it is possible to use other reduced forms, such as (ð)ú, ’ann and ’ún with the complementizers sem and að, as shown in (9). In fact, (ð)ú would be the most natural pronunciation of the subject in (8) as well, as long as the subject is unstressed.

  1. (9)

By comparing (7b) to (9a–b) and (8a) to (9c) we see that DU clearly differs from ’ann and ’ún. Note also, as pointed out by a reviewer, that the final consonant of the verb stem determines the phonetic realization of the coronal consonant in DU, but not in -ðú.

It is not enough, however, that DU is adjacent to a finite verb; it also needs to be in the same clause as the finite verb. As shown in (10), the complementizer að ‘that’ can sometimes be omitted in complement clauses (see also Thráinsson Reference Thráinsson2007, 409–410), especially when the subject of the embedded clause is a personal pronoun; when the complementizer is omitted in the examples in (10), the personal pronoun þú/hann/hún of the embedded clause is string-adjacent to the finite verb of the matrix clause.

  1. (10)

Despite being string-adjacent to a finite verb, and in a subject position, DU is not possible in such contexts.

  1. (11)

The other reduced forms are, however, fine in this position.

  1. (12)

This is a clear indication that reduced forms like DU need to be accounted for differently from, e.g., ’ann or ’ún. We will argue that the distribution of DU is determined in the syntactic component of grammar, whereas ’ann, ’ún (and the like) can be accounted for in the (morpho)phonological component.

3. Nominative Objects and Phase-Bounded Cliticization

So far, we have argued that DU must attach to a finite verb, and that it must be in the same clause as that verb. Some syntactic phenomena that have often been treated as being clause-bounded actually seem better accounted for as being phase-bounded on a closer look (Ingason & Wood Reference Ingason and Wood2017). We will now suggest that the same might be true for DU.

In this section, we will look at Icelandic dative-nominative verbs, i.e., verbs that have two arguments, one in the dative and one in the nominative. Many Icelandic dative-nominative verbs are asymmetric, i.e., the dative case argument is always structurally higher than the nominative case argument, and is the only argument available to move to the subject position. Some dative-nominative verbs are symmetric, however, where either the dative or the nominative case argument can move to subject position (see, e.g., Bernódusson Reference Bernódusson1982, Rögnvaldsson Reference Rögnvaldsson1996, Jónsson Reference Jónsson1997–1998, Reference Jónsson, Brandner and Zinsmeister2003, 160, Barðdal Reference Barðdal2001, Eythórsson & Barðdal Reference Eythórsson and Barðdal2005, Barðdal, Eythórsson & Dewey Reference Barðdal, Eythórsson and Dewey2014, Wood & H.Á. Sigurðsson Reference Wood and Sigurðsson2014). Footnote 9 In this section we will show that DU is ungrammatical as a nominative object on asymmetric dative-nominative verbs, but sometimes acceptable with symmetric dative-nominative verbs, and we will propose that this suggests that DU is phase-bounded.

One confound for the data in this section is that some speakers do not fully accept 2nd person forms as nominative objects, even in the non-reduced form (H.Á. Sigurðsson Reference Sigurðsson1992). Consider the examples in (13). Whereas all speakers seem to find 1st or 2nd person agreement with nominative objects ungrammatical, as shown in (13b), there is some variation regarding examples like (13a), where we see a 2nd person nominative object and default 3rd person agreement on the finite verb; see discussion in H.Á. Sigurðsson Reference Sigurðsson1992.

  1. (13)

    (H.Á. Sigurðsson Reference Sigurðsson1992, 72–73)

The first author (alphabetically ordered) of this squib finds examples of the type in (13a) grammatical and we are here relying on his judgments — the judgments in (13), as well as in (14), are his. See H.Á. Sigurðsson (Reference Sigurðsson1992, 76) for more discussion. Footnote 10

For (14), note that the past tense form leiddist is syncretic between 1st, 2nd and 3rd person singular agreement (this is the case also for other verbs ending in the “middle voice” -st morpheme—their present tense singular form is syncretic for 1st, 2nd and 3rd person). As pointed out by H.Á. Sigurðsson (Reference Sigurðsson1992, 76, Reference Sigurðsson1996) and H.Á. Sigurðsson & Holmberg (Reference Sigurðsson, Holmberg, D’Alessandro, Fischer and Hrafnbjargarson2008), this seems to have the effect that speakers find dative-nominative patterns with a 2nd person singular pronoun as a nominative object more acceptable than non-syncretic verb forms, as in (13a) above.

