Theoretical concepts which were useful during a certain period in the progression of science often have to be abandoned later to give way to a necessary shift of perspective. The notion “quirky subject” (subjects bearing oblique Case) is, arguably, a case in point. It has guided important empirical research, with a major emphasis on Icelandic. The recent proliferation of “quirky subjects” to further languages has, however, eroded the fundament on which the concept stands. The distinction between languages with and without “quirky subjects” turned out not to be based on a large set of diagnostics that always go hand in hand. Rather, in many languages, only some of the criteria are fulfilled, while the others are not, often because the criteria are inapplicable. Thus, the once clear picture of the grammatical landscape around “quirky subjects” is blurred. Drawing a clear-cut line between constructions that exemplify “quirky subjects” and those that do not therefore involves some arbitrariness. In particular, the discussion of “quirky subjects” suffers from the fact that there is no easily identifiable and grammatically meaningful notion of “subject”, which could decide which of the criteria are essential, a point that was stressed by Sigurðsson (2000a:27). Questioning the usefulness of the notion of a subject (as part of grammar in addition to Case and the hierarchy of arguments) thus appears more fruitful than further attempts of answering the question “Is X a quirky subject?” on partially arbitrary grounds. In this spirit, Wun-
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 147 citations exist upstream.