The conclusion presents a recap of the findings in terms of the OLG theory and new data from Faroese, Icelandic and other languages. Several suggestions are made as to how the OLG framework could be tested against new data, especially regarding pertinent questions raised by the analyses of quirky case phenomena. First, dative–accusative case frames beyond Faroese are discussed: pain-related verbs in Baltic languages occur in both dative–nominative and dative–accusative patterns, for which Seržant (2013) explicitly draws parallels with Icelandic and Faroese. Likewise, the loss of oblique subjects over time is discussed in Indo-Aryan languages: Deo and Sharma (2006) and Kiparsky (2017) identify the important factors in changes in these case systems. The trajectory seems to be similar to that of Old Norse moving via Icelandic- and Faroese-type to modern Norwegian-type systems with respect to the oblique subjects. A possessive construction in Uralic languages is also discussed, in which the oblique possessor occurs with a nominative or accusative possessum. Finally, some proposals are made for future research based on the framework itself, with reference to information structure, stochastic and other variants of Optimality Theory, locality constraints, and other topics.

Chapter 8 discusses alternative theories of case, in particular the few prior attempts to deal with the Faroese dative–accusative pattern (Woolford 2007, Jónsson 2009, Asarina 2011). Further survey data from Faroese are presented alongside engagement with these alternatives; it is argued that while these theories could be altered to achieve empirical coverage, they will miss generalisations and overgenerate in comparison to the OLG approach. Woolford (2007) deals with exceptions to Burzio’s Generalisation (Burzio 1986); where Woolford’s account runs into problems is the conflation of abstract and morphosyntactic case: the case-hierarchy constraints alone do not explain the possibility of mismatches between thematic structure, argument structure and case-marking on arguments. Second, an idea proposed by Jónsson (2009), built upon by Asarina (2011), is discussed:‘covert’ nominative case. The basic idea is not dissimilar to abstract [+HR] case instantiated in morphosyntax as the case borne by subject position; however, crucial differences render the covert nominative account undesirably over-flexible. Further survey data are presented with respect to purported nominative ‘objects’, showing that such sentences are unacceptable in contemporary Faroese and that the data are inconsistent with Asarina (2011).

This chapter focuses on an illustrative phenomenon that has presented challenges for previous theories: non-nominative subjects. A summary of preceding literature is given, highlighting the relevant subjecthood properties of the Icelandic preverbal datives, as well as the subject-licensing syntactic positions in that language. A contrast is then drawn with similar dative arguments in German, concluding that the German obliques do not behave as subjects with respect to control properties, and do not occupy Spec,TP like the Icelandic datives. Before investigating the subjecthood of the Faroese datives, a detailed overview of what is currently known of Faroese clause structure is presented to establish the evidence for argument-licensing positions in the language. The standard subjecthood tests are applied to the Faroese dative-experiencer predicates, which demonstrate that the Faroese datives behave very similarly to those in Icelandic with respect to subjecthood properties. Given that the dative arguments in such sentences appear to be true subjects, and therefore the subject licensing position of Spec,TP seems to be the same in both Faroese and Icelandic, the differences in object case and number agreement with a plural object remain to be explained. This is explored in Chapters 3–7.

Chapter 7 lays out new data from both Faroese and Icelandic regarding triadic verbs, in particular the passive of ‘give’ and other three-place predicates. The theoretical apparatus presented in Chapter 6 is brought to bear on ditransitives and shown to predict the correct case frames and word orders in Icelandic and Faroese. First, an outline is given of double-object verbs in Faroese, noting that the evidence in some of the preceding literature is equivocal as to the acceptability of passive with ‘give’ and other triadic verbs. Data from a Faroese survey are discussed, the result being that no sentence with passive of ‘give’ was broadly accepted. Faroese evidence is discussed regarding the position of the theme and goal arguments in the active. Further data on the ‘give’ passive in Icelandic are presented; consistently with previous work, these Icelandic speakers have the option of either Goal-V-Theme or Theme-V-Goal orders in the passive. A Faroese survey on passives of ditransitives other than ‘give’ shows that the lexical semantics of a given verb interact with word order, such that if passive is judged acceptable, its mean acceptability is higher for the Theme-V-Goal order than for Goal-V-Theme.