  1. (14)

    (Sigurðsson Reference Sigurðsson1992, 75)

With this in mind, it should be mentioned that the reason why the first author, whose judgments are shown above, finds the example in (15a) below better than (13a) above may have to do with the fact that present tense líkar in (15a) is syncretic between 2nd and 3rd (default) persons whereas past tense líkaði in (13a) can only reflect 3rd (default) person (or 1st person) agreement and not 2nd person agreement.

3.1 Asymmetric dative-nominative verbs

Up to now, two properties stick out in relation to the clause-bounded 2nd person clitic DU: It is always in the nominative case and it is always a subject. We might then ask whether DU is possible as a nominative object. Turning first to asymmetric dative-nominative verbs, this does not seem to be the case. (15) shows verbs that allow 2nd person nominative objects, and (16) shows that DU is not possible.

  1. (15)

  2. (16)

(17) shows that this distrubution of DU cannot be stated purely phonologically; when DU is a subject, it can attach to a verb that ends in /ar/, /ist/, and /nnst/, respectively.

  1. (17)

Even though DU does not work in (16), the PF-cliticized forms are fine in the same environment.

  1. (18)

This again shows a fundamental distributional difference between the two types of reduced forms.

Following Wood and H.Á. Sigurðsson (Reference Wood and Sigurðsson2014), the dative DP in these examples originates in the specifier of an Appl(icative) phrase and the nominative DP in the complement of the Appl head, as shown in the tree in (19). Footnote 11 As this is the structure of an asymmetric dative-nominative verb, the dative (and not the nominative) will move to SpecTP to become the subject.

  1. (19)

On Wood and H.Á. Sigurðsson’s (Reference Wood and Sigurðsson2014) analysis, Appl is a phase-head (cf. McGinnis Reference McGinnis2008). This results in finite verbs, which originate in v and move to the phase-head C in Icelandic, not being computed in the same phase as Appl and its complement (Chomsky Reference Chomsky and Kenstowicz2001). The point that is relevant to us is that the nominative object, as the complement of a phase head, is not in the same phase as the finite verb, which c-commands that phase head. The fact that DU is not possible as a reduced form on nominative objects suggests that the use of DU is phase-bounded, not only clause-bounded. This suggestion is corroborated by symmetric dative-nominative verbs, which we turn to next.

3.2 Symmetric dative-nominative verbs

The verb líka ‘like’ in (15)–(16) above is asymmetric in that the dative is obligatorily the higher argument; the nominative argument cannot move to subject position. As mentioned above, there are also symmetric (also called ‘alternating’) DAT-NOM verbs where either the dative or the nominative can be structurally higher and move to the subject position. The examples in (20)–(21) show that henta ‘suit’ is a symmetric verb and líka ‘like’ is not. In (20a), the nominative case argument is in situ and the dative argument has A-moved to SpecTP, whereas in (20b) the nominative has A-moved to SpecTP. For líka, on the other hand, it is ungrammatical to have the nominative argument A-move and leave the dative argument in situ, as shown in (21b). The sentence in (21a) is grammatical, however, where the nominative argument is in situ and the dative argument A-moves.

  1. (20)

    (Wood & H.Á. Sigurðsson Reference Wood and Sigurðsson2014, 277)

  2. (21)

    (Wood & H.Á. Sigurðsson Reference Wood and Sigurðsson2014, 277)

Since the nominative argument can be the subject in symmetric DAT-NOM verbs, we expect DU to be possible. That is borne out, see (22).

  1. (22)

In such cases, DU and the finite verb are computed in the same phase. A question that arises is how the two come to be phase-local to each other. That is, how can the nominative argument become the subject?

