Abstract
This paper outlines and discusses three kinds of OT-approach to the partially iconic form/meaning map exhibited by Icelandic (indefinite) object-shift. One bidirectional and two OT-syntactic approaches are contrasted. The conclusion is that bidirectionality fares best in providing a “deeper” understanding of why iconic rather than non-iconic patterns should occur. OT-syntax is more successful in empirical coverage, being able to model partial iconicity in areas where purely syntactic constraints overrule interpretive preferences. Finally, I suggest that OT-syntactic approaches should be further distinguished in terms of the kind of input/output constraints they advocate. This concerns the degree of universality and independent motivation for classical scoping principles as opposed to “harmonic alignment” of the definiteness and the grammatical function scale.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