The introduction presents a general discussion of syntactic theories, contrasting transformational approaches with those that adopt feature-structural representations to show how they provide differing cognitive models of the human language faculty. The three key components of the OLG framework – Linking Theory (LT), Optimality Theory (OT) and Competing Grammars (CG) – are briefly laid out. These are motivated by phenomena that necessitate multiple levels of case, linking between levels that permits mismatches in some grammars, a means of restricting the linking apparatus while still capturing the data, and a cogent account of morphosyntactic variation. One such phenomenon is introduced: case-marking facts in Insular Scandinavian. The dative–nominative Icelandic predicates are contrasted with the Faroese dative–accusative pattern, along with plural number agreement with the object in Icelandic versus non-agreement in Faroese. Next, an overview is presented of the motivation for each theoretical component of OLG, in turn outlining the advantages of LT, OT and the CG hypothesis. The introduction concludes with an outline of the specific empirical findings from surveys conducted on the Faroe Islands and Iceland, including quirky case predicates and passives, followed by an overview of the book’s structure.

Chapter 4 zooms in on dative-subject predicates in Faroese and presents new survey data from the Faroe Islands and Iceland. The preceding literature on Faroese non-nominative subjects is reviewed before the Faroese and Icelandic surveys on quirky case monotransitives are described in detail. The implications of the results are discussed in relation to case-assignment, agreement and word order, and the author’s proposed analysis is presented along with a factorial typology. Two Faroese surveys and one Icelandic survey testing possible object positions in quirky case sentences are discussed. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the structural object position of nominative arguments in Icelandic, and that of accusatives in Faroese, is the same regular object position of nominative–accusative case frames. On the other hand, the results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the object position is different between the two languages (and hence that such a difference is responsible for the difference in case-marking). These conclusions are discussed in detail in the OLG analysis section, which attributes the difference to constraint interaction, particularly a different ranking of a pair of constraints enforcing structural object case (accusative) and agreement with a nominative argument, respectively.

Chapter 6 presents new data on Faroese personal and impersonal passives, in addition to a discussion of case preservation and availability of passive with the dative-subject verbs. First, data from further Faroese surveys are investigated. The analysis demonstrates that the proposed constraints regulating the passive, here simply the addition of PARSE, covers all relevant sentence types in both Faroese and Icelandic personal passives, and with DEP and ARGSP also the impersonal passives. The argumentation builds on Kiparsky (2013), providing additional empirical support for the Linking Theory approach. An important finding is that the facts of case substitution in the active and case non-preservation in the passive are related: it is argued that there are preserving versus non-preserving grammars, represented by the two competing rankings. Speakers have access to both rankings, and choice of verb strongly predicts which grammar is activated. This approach predicts patterns that emerge from the constraint rankings themselves. The non-preserving grammar (activated, for example, with uses of the verb ‘like’) implies availability of passive and nominative substitution, both of which hold true; likewise, the preserving grammar predicts unavailability of passive and case substitution, which again turn out to be true for the verb ‘need’.

The modern North Germanic languages family consists of mutually intelligible languages spoken in mainland Scandinavia (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish) and the insular languages Faroese and Icelandic. The languages have a common origin but have now diverged to such an extent that there are three different language continua with a large number of dialects. This chapter provides an overview of the history of the North Germanic languages leading to the present-day situation. Results of research are presented that quantify the linguistic differences between the languages and dialects in the language area and the consequences of these differences for mutual intelligibility. Finally, some directions for future research are suggested.

Following a typological classification of metrical systems, word stress in most Germanic languages can be described as characterized by trochaic rhythm, rightmost main stress, left-oriented secondary stress, and quantity-sensitivity. Most Germanic languages, after contact with languages of the Romance type and incorporation of vast amounts of loanwords into their lexicon, place main stress on one of the last three syllables of the word. For most of them it has furthermore been observed that heavy syllables influence the assignment of stress, even though not necessarily in all phonological contexts. Exceptions are Icelandic and Faroese, where main stress falls consistently on the leftmost syllable of the word and syllable weight does not play any role in stress assignment. For those Germanic languages for which secondary stress has been described, parsing of left-aligning secondary stress feet can be assumed.