On Wood and H.Á. Sigurðsson’s (Reference Wood and Sigurðsson2014) analysis, the phase-head Appl head-moves to v in the derivation of symmetric verbs, thereby extending the Appl phase (as in den Dikken’s Reference den Dikken2007 theory of phase-extension by head-movement). This is shown in (23).

  1. (23)

The consequence is that the complement DP (the nominative case argument) and SpecApplP (the dative case argument) become equidistant to c-commanding heads, and both are in the same phase; either DP will be able to move to subject position.

For asymmetric verbs, on the other hand, Appl does not move to v, although v moves to Voice, etc., as shown in (24).

  1. (24)

Therefore, the Appl-phase is not extended, the nominative DP is unable to move to subject position, and the nominative and the verb remain in distinct phases.

This leads to the question of whether a nominative object of a symmetric verb — where the phase is extended — can cliticize onto a finite verb without becoming the subject; that is, when the dative moves to SpecTP to be the subject. To look into this, we need subject tests where the 2nd person pronoun is demonstrably the object and at the same time it immediately follows the finite verb.) shows such tests which he applies to asymmetric dat-nom verbs Jónsson (Reference Jónsson1996).

  1. (25)

In the embedded clauses above, the finite verb moves to T and the nominative argument moves to a position below C, presumably SpecTP, which is ungrammatical for asymmetric verbs. These tests are supposed to show that the nominative argument of the verb líka ‘like’ cannot move to subject position. Moreover, this also shows that these constructions resist topicalization, which would be another way to derive the word order NOM-verb-DAT.

The theme argument of the symmetric verb henta ‘suit’ can move to this position, however, suggesting that the nominative argument of symmetric verbs can become the derived subject.

  1. (26)

We conclude from (25)–(26) that the argument immediately following the finite verb in these constructions is not the subject but rather an object.

We are therefore now in a position to look at 2nd person pronoun objects of symmetric verbs and whether they can cliticize. For this purpose, we consulted a few speakers and asked for their judgments for symmetric and asymmetric verbs, both when the object is spelled out as þú and as a clitic DU. For symmetric verbs, the judgments were mixed, both for the a- and the b-sentences, and we are therefore marking all the sentences in (27), (29) and (31) with the sign ‘%’. Footnote 12

  1. (27)

  2. (28)

  3. (29)

  4. (30)

  5. (31)

  6. (32)

Zeroing in on DU, while no speaker we asked accepted all of these sentences, there was a clear contrast, where DU was sometimes accepted with the symmetric verbs, but never with the asymmetric verbs. What is particularly interesting from the current perspective is the contrast between the b-examples in (27), (29) and (31) on the one hand, and the b-examples in (28), (30) and (32), on the other. The former show the principled conditions under which nonsubject DU is possible (even if it varies in acceptability across speakers): when it encliticizes to a finite verb in the same phase. It is worth emphasizing here that in (27), (29), (31), the dative is the subject and the nominative is the object. (Recall the contrast between (25) and (26) earlier.) So this contrast cannot be explained by appealing to some special status of the nominative (for agreement or subjecthood), since symmetric verbs behave just like asymmetric verbs when the dative is the subject (H.Á. Sigurðsson, Reference Sigurðsson2006, 304).

We have mentioned that DU may only attach to a finite verb or imperative verb. However, when we established that generalization in section 2, we had only looked at subjects, which will generally not be to the right of nonfinite verbs, so there we did not have the opportunity to check this generalization fully. Nominative objects of symmetric verbs—which are in the same phase as those verbs—show us that indeed, DU may not attach to a nonfinite verb. Consider the examples in (33).

  1. (33)

The verb reynast ‘turn out’ is a symmetric verb (cf. Barðdal Reference Barðdal2001), so we expect cliticization to be possible (for speakers who allow object clitic DU in the first place), and indeed it is, as shown in (33c). Footnote 13 However, although a nonreduced 2nd person pronoun is possible next to a nonfinite participle, as shown in (33a), DU is not possible there, as shown in (33b). This shows, independently of other constraints, that DU may not attach to a nonfinite verb.

