The HLVC project applies consistent methods of data collection, analysis, and interpretation to a range of languages and dependent variables. This is meant to mitigate the pattern of diverse findings from diverse studies that may partially result from diverse methods. This chapter therefore describes how the corpus is constructed, focusing on the cross-linguistic, cross-generational, and multi-method design, and gives details about recruiting, recording, and transcription of the sociolinguistic interview, the ethnic orientation questionnaire, the picture description task, and the consent procedure. It then describes the workflow for data processing and metadata construction, describing both how the corpus is organized (to be useful to additional researchers) and how we have analyzed variation of a number of variables to date. These include prodrop, case-marking, VOT, and (r) across multiple languages, apocope and differential object marking in Italian, and tone mergers, classifiers, motion-even marking, denasalization (an element of so-called lazy pronunciation, 懶音 laan5 jam1), and vowel space in Cantonese. It details the methods of analyzing ethnic orientation and several proxies for fluency (speech rate, vocabulary size, language-switching measures). Finally, it describes the methods used for constructing and comparing mixed-effects models for cross-variety comparisons in order to distinguish contact-induced change, internal change, and identity-marking variation.

This chapter looks at the mechanics of Agreement, and the role that Agreement plays in Case-marking and A-Movement. It starts (Module 3.1) by characterising Agreement, Case-marking and A-Movement as involving a probe-goal relation, and outlines how agreement and case features are valued in the course of a derivation. Module 3.2 goes on to look at how agreement works in expletive it clauses, and contrasts this with multiple agreement in expletive there clause: it also examines conditions on the use of expletives. Module 3.3 then turns to explore the potential role of abstract agreement in Passive, Raising, Exceptional Case-marking, and Control infinitives. Next Module 3.4 investigates non-standard structures involving agreement across a finite clause boundary (e.g. He seems is very active), and at Copy Raising structures (e.g. He looks like he’s winning). The chapter concludes with a Summary (Module 3.5), Bibliography (Module 3.6), and Workbook (Module 3.7), with some Workbook exercise examples designed for self-study, and others for assignments/seminar discussion.

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.

In Chapter 5, the competing grammars model of morphosyntactic variation is introduced from both a sociolinguistic and computational perspective. The example of nominative substitution in Faroese is used to demonstrate the advantages of the model, in particular the combination of classic Optimality Theory constraints with a probabilistic activation hypothesis. The Faroese dative-subject verbs discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 occur in both dative–accusative and nominative–accusative case frames. The competing grammars model is outlined as a cogent explanation of the co-existence of both forms in use by a given speaker, sometimes within the same text or short series of utterances. Relevant factors proposed to influence selection of the nominative versus dative variants are discussed, including both grammatical and social/contextual variables. The importance of social meaning in determining case selection is highlighted, which presents a Rational Speech Act model of this morphosyntactic variable. In a section co-authored with Rob Mina, the issue of bimodally distributed judgement data is explored, in particular whether such data are effectively random or represent distinguishable dialects, and how to tell. Finally, neural approaches are discussed as an alternative model of competing grammars.

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 3 outlines OLG’s core components, giving the prerequisite theoretical background for understanding the data analyses that follow. The Linking Theory section answers questions regarding levels of lexical–semantic and syntactic representation, mapping between levels, and the architecture of grammar. A short review is presented of the core propositions of Optimality Theory (OT) approaches to syntax, including a list of proposed constraints governing case-assignment. Linking Theory originates in Kiparsky (1997); the central innovation is that three levels of case – abstract, morphosyntactic and morphological – are distinguished, and the same set of binary features is seen to operate at all levels, though with level-appropriate realisation. The introduction to OT focuses on its application to the syntactic module of grammar; a key point is that a huge number of unlikely candidates are harmonically bounded by undominated or high-ranked constraints. Such markedness constraints interact with faithfulness constraints enforcing realisation of all features present in the input, preventing omission of input material other than in highly marked forms. This allows us to capture long-standing generalisations about phrase structure without having to claim they will be completely unviolated across languages: language-specific rankings may result in more or less marked structures.

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’.