In linguistics, quirky subjects (also called oblique subjects) are a phenomenon where certain verbs specify that their subjects are to be in a case other than the nominative. These non-nominative subjects are determiner phrases that pass subjecthood tests such as subject-oriented anaphora binding, PRO control, reduced relative clause, conjunction reduction, subject-to-subject raising, and subject-to-object raising. It has been observed cross-linguistically that the subject of a sentence often has a nominative case. However, this one-to-one relationship between case and grammatical relations (subjecthood) is highly debatable. Some argue that nominative case marking and controlling verb agreement are not unique properties of subjects. One piece of evidence in support of this proposal is the observation that nominative can also mark left-dislocated NPs, appellatives and some objects in the active in Icelandic. In addition, agreeing predicate NPs can also be marked nominative case:
In Standard English, a sentence like "*Me like him" is ungrammatical because the subject is ordinarily in the nominative case. In many or most nominative–accusative languages, this rule is inflexible: the subject is indeed in the nominative case, and almost all treat the subjects of all verbs the same. Icelandic was argued to be the only modern language with quirky subjects, but other studies investigating languages like Basque, Faroese, German, Gujarati, Hindi, Hungarian, Kannada, Korean, Laz, Malayalam, Marathi, Russian, Spanish, and Telugu show that they also possess quirky subjects. The class of quirky subjects in Icelandic is a large one, consisting of hundreds of verbs in a number of distinct classes: experiencer verbs like vanta (need/lack), motion verbs like reka (drift), change of state verbs like ysta (curdle), verbs of success/failure like takast (succeed/manage to), verbs of acquisition like áskotnast (acquire/get by luck), and many others. In superficially similar constructions of the type seen in Spanish me gusta "I like", the analogous part of speech (in this case me) is not a true syntactical subject. "Me" is instead the object of the verb "gusta" which has a meaning closer to "please", thus, "me gusta" could be translated as "(he/she/it) pleases me" or "I am pleased by [x]." Many linguists, especially from various persuasions of the broad school of cognitive linguistics, do not use the term "quirky subjects" since the term is biased towards languages of nominative–accusative type. Often, "quirky subjects" are semantically motivated by the predicates of their clauses. Dative-subjects, for example, quite often correspond with predicates indicating sensory, cognitive, or experiential states across a large number of languages. In some cases, this can be seen as evidence for the influence of active–stative typology. In ergative–absolutive languages, the absolutive case is not considered a quirky subject, because it functions as the default, structurally unmarked case for the subjects of intransitive verbs and the objects of transitive verbs. However, in languages with split ergativity based on tense or aspect—such as Middle Persian and Kurdish—the alignment reverses in the past tense: the logical agent appears in the ergative case, while the argument in the absolutive position acquires core syntactic properties typically associated with subjects (such as agreement and control). In these systems, the absolutive argument is not the canonical subject from a morphological perspective, yet it behaves like one syntactically, and therefore it can be analyzed as a form of quirky subject within a split-ergative alignment.
Subjecthood tests Generally, nominative subjects satisfy tests that prove their "subject" status. Quirky subjects were also found to pass these subjecthood tests.
Subject-oriented anaphora binding Some anaphors only allow subjects to be their antecedents when bound. This is also called reflexivization. Subject-oriented anaphoras (SOA) are a special subclass of anaphora that must have subjects as their antecedents. This test shows that an XP is a subject if it binds to a subject-oriented anaphora. In Icelandic, this is shown below where the dative pronoun subject Honum is only grammatical when binding the anaphor sínum:
Faroese quirky subjects also pass this diagnostic where the subject Kjartani in the dative binds the anaphor sini:
The same behavior is seen in quirky subjects in Basque where the dative subject Joni binds the anaphor bere burua:
In German, the dative DP subject Dem Fritz binds the anaphor sich:
Quirky subjects in Hindi also pass this test where the dative subject मुझे (mujhe) binds the anaphor (the reflexive possessive pronoun) अपना (apnā):
PRO control
Generally, PRO is the subject in the underlying structure of an embedded phrase be it subject-controlled, object-controlled, or arbitrarily-controlled. A subject can show up in a non-overt form in infinitives as PRO, but a preposed object cannot. This diagnostic shows that an XP is a subject if it can be PRO. To illustrate, Icelandic shows subject-controlled PRO with a nominative DP:
Similarly, in Laz, the same can be seen:
Reduced relatives A reduced relative may only appear in as a subject position in a reduced relative clause. This test shows that a constituent is a subject if it can be relativized in a reduced relative clause. Icelandic quirky subjects are not able to be relativized on:
Laz quirky subjects are able to be relativized on:
Subject-to-object raising In Icelandic, some verbs (e.g., telja, álíta) can have their complement in the 'Exceptional Case Marking' (ECM), also known as the 'Accusativus-cum-Infinitivo' (AcI) or 'Subject-to-Object Raising' (SOR) construction. It has been proposed that some non-subject (e.g. a preposed object) cannot be so embedded. The ECM construction occurs when a sentence of the form subject-finite verb-X is selected by verbs such as telja, álíta as a CP complement (embedded clause). The nominative subject shows up in the accusative (or else in the dative or genitive) in ECM construction and the verb is in the infinitive.
Note: The object ostinum cannot be embedded in ECM construction. The following sentence is ungrammatical:
An example of subject-to-object raising in German:
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