What we conclude from the discussion above is that for some speakers DU seems to work only as a subject clitic. These speakers reject all examples of DU in object position. Other speakers, however, allow DU when it is the object but only with symmetric verbs, suggesting that DU must be computed within the same phase as its host, i.e., the finite verb. Footnote 14

4 Interaction with -st

Further support for the claim that DU is a special clitic comes from its interaction with another special clitic in Icelandic, the -st clitic that is traditionally described as realizing middle voice. As pointed out by Kissock (Reference Kissock1997), Thráinsson (Reference Thráinsson2007, 285) and Wood (Reference Wood2015, 76–77, 100–101), DU generally appears outside of (i.e., to the right of) the -st clitic, with one exception: in imperative clauses only, nonstandard Icelandic allows -st to occur outside of (i.e. to the right of) DU.

  1. (34)

What is not mentioned in those works is that this is not possible with the simple clitic ðú. Footnote 15

  1. (35)

This difference supports our claim that DU is a special clitic, while the other reduced forms (including (ð)ú, ’ann and ’ún) are simple clitics.

5 Implications

Our general claim in this squib is that whereas reduced forms such as ’ann ‘he’, ’ún ‘she’ and (ð)ú are (morpho)phonologically conditioned, DU is not only phonologically reduced, but has a restricted syntactic distribution as well. We have established that (i) it must attach to a finite verb, (ii) it must be in the same phase as the finite verb, and (iii) for some speakers it must be a subject. We have not given an analysis of the cliticization process and we leave that for future research. However, it is important to note that accounting for DU in object position of symmetric verbs is not straightforward. Cardinaletti and Shlonsky (Reference Cardinaletti and Shlonsky2004) argue for two clitic positions within the clause. In Wood’s (Reference Wood2015, 96–103) implementation of that for Icelandic, he labels the higher projection Cl h P and the lower Cl l P; FinP is the lowest projection of a split CP.

  1. (36)

For some speakers, then, DU must always move to the higher clitic position, and with the finite verb moving to Fin, this results in a very local requirement for DU cliticization.

For other speakers it may be enough to move the clitic to the lower clitic position — or, perhaps, it does not need to move at all. Either way, even though, on the surface, the finite verb immediately precedes DU, syntactically these two are relatively far apart from each other. If it either moves to the lower clitic position or does not move at all, then the only locality requirement for the realization of -du/-ðu/-tu seems to be phase-locality and that the finite verb and DU are string-adjacent to one another. Alternatively, however, we might hypothesize that the DU clitic always moves to the high Cl h position, even when it is an object, and the finite verb will move to Fin. In that case, it may be that string adjacency need not be stated as a separate condition, but derives from the syntax of the clitic and the verb.

We leave development of these possibilities as a topic for future research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Gunnar Ólafur Hansson and three anonymous reviewers for comments on the paper. Thanks to Dagbjört Guðmundsdóttir, Gísli Rúnar Harðarson, Heimir van der Feest Viðarsson, Hlíf Árnadóttir, Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Lilja Björk Stefánsdóttir for judging sentences with DU and 2nd person singular þú.

Footnotes

1. The following conversation between A and B shows that the reduced -ðu cannot be stressed. A tells B, without any emphasis on ‘you’, to shut up. B responds by saying something like ‘No, YOU shut up’, with a contrastive stress on ‘you’. Here it would have been ungrammatical to use -ðu.

  1. (i)

Note that the other reduced forms of pronouns, such as those in (2b), (3b) and (6), also cannot be stressed.

2. As a reviewer points out, when þú ‘you’ in imperatives like (4a) is stressed neutrally, it has a poetic or biblical flavor. For some speakers, this form feels so archaic that it may not be considered part of the modern language. See, however, note 3 on the “clipped imperative”.

3. Note that for many verbs, when the imperative is followed by emphatic þú, the imperative stem can end with a coronal consonant which seems to derive from DU (Orešnik, Reference Orešnik, Firchow, Grimstad, Hasselmo and O’Neil1972; Hansson, Reference Hansson, Tamanji, Hirotani and Hall1999).

  1. (i)

This form, known as the “clipped imperative,” appears to blend the coronal from (5a) (without the /u/; sýn-du) and the emphatic pronoun from (4a). (cf. Hansson Reference Hansson, Tamanji, Hirotani and Hall1999, ex.4c) claims that the clipped imperative shows that the coronal consonant of the clitic has been reanalyzed as part of the imperative stem, except when that stem ends in a vowel, a claim which can account for some lexically idiosyncratic morphophonological interactions between the verb root and the coronal. If so, then imperative stems will always end in either a vowel or a coronal obstruent, so the clitic will always be realized as either -ðu (after vowels) or -u (after coronal obstruents) in imperatives.

4. A reviewer points out that the vowel -u can also be elided in hiatus contexts, as discussed in H.Á. Sigurðsson and Maling (Reference Sigurðsson, Maling and Putnam2010), and illustrated in the following examples.

  1. (i)

  2. (ii)

  3. (iii)

This vowel deletion is not specific to the clitic DU, but applies to all word-final unstressed vowels; see Dehé (Reference Dehé2008) for further discussion of such vowel deletion.

5. The lenition of initial þ is also found in other þ-initial function words, as pointed out to us by Gunnar Ólafur Hansson (p.c.). Note that in writing, ð is never written word-initially. In the examples, ð word-initially in pronominal forms like ðú is meant to reflect pronunciation. Note, however, that -ðu is standardly written in word forms like heldurðu ‘do you think’, geturðu ‘can you’, etc., that contain the clitic; -du, -tu and -u are also written in forms like komdu ‘come you’, vertu ‘be (imperative)’, and veistu ‘do you know’, respectively.

6. A reviewer notes that for him/her, -ðú might not be possible in imperatives; we leave the exploration of this observation for future research.

7. A reviewer points out that sem as a verb stem differs from relative sem prosodically, so that the latter is unstressed but the former is not. However, we cannot see how this could be the basis for a phonological account of the contrast, since DU may attach to unstressed syllables, as it does in (1b) and (5b), among other examples.

8. We include the ad-du form because in other cases when DU attaches to /ð/, the result is /d-d/, e.g. bræðþú>bræd-du ‘melt (imperative)’.

9. We adopt the terms symmetric and asymmetric from Wood and H.Á. Sigurðsson (Reference Wood and Sigurðsson2014), who in turn adopt this terminology from work on applicatives going back to Bresnan and Moshi (Reference Bresnan and Moshi1990), Marantz (Reference Marantz and Mchombo1993); see McGinnis (Reference McGinnis2008) for an overview.

10. The judgments in (13)–(14) can be compared to the results in Sigurðsson’s (Reference Sigurðsson1992) survey among seven Icelandic linguists. All seven judged (13b) unacceptable. Three of them found (13a) unacceptable whereas two found it acceptable. One gave it two question marks and one linguist gave it one question mark. No one in Sigurðsson’s survey found (14) completely unacceptable, however, although one linguist gave it ‘?*’; three linguists found it acceptable and three gave it one question mark.

11. For more on datives as arguments of Appl, see Cuervo (Reference Cuervo2003), McFadden (Reference McFadden2004), McGinnis (Reference McGinnis2008), Schäfer (Reference Schäfer2008), H.Á. Sigurðsson (Reference Sigurðsson2012), Wood (Reference Wood2015), and E.F. Sigurðsson (Reference Sigurðsson2017).

12. We asked six native speaker linguists, in addition to the first author, for judgments of the sentences in this section. They were allowed to use any notation they wished, and gave additional comments on each example to clarify their judgments. It should be noted that some speakers found it somewhat difficult to judge the sentences because they did not find it easy to match the arguments with the intended thematic roles. To take an example, they found it a bit odd to have the 2nd person pronoun as the theme in (27a) rather than the benefactive. Two speakers found all of the DU object clitic examples, with symmetric and asymmetric verbs, to be fully ungrammatical. The remaining four speakers found a contrast, where DU was possible with one or more of the symmetric verbs, but completely out for the asymmetric verbs. Two speakers found the clitic DU in (29b) to be better than full þú in (29a). Speakers also varied with respect to the availability of full þú, with some finding it quite marked for some of these sentences. For our purposes, the important contrast is the one with the clitic DU: it is only possible with the symmetric verbs, and not the asymmetric verbs.

13. The judgments here are based on three speakers. Two found (33a) and (33c) possible, though slightly odd, and (33b) fully unacceptable. The third speaker rejected all three examples.

14. A reviewer raises an alternative hypothesis to account for these facts, namely that there is a constraint saying that 2nd person clitics can only cliticize to verbs with 2nd person agreement morphology. This would rule out object cliticization, since nominative objects cannot trigger 2nd person agreement. However, we do not think this alternative is viable. First, DU can easily cliticize to imperative verbs, which do not show 2nd person agreement. So there can be no general constraint along these lines. Second, the improvement of 2nd person nominative objects under 2nd/3rd person syncretism in verbal agreement only makes sense if we think of the verb as in some way 2nd person and 3rd person simultaneously; this suggests that the relative verbs are in fact 2nd person, and should therefore allow DU cliticization under the reviewer’s suggestion.

15. As mentioned earlier, one reviewer has doubts about the availability of -ðú in imperatives, and that reviewer is unsure whether -ðú is possible for him/her in (35b).

References

REFERENCES

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001. The perplexity of Dat-Nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24, 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Dewey, Tonya Kim. 2014. Alternating predicates in Icelandic and German: A sign-based construction grammar account. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 93, 51–101.Google Scholar
Bernódusson, Helgi. 1982. Ópersónulegar setningar [Impersonal sentences]. Cand. Mag.-thesis, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Moshi, Lioba. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 147–185.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Shlonsky, Ur. 2004. Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 519–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cuervo, Mara Cristina. 2003. Datives at Large. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2008. To delete or not to delete: The contexts of Icelandic Final Vowel Deletion. Lingua 118, 732–753.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einarsson, Stefán. 1949. Icelandic: Grammar, Texts, Glossary. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2005. Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language 81, 824–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 1999. ‘When in doubt…’: Intraparadigmatic dependencies and gaps in Icelandic. In Tamanji, Pius N., Hirotani, Masako & Hall, Nancy (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 29, 105–119. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Ingason, Anton Karl & Wood, Jim. 2017. Clause-bounded movement: Stylistic fronting and phase theory. Linguistic Inquiry 48, 529–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1997–1998. Sagnir með aukafallsfrumlagi [Verbs with oblique subjects]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 19–20, 11–43.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, 127–163. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kissock, Madelyn. 1997. Middle verbs in Icelandic. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics 9, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Mchombo, Sam A. (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, 113–151. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.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
McGinnis, Martha. 2008. Applicatives. Language and Linguistics Compass 2, 1225–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orešnik, Janez. 1972. Morphophonemic notes on the Modern Icelandic imperative singular. In Firchow, Evelyn S., Grimstad, Karen, Hasselmo, Nils & O’Neil, Wayne A. (eds.), Studies for Einar Haugen, 450–459. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1985. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t . Language 59, 502–513.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1996. Frumlag og fall að fornu [Subjects and case in Old Icelandic]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 18, 37–69.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr. 2017. Deriving Case, Agreement and Voice Phenomena in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic: In a Comparative GB Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lund. [Reprinted by Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, Reykjavík, 1992. Available online: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002361]Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1992. Um beygingarsamræmi og málkunnáttu [On agreement and language knowledge]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 14, 63–87.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57, 1–46.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2006. The Nominative Puzzle and the Low Nominative Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012. Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 191–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann & Holmberg, Anders. 2008. Icelandic dative intervention: Person and Number are separate probes. In D’Alessandro, Roberta, Fischer, Susan & Gunnar Hrafnbjargarson, Hrafn (eds.), Agreement Restrictions, 251–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann & Maling, Joan. 2010. The Empty Left Edge Condition. In Putnam, Michael (ed.), Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars, 59–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smári, Jakob Jóh. 1920. Íslenzk setningafræði [Icelandic Syntax]. Reykjavík: Bókaverslun Ársæls Árnasonar. [Reprinted by Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, Reykjavík, 1987.]Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim & Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2014. Let-causatives and (a)symmetric DAT-NOM constructions. Syntax 17, 269–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. On Clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61, 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar