Case in Icelandic - A Synchronic, Diachronic and Comparative Approach [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

112605 Lindgren

2001-06-28

14.21

Sida 1

Case in Icelandic – A Synchronic, Diachronic and Comparative Approach This dissertation addresses the question of what the function of morphological case is in Icelandic. The working hypotheses of this book is that morphological case is a multifunctional category. Firstly, new verbs in Icelandic were collected and examined to cast light on the productivity of the morphological cases, revealing that not only are the nominative and accusative productive in Icelandic but also the dative. Secondly, a textbased investigation was conducted to find out what the statistical correlation is between morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles. Thus, a well-stratified corpus was compiled, containing Modern Icelandic texts from five written genres and one spoken genre. The study showed that there is a correlation between morphological case and both syntactic and semantic factors. Thirdly, a similar corpus was compiled for Old Icelandic, containing four genres which are closest in content to the Modern Icelandic genres. Some frequency differences were found between the two corpora, reflecting a change in the use of morphological case from Old to Modern Icelandic. Fourthly, a comparison of the development of case in English, Swedish and German revealed that the internal order of the changes within the case system is the same for the Germanic languages considered, with English leading the development, followed closely by Swedish, then German, and Icelandic lagging behind. The theoretical approach adopted in this work is that of Construction Grammar and the Usage-based model.

Case in Icelandic – A Synchronic, Diachronic and Comparative Approach

Jóhanna Bar›dal

Case in Icelandic – A Synchronic, Diachronic and Comparative Approach

Jóhanna Bar›dal

Jóhanna Bar›dal

LUNDASTUDIER I NORDISK SPRÅKVETENSKAP A 57

Department of Scandinavian Languages

Department of Scandinavian Languages Helgonabacken 14, SE-223 62 Lund ISSN 0347-8971 ISBN 91-628-4898-4

A 57

CASE IN ICELANDIC

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

9

1 Introduction

11

1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5

11 14 16 18 19

Introduction to Morphological Case in Icelandic Theories of Case Hypothesis and Goals Methods Disposition

PART I

21

2 Construction Grammar and the Usage-Based Model

21

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

21 21 22 26 29 30 33 39

Introduction Background Basic Assumptions Network Models Radical Construction Grammar The Usage-based Model Morphological Case Summary

3 Syntactic and Semantic Analysis

41

3.1 Introduction 3.2 Syntactic Overview 3.2.1 The Syntactic Analysis 3.2.2 Morphological Case and Syntactic Functions 3.2.2.1 Nominative 3.2.2.2 Accusative 3.2.2.3 Dative 3.2.2.4 Genitive 3.2.2.5 Summary 3.3 Semantic Overview

41 41 41 51 51 51 53 54 56 57

CASE IN ICELANDIC 3.3.1 The Semantic Analysis 3.3.2 Morphological Case and Thematic Roles 3.3.2.1 Nominative 3.3.2.2 Accusative 3.3.2.3 Dative 3.3.2.4 Genitive 3.3.2.5 Summary

57 65 65 67 69 70 72

4 Statistical Distribution of Case in Modern Icelandic

75

4.1 Introduction 4.2 The Investigation 4.2.1 The Corpus 4.2.2 The Tagging of the Texts 4.2.3 Grammatical Analysis 4.2.4 Comparison with Older Studies 4.3 Frequencies 4.3.1 Morphological Case and Syntactic Functions 4.3.2 Morphological Case and Thematic Roles 4.3.3 Syntactic Functions and Thematic Roles 4.3.4 Morphological Case, Syntactic Functions and Thematic Roles 4.3.5 Conclusions 4.4 Summary

75 75 76 78 79 80 85 86 91 95 100 102 107

5 Productivity of the Cases

109

5.1 Introduction 5.2 The Icelandic Data 5.2.1 A Sample of New Icelandic Verbs 5.2.2 Icelandic Schematic Constructions 5.3 The Findings 5.3.1 General Conclusions 5.3.2 Predictions of Different Theories on Productivity 5.3.3 The Argument Structure of Novel Verbs 5.3.3.1 Cluster Attraction 5.3.3.2 Isolate Attraction 5.3.3.3 Argument Structure Borrowing 5.3.4 Case 5.3.4.1 The Novel Usage of the Dative Case 5.3.4.1.1 Dative Subjects

109 109 109 112 117 118 119 130 130 131 132 134 134 134

CASE IN ICELANDIC 5.3.4.1.2 Dative Objects 5.3.4.2 The Novel Usage of the Accusative Case 5.3.4.3 A Choice of Accusative or Dative 5.4 Summary

137 139 141 142

6 Other Functions of Case Morphology

145

6.1 Introduction 6.2 Case as a Lexical Device 6.3 Human vs. Non-human 6.4 Equality vs. Non-equality 6.5 Directed vs. Undirected Motion 6.6 Dative of Movement/Transfer 6.7 The Nominative vs. the Dative Passive 6.8 The Nominative vs. the Dative Ergative 6.9 The Semantics of the Syntactic Cases 6.10 Summary

145 146 148 149 151 151 156 157 158 160

PART II

163

7 Case in Old Icelandic and the Development of Case in the Germanic Languages

163

7.1 Introduction 7.2 The Investigation 7.2.1 The Text Material 7.2.2 The Tagging of the Texts 7.2.3 The Vocabulary 7.2.4 The Morphological Analysis 7.2.5 The Syntactic Analysis 7.3 Frequencies 7.3.1 Morphological Case and Word Category 7.3.2 Morphological Case and Syntactic Functions 7.3.3 Morphological Case and Thematic Roles 7.3.4 Syntactic Functions and Thematic Roles 7.3.5 Morphological Case, Syntactic Functions and Thematic Roles 7.3.6 Conclusions 7.4 Theories on the Development of Case 7.4.1 Synthetic to Analytic 7.4.2 Case and Word Order

163 163 164 166 167 167 168 174 174 178 183 184 186 188 188 189 191

CASE IN ICELANDIC 7.4.3 Case and the Definite Article 7.4.4 Structural vs. Lexical Case 7.4.5 The Predictions of Construction Grammar and the Usage-based Model 7.4.5.1 Icelandic 7.4.5.2 Swedish 7.4.5.3 English 7.4.5.4 German 7.4.6 The "Blended" Construction 7.4. Conclusions 7.5 Summary

192 193 196 197 201 202 203 204 206 208

8 Summary

211

Bibliography

219

Corpus of Written Modern Icelandic Corpus of Spoken Icelandic Corpus of Written Old Icelandic Excerpted Dictionaries References

219 221 222 225 225

Appendix A: Frequency Tables

237

Appendix B: Predicates occurring in the Oblique subject construction

249

Appendix C: Neologisms in the Icelandic Verb Vocabulary

251

Appendix D: Possible Constructions of Icelandic Novel Verbs

267

Index

275

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Acknowledgements

I begin by thanking my supervisor, Christer Platzack, for his support, friendship, linguistic discussions, comments on various versions of the dissertation, and his endless interest in my work. I thank you, Christer, for not giving up on me when I was most defiant in my own search for theoretical independence. I also thank my co-supervisor, Eiríkur Rögnvaldsson at the University of Iceland, for discussions and comments on the dissertation, and linguistic support over the years. In addition, I am indebted to the following people who have read and commented on the work presented in this book, or parts of it: Adele Goldberg, Bill Croft, Halldór Á. Sigurðsson, Joan Maling, Jóhannes G. Jónsson, Kendra Willson, Lars-Olof Delsing, Ute Bohnacker, Vigfús Geirdal, Willem Hollmann, Þórhallur Eyþórsson, and the audiences of various seminars and conferences around the world where I have presented earlier versions of this work. In particular, I thank Lars-Olof for detailed comments and various suggestions to improve this book. I have been fortunate that both my statistical consultant and my English language consultant speak Icelandic. That has been a great asset. I hereby thank Anders Holtsberg for statistical consultation and Alan Crozier for correcting my English. I feel grateful to everybody in the Department of Scandinavian Languages at Lund University. Without you I would not be here today. Of my colleagues in Lund I feel especially in debt to Adriana Ojeda-F, Gunlög Josefsson, Halldór Á. Sigurðsson, Lars-Johan Ekerot, Lillemor Santesson, Ute Bohnacker and Valéria Molnár for support. My thanks also go to all my other colleagues in Lund, and the friends I have made there over the years, too numerous to mention here. I am also greatly indebted to my colleagues in the NOS-H project "Focus Structure, Word Order and Thematic Structure", running from 1995-2000. I thank Valéria Molnár (Sweden), Lars Heltoft (Denmark), Jorunn Hetland (Norway), and Marja Järventausta (Finland) for our joyful meetings over the years and for support and friendship. In particular, I thank Valéria Molnár for her encouragement. I have spent this last year of dissertation writing in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Manchester. I am immensely grateful to the department for having welcomed me as a Visiting Research Fellow and providing me with work environment and all facilities. Thank you, Kersti, for that and for helping me with all kinds of practical matters. I am grateful to everybody at the department, in particular my room-mates

CASE IN ICELANDIC Erika Chisarik, Ioanna Sitaridou, Katrin Hiietam, Rob O'Connor and Sandra Paoli for their social and emotional support. Thank you, Rob, for always having the time to answer all my questions. I also want to thank the secretary, Carolyn Cook for her friendliness and interest. For particularly stimulating linguistic discussions and support, I thank my friends in the cognitive collective: Bill Croft, Chiaki Taoka, Maike Nielsen, Willem Hollmann and Violeta Sotirova. For special friendship I thank Willem and Vito. My deepest gratitude also goes to Tolli and Rósa for everything they have done for me during this year in Manchester. I thank you, Tolli, for all our stimulating linguistic discussions. These have been a real pleasure. My doctoral studies have been funded with generous graduate student fellowships from Lund University, RANNÍS (The Icelandic Research Council) and STINT (The Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education). I have also received research grants from NOS-H (The Nordic Research Councils for the Humanities), the Crafoord Foundation, and Gunvor och Josef Anérs stiftelse, for various parts of the doctoral project. My grandmother, Sesselja G. Barðdal, contributed financially to the final stretch of the dissertation writing. The following funding bodies have made smaller contributions: Dept. of Scandinavian Languages, Fil dr. Uno Otterstedts fond, Knut och Alice Wallenbergs stiftelse, Kungliga Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund, Landshövding Per Westlings minnesfond, Letterstedtska föreningen and Syskonen Anna Cecilia och Otto Sigfrid Granmarks stipendiefond. Had it not been for this funding my doctoral studies would not have been completed. When compiling the text corpora used in the research presented in Chapters 4 and 7, I gained access to the private libraries of some of my fellow Icelanders in Lund and Manchester: Árni Sverrisson, Guðrún Valsdóttir, Haukur Viggósson, Hrefna Róbertsdóttir, Ragnar Ásmundsson, Rannveig Ólafsdóttir, Steingrímur Jónsson, Vigfús Geirdal and Þórhallur Eyþórsson. I thank them and their families. I am very grateful to Ulla Holmström and her family in Veberöd for having provided me with childcare when I desperately needed it, over a period of many years. My deepest thanks go to them. I am also immensely grateful to my family in Iceland for their support, especially to my grandmother, Sesselja G. Barðdal, to whom I dedicate this book. Last but not least, I thank my son, Hörður, whom I love the most, for his endless patience towards an ever-working mum. Manchester and Lund, June 2001 Jóhanna Barðdal

CASE IN ICELANDIC

1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction to Morphological Case in Icelandic Icelandic, being a Germanic language, has great similarities to German as regards the inflectional system. Verbs inflect for person, number, tense and mood. Nouns belong to one of three gender classes and inflect for number and case. Adjectives inflect for gender, number and case, and so do the suffixed definite article, demonstratives, indefinite pronouns, possessives, personal pronouns, reflexives, ordinals and the first four cardinals. The morphological case system has stayed intact from Old Icelandic to Modern Icelandic, with only a few syncretisms of forms, which has not affected the system as a whole (see Ottósson 1987, 1990). Svavarsdóttir, for instance, in her study on the inflectional system (1993), identifies 27 classes of noun inflection in Modern Icelandic. Icelandic has a case system with four case forms: nominative, accusative, dative and genitive (see elementary books on Icelandic, such as Einarsson 1949 in English, Kress 1982 in German, Guðmundsson 1922 in Danish, Jónsson 1984 in Norwegian, and Barðdal, Jörgensen, Larsen and Martinussen 1997 in Swedish). The morphological paradigm can be illustrated as in the following examples of a-stems (masc. and neut.) and istems (fem.): Table 1.1: The indefinite paradigm. Indef. masc. nom.sg. hestur acc. hest dat. hesti gen. hests nom.pl. hestar acc. hesta dat. hestum gen. hesta

fem. bók bók bók bókar bækur bækur bókum bóka

neut. barn barn barni barns börn börn börnum barna

Table 1.2: The definite paradigm. Def. masc. nom.sg. hesturinn acc. hestinn dat. hestinum gen. hestsins

fem. bókin bókina bókinn bókarinnar

neut. barnið barnið barninu barnsins

11

CASE IN ICELANDIC nom.pl. acc. dat. gen.

hestarnir hestana hestunum hestanna

bækurnar bækurnar bókunum bókanna

börnin börnin börnunum barnanna

Table 1.1 illustrates the words, hestur 'horse', bók 'book' and barn 'child', in the indefinite form, and Table 1.2 gives the same words but with the suffixed definite article. As is evident from Tables 1.1 and 1.2, case has a morphological representation in Icelandic. It is manifested morphologically through endings (or the lack thereof), and occasionally in stem variation, for example in the pronoun paradigm, as is generally the case for the IndoEuropean languages (see Howe 1996). When two cases are identical in form, for instance the nominative and accusative of barn 'child' above, the noun can be replaced by another noun which does not have identical forms, if the need arises to identify the relevant case form. As mentioned above, adjectives inflect for gender, number and case, meaning that there is case agreement within the noun phrase in Icelandic. There is also double case inflection in definite nouns in Icelandic, first in the stem itself and secondly in the suffixed definite article: (1)

a. gamli hesturinn b. gamla hestinn old.nom horse.nom-the.nom old.acc horse.acc-the.acc c. gamla hestinum old.dat horse.dat-the.dat

d. gamla hestsins old.gen horse.gen-the.gen

However, since case agreement is of no importance in this thesis I will only gloss the head noun for case in the remainder of this work. A peculiarity of Icelandic is that it exhibits oblique subjects, i.e. syntactic subjects in accusative, dative and genitive, as well as nominative objects (Andrews 1976, Thráinsson 1979, Bernódusson 1982, Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson 1985, Sigurðsson 1989 and subsequent work, Jónsson 1996, 1997-98, Barðdal 1999a, 2001a): (2)

a.

Þú hefur séð Svein. you.nom have seen Sveinn.acc 'You have seen Sveinn.'

b.

Þig hefur dreymt Svein. you.acc has dreamt Sveinn.acc 'You have dreamt of Sveinn.'

12

CASE IN ICELANDIC c.

Þér hefur líkað maturinn? you.dat has pleased food-the.nom 'Did you like the food?'

d.

Þess gat í skrifum hans. it.gen appeared in writings his 'It was obvious from his writings.'

I will discuss the criteria for defining subjects and objects in section 3.2.1 below. However, it is worth mentioning that the finite verb in Icelandic does not necessarily agree with the syntactic subject in number and person. When the subject is in the nominative case the finite verb agrees with it, as in (3a) below: (3)

a.

Ég hef séð Svein. I.nom have.1p.sg seen Sveinn.acc

b.

Mig hefur dreymt Svein. I.acc has.3p.sg dreamt Svein.acc

However, when the subject is in accusative, dative or genitive case the verb usually turns up in the default 3p.sg. form, as in (3b) above. This is true unless the syntactic object is in the nominative, then the verb can optionally agree with the nominative object. In (4a) the finite verb is in the default 3p.sg. form, as is the case when the subject is oblique. In (4b), though, the finite verb is in 3p.pl., thus agreeing with the nominative object which is 3p.pl. (4)

a.

Mér hefur alltaf fundist kartöflur góðar. I.dat has.3p.sg always found potatoes.nom good.nom 'I've always liked potatoes.'

b.

Mér hafa alltaf fundist kartöflur góðar. I.dat have.3p.pl. always found potatoes.nom good.nom 'I've always liked potatoes.'

It thus seems like a correct description of Icelandic to say that Icelandic does not have subject-verb agreement but rather nominative-verb agreement (see Sigurðsson 1990-91). Moreover, these data also illustrate that morphological case is not a morpho-syntactic phenomenon in Icelandic, since case does not directly reflect syntactic functions. These data also show that Icelandic can be regarded as being neither a head nor a dependent marking language. 13

CASE IN ICELANDIC After these preliminaries on morphological case in Icelandic I now proceed to theories of case.

1.2 Theories of Case Most modern linguistic theories or theory systems try to account for case, the usage of cases and case systems in the languages of the world. These theoretical systems are not necessarily general theories of case but rather subtheories in larger systems. To mention a few, I may point out the theories of Chomsky ((1981)1993), Fillmore (1968), Dik (1978) and Starosta (1988). Chomsky has assumed that morphological case is solely a syntactic device in the world's languages. The term case has also been used to describe the semantic representations of syntactic relations (Fillmore's deep case). Dik argues that morphological case can be both a syntactic phenomenon and a semantic phenomenon. His ideas regarding syntactic and semantic cases are based upon a typological distinction between active, ergative and accusative languages. In his system, active languages have semantic cases and accusative languages have syntactic cases. Starosta also assumes that the morphological cases may be either semantic or syntactic. He distinguishes himself from Dik insofar as he assumes that nominative is a syntactic case and that all the other cases are semantic. There are also scholars who argue that the morphological cases are basically a semantic phenomena (see Wierzbicka 1981, 1983). Some linguists have related case and the usage of cases to aspect, i.e. to the event type of the action denoted by the predicate. Yli-Vakkuri (1987), Nemvalts (1996) and Tommola ((1986), here cited by Nemvalts) have all drawn attention to this usage of the morphological cases in the Finno-Ugric languages. The usage of case has also been related to mood and modality (Yli-Vakkuri 1987). Yet some other linguists (Jackendoff 1990:49 and following him Hentschel 1993) argue that cases are only diacritics and have no deeper function or role. To sum up, it has been argued that the morphological cases are syntactic, semantic, aspectual and modal phenomenon, and finally, that they are diacritics. From this it should be clear that there is no consensus in the literature on the nature and function of morphological case. More specifically for case in the Modern Scandinavian languages, we can identify three main debates: • the break-down of the case system in Mainland Scandinavian • the fate of the Impersonal construction in Scandinavian

14

CASE IN ICELANDIC • the syntactic status of the oblique Experiencer in the Impersonal construction in Old Scandinavian. Beginning with the debate on the break-down of the case system in Mainland Scandinavian, some scholars have argued for a connection between the break-down and the Middle Low German influence on Scandinavian (Jahr 1994, 1995), while others have argued against this (Norde 1994), and claimed that it was a language-internal development (Ringgård 1986), stemming from apocope (Marold 1980), changes in word order (Faarlund 1987, 1990, 1999), changes in the null-subject parameter (Platzack 1987), and/or the emergence of the article system (Delsing 1991, Holmberg 1994, Anward and Swedenmark 1997). Secondly, scholars have proposed different accounts of the development of the Impersonal construction, i.e. the development from oblique Experiencers to nominative Experiencers, as in mik drømer 'me dreams' which has changed into jag drömmer 'I dream' in Swedish, and an equivalent change has taken place in all the other Mainland Scandinavian languages (Sundman 1985, Faarlund 1987, 1990, 1999, Falk 1995, 1997, Barðdal 1998, Eythórsson 2000, Barðdal and Eythórsson 2001). Finally, it is possible to argue either that the oblique Experiencer is not a syntactic subject (Faarlund 1987, 1990, 1999, Kristoffersen 1991, 1994, 1996, Mørck 1992, Falk 1997) or that its behaviour is that of a syntactic subject (Rögnvaldsson 1991, 1995, 1996a, Barðdal 1997, 2000a, Haugan 1998, Barðdal and Eythórsson 2001). When it comes to morphological case in Icelandic, Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson (1985) have dealt with passive and passive-related case phenomena. They suggest that the mechanisms of case assignment are of three kinds: semantic (i.e. thematic), idiosyncratic (i.e. lexical) and functional (i.e. syntactic). Rögnvaldsson (1983a) has addressed the question of what the possible roots of the "dative sickness" or dative substitution are. Sigurðsson (1989, 1991, 1992) and Jónsson (1996) have discussed case in Modern Icelandic and investigated the mechanism that controls the representations of case. Jónsson (1997-98) has investigated the semantics of the dative subject of impersonal verbs in Icelandic. Barðdal (1999a, 2001a) investigated the substantial class of Dat-Nom verbs which can take either argument as the subject/object. A minimalism account of these has been presented by Platzack (1999). Sigurðsson (2000) has studied the relation between morphological case and agreement. Maling (2001) has investigated the relation between morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles. The Impersonal constructions (Bernódusson 1982) have received abundant attention in the literature, either because the case of the Experiencer argument has changed into dative or because it has changed

15

CASE IN ICELANDIC into nominative (Svavarsdóttir 1982, Halldórsson 1982, Svavarsdóttir et al. 1984, Smith 1994, 1996, Jónsson 1997-98, Eythórsson 2000). Rögnvaldsson (1983a), Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson (1985), Jónsson (1997-98), Barðdal (1999b, 1999c, 2000c, 2001a) Eythórsson (2000) and Maling (2001) have addressed and worked on the question what the function of the cases or the case system in Icelandic is. There are also scholars who have noted that morphological case in Icelandic does not behave as they expect. I quote Delsing (1995:175): (5)

Jag kan inte här göra annat än att peka på att något som förändrar rollen hos kasus i isländskan tycks ske någon gång under dessa sekler. 'Here I can only point out that something which changes the role of case in Icelandic seems to have taken place some time during these centuries.'

The following statement is from Hróarsdóttir (1996:132-133, see also Boeckx 1998): (6)

... the case-system has lost most of its real function; it might even be in the present day language for a decorative purpose only.

Here it is suggested that the Icelandic case system is an ornament. Such statements presumably have their origin in the idea that morphological case is a syntactic device. This idea has been around for a long time; it can at least be traced as far back as to Falk and Torp (1900:238), and presumably springs from the typological fact that some case languages seem to have "freer" word order than other "caseless" languages. Obviously, even though morphological case in Icelandic does not conform to this pattern, that does not automatically entail that all other possible information communicated by morphological case is functionless. Before any empirical research has been done on morphological case, in order to establish its function, I cannot see any reason to assume that it is syntactic and nothing but syntactic. In this work I will show that the view of morphological case as being solely a syntactic phenomenon is too narrow. Thus, in my view, the question of what the function of case is in Icelandic is an empirical question and not a theoretical one. If a given theory is our starting point, then our answers to the question may be rooted in that theory, irrespective of the nature of the theory, and irrespective of empirical facts about case. To find an answer to this question it is essential

16

CASE IN ICELANDIC to do empirical research on morphological case in both Modern and Old Icelandic. That is the basic task of this thesis.

1.3 Hypothesis and Goals The use of the term case widely varies. It has been used to denote an abstract feature or characteristics of nominal elements (Chomsky's theory), to encode semantic representations of syntactic relations, manifested in the so-called thematic roles (Fillmore's case). Some theoretical linguists use the term case as a label for nominal relations and their syntactic representations (Lehmann 1985). Traditionally the term case is used to denote an inflectional category, with many alternative representations, such as nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative, adessive, and so on. These cases are morphologically manifested as different case forms, via stem variation or morphological endings. It is this last usage of the term case that will be used in this thesis. In the present work I will confine myself to answering one question, stated as follows: (7)

What is the function of the Icelandic case system?

Since different theories have had alternative things to say about morphological case (see the previous section) it is clear that we cannot assume that morphological case necessarily is a homogeneous category. My working hypothesis is that case can be a heterogeneous or multifunctional category (see also Janda 1993), that case can possibly have more functions than only one, as is stated in (8): (8)

Morphological case is a multifunctional category.

Our goal here will be to try to isolate, at least some of the functions morphological case has in Icelandic. By function I mean the motivation for case. What is it that motivates the existence of this grammatical category, which is only visible in nominal elements? Most grammatical categories correspond to independent cognitive categories, hence tense corresponds to time, number to amount, and so on. No such cognitive equivalent is readily found for case (cf. Janda 1993). It is obvious that when a syntactic subject may be case-marked as nominative, accusative, dative and genitive it becomes difficult to regard any specific case as the case of the syntactic subject. The same is true for the syntactic object in Icelandic; it can also be case-marked by four case forms. In this respect, Icelandic differs from most of the other Germanic 17

CASE IN ICELANDIC languages. The majority of them, however, lost their case systems during the Middle Ages; this applies to English, Dutch and the Mainland Scandinavian languages. The only (standard) Germanic languages which have retained the cases are Icelandic, Faroese and German. Moreover, there are data that suggest that the older Scandinavian languages, i.e. Old Swedish and Old Danish, and even Old/Middle English and Old/Middle High German, were more like Icelandic and Faroese, when it comes to the morphological marking of syntactic functions, than their corresponding modern equivalents (see Barðdal 1997, 2000a and Barðdal and Eythórsson 2001 for an overview of the Old Scandinavian languages, Seefranz-Montag 1983 and 1984 on Old High German and Old English, and finally Allen 1986 and 1995 on Old English). Also, there are no data that speak against the assumption that the medieval Germanic languages were similar to Modern Icelandic and Faroese in their case marking of syntactic functions (see Barðdal and Eythórsson 2001). Given the assumption that the older Germanic languages had a structure and a case system similar to Modern Icelandic, which has been argued for by Barðdal 1997, 2000a, the question undeniably arises why the morphological case system was lost in Scandinavian, English and Dutch, and not in Icelandic, Faroese and German. The main goal of this thesis is therefore to map the possible different functions of the Icelandic cases; a syntactic aspect of the case usage, a semantic aspect, and possibly other aspects of the cases which have hitherto received little attention. Only then will it be possible to state directly what the function of case is. In addition, it will become possible to evaluate prevailing theories and renew them according to empirical facts and findings on case.

1.4 Methods There are two principal methods which will be employed in this survey. The first is a corpus-based investigation of the relation between morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles. From frequency figures, and figures on correlations between morphological case and the other variables, I will draw conclusions on the function of the Icelandic cases, i.e. their syntactic and semantic aspects. This method will be applied to both Old and Modern Icelandic texts. The difference (if any) between these two language stages may be used as a basis for forming hypotheses about the nature of the development of the case systems in the other Germanic languages, hypotheses which also have to take into account the situation in the present-day Germanic languages. This development is 18

CASE IN ICELANDIC generally well described for the neighbouring languages (see references above and also Delsing 1991, 1995, Norde 1997 and Anward and Swedenmark 1997). The other method to be employed in this thesis is to collect new verbs in Icelandic and investigate the cases they assign to their arguments. By investigating the case assignment of new verbs it may be possible to identify the case factors that are productive in the Icelandic language of today. No such study has previously been carried out for Modern Icelandic (see however Barðdal 1999b for a similar study on 15th-century Icelandic), nor for any other languages as far as I am aware. This study is important in that it aims at increasing our knowledge of one particular part of the Icelandic language, namely, the case system and its functions. In addition it aims at establishing an empirical basis for new and revised theories of case. Moreover, every new piece of knowledge on case in Icelandic can shed new light on the development of case in the other Germanic languages, since Germanic case is best preserved in Icelandic. Finally, even though my goals in this research are empirical, i.e. I see it as an empirical investigation of morphological case, this work will not be without theoretical streaks. In fact I have found the tools of Cognitive Linguistics, more precisely Construction Grammar and the Usage-based model, to be useful. Therefore, when appropriate, I will employ their terminology and research methods.

1.5 Disposition This book is divided into two main parts: Part I and Part II. Part I is the synchronic part of this work, including Chapters 2-6, whereas Part II, i.e. Chapter 7, adds a diachronic and a comparative aspect to this study. Chapter 2 gives a short overview of the main theoretical assumptions of Construction Grammar and the Usage-based model, it introduces the basic terminology of that framework, and gives a short overview of how morphological case would be dealt with. In Chapter 3 the general methods of my corpus-based investigation are described, and the criteria used for tagging the texts in the corpus are given. An overview of the distribution of morphological case across syntactic functions and thematic roles is presented. Chapter 4 contains the results for Modern Icelandic of the corpusbased investigation. I compare the statistical correlations between morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles in language use, more precisely in five genres of written Icelandic and one genre of spoken 19

CASE IN ICELANDIC Icelandic. The existing correlations are used as a basis for my conclusions on the function of case in Icelandic. In chapter 5 I present a collection of new or novel verbs in Icelandic and examine the morphological case they assign to their arguments. The predictions on the productivity of the cases that follow from the basic assumptions of one of today's most prevalent grammatical theories, namely, the generative tradition's distinction between structural and lexical case, will be evaluated against our data. New verbs and the morphological case they assign to their arguments cannot be examined without a general theoretical discussion on productivity, and this is undertaken in Chapter 5. Some fundamental ways for languages to acquire new verbs will be discussed and some speculations made about the basis on which speakers assign morphological case to the arguments of these verbs. Chapter 6, the last chapter in the synchronic part, gives an overview of various other different uses of morphological case in Icelandic, such as dative with movement verbs and dative with human arguments. Chapter 7 gives a description of the corpus-based investigation of Old Icelandic and its results. The correlations of morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles are established and compared with Modern Icelandic. Differences in frequencies due to stylistic factors are also discussed. Finally, I examine theories on the development of morphological case and measure them against my results. I then extend the discussion to the development of morphological case in the Germanic languages, and explore the predictions of Construction Grammar and the Usage-based model, and how this combined framework can give a unified account of the development of morphological case in the Germanic languages. Chapter 8 is a summary of the main conclusions of this book.

20

CASE IN ICELANDIC

PART I 2 Construction Grammar and the Usage-Based Model 2.1 Introduction Before I present my empirical research into case in Icelandic, the linguistic theory employed in this work, i.e. Construction Grammar, should be introduced. This chapter gives a brief presentation of Construction Grammar, its background, basic assumptions, methods and objects of study. Section 2.2 gives the general background to Construction Grammar, while in 2.3 the basic ideas are laid out. Section 2.4 surveys how linguistic knowledge is assumed to be organized within the minds of speakers. Section 2.5 outlines how Radical Construction Grammar deviates from mainstream Construction Grammar. Section 2.6 contains a description of how the Usage-based model has been implemented into Construction Grammar, and section 2.7 presents how morphological case is viewed and what position is taken in this work. Section 2.8 is a summary.

2.2 Background Cognitive Linguistics is one branch of Cognitive Science, whose main research facet has been the study of the cognition of human beings and how their behaviour is affected by their cognitive skills. Cognitive Linguistics is the area of research which focuses on how human beings understand, perceive, organize and acquire language (see Tomasello 1998). Cognitive linguists believe that linguistic knowledge is fundamentally no different from other knowledge human beings possess, and that it is structured, and should therefore be represesented, like other knowledge of humans, i.e. in categories and networks of categories. Cognitive Linguistics rejects the idea that linguistic knowledge should be divided into different components, such as syntax and semantics, but opts for an integrated approach of all aspects of language. Cognitive linguists also emphasize the role of meaning in language, the meaning of both lexical items and grammatical items.

21

CASE IN ICELANDIC Construction Grammar has its origin in Cognitive Linguistics and Lexical Semantics, more precisely in the works of Langacker, Fillmore, Kay, Lakoff and other followers of the Berkeley tradition (Fillmore, Kay and O'Connor 1988, Kay and Fillmore 1999, Langacker 1987, 1988, 1991, Lakoff 1987, Goldberg 1995, Michaelis 1998, etc.). Construction Grammar is a theory of language and grammar, and how it might be represented within the minds of speakers, aiming at giving an accurate picture of the psycholinguistic reality of language. It has been successfully applied in typological research (Croft 2001) syntactic research (Croft 2000, 2001), research within morphology (Bybee 1985, 1995) and phonology (Bybee 2001).

2.3 Basic Assumptions The main idea behind Construction Grammar is that constructions are the basic units of language, and therefore that constructions should be central to all linguistic descriptions and theories of language (Goldberg 1995, Croft 2001, Cruse and Croft in prep). A construction consists of a form and a meaning, or a function, connected with that form. A construction is therefore a form-meaning pair. Within Construction Grammar the following kind of formalism is used to illustrate this (from Cruse and Croft in prep: Ch. 10):

Figure 2.1: The form-meaning pairing. The pairing of form and meaning cannot always be derived from any general rules of the language, or from the components of the pair. As such this pairing is therefore often idiosyncratic. Furthermore, when there is an agreement in a language community on this idiosyncratic form-meaning pairing, then that pairing has become a convention of the language community. That is called conventionalization. A construction, for instance the noun phrase in English, would be graphically illustrated and formalized in the following way (from Cruse and Croft in prep: Ch. 10):

22

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Figure 2.2: The form-meaning pairing of an English noun phrase. The box indicates that the determiner with the form the has a semantic representation DET, and that the noun with the form ball has a semantic representation BALL. This is indicated with the dotted lines between the components of the syntactic representations and the elements of the semantic representation. Furthermore, as is indicated by the dotted line between the syntactic and the semantic representation there is a formmeaning correspondence between the two as a whole. The upper box is called the SYN-part (phonological pole in Langacker's terminology) and the lower box is called the SEM-part of the construction (semantic pole in Langacker's terminology). Within the framework of Construction Grammar, the idea that constructions are form-meaning correspondences was first used to account for idioms and idiomatic expressions, and was later developed to account for other aspects of linguistic knowledge, such as syntax and morphology. Construction Grammar, therefore, can account for different levels of linguistic knowledge in a uniform way. The following table is taken from Cruse and Croft (in prep: Ch. 10): Table 2.1:The syntax-lexicon continuum. Construction type Traditional name Complex and (mostly) schematic Complex, substantive verb Complex and (mostly) substantive Complex but bound Atomic and schematic Atomic and substantive

Examples

syntax

[SBJ be-TNS V-en by OBL]

subcategorization frame idiom

[SBJ consume OBJ]

morphology syntactic category word/lexicon

[NOUN-s], [VERB-TNS] [DEM], [ADJ] [this], [green]

[kick-TNS the bucket]

When studying idioms and idiomatic expressions, it has been noted that idioms are not a homogeneous class of expressions (Fillmore, Kay and O'Connor 1988, Nunberg, Sag and Wasow 1994). Rather, idioms can differ in terms of which of their properties are idiosyncratic. For instance, some

23

CASE IN ICELANDIC idioms are completely idiosyncratic, in the sense that the meaning of the parts added together does not correspond to the meaning of the whole. One such example is kick the bucket, which simply means 'die', of which it is the whole phrase kick the bucket which yields the meaning, while the individual parts of the phrase do not contribute to the meaning. Another subgroup of idioms are those in which only a part of the expression is used with a different meaning from its meaning in isolation, while the other parts have the same conventional meaning as they do in regular expressions. An example of that is answer the door, where door means 'door', while answer does not mean 'answer' in its regular sense, but rather to 'open' the door. Idioms are conventionalized units and traditionally treated as if it is only their meaning that is idiosyncratic and therefore not necessarily derivable from the meaning of the parts, or from any other general interpretation rules. However, it is also an idiosyncratic property of idioms whether they conform to the general syntactic rules of the language or not. Examples of idioms conforming to syntactic rules are, for instance, answer the door and kick the bucket, where the verb is in second position, and the object follows the verb, in accordance with general rules of English syntax. However, there are idioms that do not conform to general syntactic rules, such as Be that as it may, where the verb is in first position and the subject is in an inverted position, even though this is not a question. Idioms can come both as lexically completely fixed, such as The bigger they come, the harder they fall, and also as partly lexically filled, as in The X-er, the Y-er, where the syntax is completely fixed, while the syntactic slots are partly unfilled lexically, and can be filled by the speaker in various ways depending on the context. In this case we can speak about an idiomatic pattern, The X-er, the Y-er, and we also have an example of that same idiomatic pattern being idiomatically filled, as in The bigger they come, the harder they fall. Lexically unfilled instantiations of constructions do thus not exclude the existence of lexically filled instantiations of the same schematic constructions (Fillmore, Kay and O'Connor 1988, Cruse and Croft in prep: Ch. 10). Finally, idioms can have a pragmatic value which is not derivable from any pragmatic or discourse functional rules. One such example is Him be a doctor?! (Kay and Fillmore 1999). All of this has to be accounted for in a coherent way and cannot be excluded from a theory of grammar which aims at representing the speaker's knowledge of his/her language. This should be obvious, taking into consideration the fact that conventionalized lexical units (on a higher level than the word level) in the language can constitute as much as 55% of uttered speech, according to the definition in Warren (forthcoming) of prefabs or prefabricated material. 24

CASE IN ICELANDIC Construction Grammar was originally designed to give an account of idioms and idiomatic expressions, as conventionalized form-meaning pairs, and their relation to the language as a whole. Table 2.1 above demonstrates that all linguistic entities can be accounted for within Construction Grammar as form-meaning pairs: What is traditionally called syntax, or a sentence, and expressed as syntactic rules, is here regarded as complex, since a simple sentence is compositionally formed, and schematic, in the sense that the slots are not lexically filled in advance. In other words, the speaker has a choice of which lexemes to put in a sentence when s/he is forming one. The subcategorization frame is also a complex, schematic construction but it is partly lexically filled, i.e. with the relevant verb, and therefore it is called partly substantive. An idiom can also be complex and schematic but often idioms are lexically filled. Morphological entities are complex constructions but they are not schematic like the sentence but bound. A syntactic category like the demonstrative is schematic since it is not lexically filled in advance but atomic since it cannot be further divided into smaller units. Finally, the word is also a construction, but atomic and substantive. Within Construction Grammar, therefore, it is assumed that there is no fundamental difference between the syntax and the lexicon. Rather, the units of these are treated as linguistic equivalents, i.e. as constructions, consisting of a form and a corresponding meaning. This concept of how linguistic knowledge is modeled within Construction Grammar can be illustrated as in the following figure from Cruse and Croft (in prep):

Figure 2.3: The Constructicon. The constructicon, i.e. the inventory of constructions at all levels existing in a language, and their interrelations, is construed with the construction as the basic unit of language, where phonological properties, syntactic properties and semantic properties are not independent modules but are present in all constructions.

25

CASE IN ICELANDIC Finally it should be emphasized that the concept of the construction in Construction Grammar differs from the traditional concept of construction. Traditionally the term construction is used to denote a complex syntactic structure that deviates from the most general structure, for instance the passive construction as opposed to the ordinary transitive clause. There is also a general misconception in the linguistic research community that a construction, within Construction Grammar, has to be semantically non-derivable from the general semantic interpretation rules of the language, i.e. we only stipulate that a linguistic object is a construction of its own if some parts of the meaning of the construction as a whole cannot be derived from the meaning of the parts. This is a misconception. In Construction Grammar, every linguistic unit is a construction of its own, with a form and a corresponding meaning/ function, irrespective of whether the meaning of the construction is general or specific. Some constructions are highly specific, like idioms. It is impossible to derive the meaning of the whole from the meaning of the parts. Other constructions are highly general, like the ditransitive construction. The meaning of the ditransitive as a whole is a sum of the meaning of the parts. However, all of these are constructions (see Tomasello 1998, Cruse and Croft in prep: Ch. 10).

2.4 Network Models The speaker's knowledge of his/her language is assumed to be organized in taxonomic hierarchies. Substantive constructions are viewed as instances of more abstract schematic constructions, with many possible intermediate levels (Croft 2000, Cruse and Croft in prep):

Figure 2.4: Different levels of schematicity. The verb phrase can be realized as a verb together with an object. A verb that selects for an object is for instance the verb kick. The object of kick can 26

CASE IN ICELANDIC further be realized as the noun phrase the bucket. Furthermore, constructions and their interrelations are captured by assuming taxonomic hierarchies of constructions:

Figure 2.5: Taxonomic hierarchies of relations between constructions. Figure 2.4 may be taken to imply that constructions only have one parent in the tree, i.e. that lower level constructions are instances of the higher level constructions and only them, but that is not true. For instance the Did Subj go? is both an instance of the Question construction and an instance of the Auxiliary do construction. That can be illustrated in the following way:

Figure 2.6: Multiple parents of a construction. The consequence of this is that constructions, in fact, often have multiple parents, and that the network model can be quite complex. There are various ways of representing the necessary and sufficient information about constructions that has to be included in the taxonomies. One such way is to assume that all information about a construction is stored at the highest level of schematicity and that it is inherited at the lower levels. This model is called the complete inheritance model (see Kay and Fillmore 1999). Another way to account for the necessary and sufficient information is to assume that all information is stored at all levels in the taxonomy. Such a model is called the full-entry model (see Goldberg 1995). Depending on which model is assumed, the processing procedures which accompany it also vary. If we assume the complete inheritance model, we also have to assume that the processing procedure is maximized,

27

CASE IN ICELANDIC while assuming the full-entry model, the processing procedure is minimized (Cruse and Croft in prep: Ch. 11). Like other linguistic categories, constructions form a radial category with one construction as the prototype construction and other constructions as polysemous to the central instance. Goldberg identifies four network links in her work on argument structure constructions: polysemy links (IP), metaphorical extension links (IM), subpart links (IS) and instance links (II). Polysemy links are used to capture the relation between any particular sense of a construction and the extensions from this sense. Metaphorical extension links are used to capture the relation between two constructions related metaphorically. Subpart links (or meronomic links) are used to show that a construction exists independently of another construction but is yet a proper subtype of that construction. Instance links (or taxonomic links) are used if one construction is truly an instance or a special case of another construction (see Goldberg 1995: Ch. 3). Similarities of certain apparently unrelated constructions can easily be expressed in terms of this machinery. Consider the following examples from Goldberg (1995: Ch. 3) of the Resultative (1a), the Caused-motion construction (1b), the Transfer construction (1c), the Intransitive motion construction (1d) and the Intransitive resultative construction (1e): (1)

a) b) c) d) e)

Pat hammered the metal flat. Pat threw the metal off the table. Pat gave the metal to Kim. The metal flew out of the room. The metal went flat.

Because of some similar semantic and syntactic constraints on the Resultative and the Caused-motion construction the first can be seen as a metaphorical extension of the latter, and they can therefore be linked together with an IM-link. In that way, generalizations across constructions are easily captured. Figure 2.7 is a diagram of the Caused-motion construction in English and all the other possible senses or constructions related to it in different ways, according to Goldberg's analysis (1995:109). The different senses derived from the basic sense are marked with polysemy links (IP). The Resultative and the Transfer constructions are analysed as metaphorical extensions of the basic Caused-motion construction (1b above) and are marked accordingly (IM). In the Transfer construction (1c) the transfer is basically transfer of possession, analysed as a metaphorical extension of the basic Caused-motion construction. The Intransitive motion construction (1d) is analysed as a special case of the Caused-motion construction, marked (IS). Finally, the Intransitive

28

CASE IN ICELANDIC resultative construction (1e) can either be analysed as a special case of the Resultative construction (IS) or as a metaphorical extension of the Intransitive motion construction (IM).

Figure 2.7: The Caused-motion construction and its interrelations.

2.5 Radical Construction Grammar Croft (2001) has proposed a variant of Construction Grammar, called Radical Construction Grammar, which differs from mainstream Construction Grammar in that it takes the complex schematic construction to be the basic unit of language, and not atomic primitive constructions as is done within mainstream Construction Grammar. In other words, mainstream Construction Grammar assumes complex schematic constructions, like for instance the transitive construction, to be built up from atomic constructions, like the subject, the verb and the object. Thereby, the subject exists both as an atomic construction [Subj], and as a part of a larger construction, namely, the Transitive construction [[Subj]-[Verb]-[Obj]]. 29

CASE IN ICELANDIC Radical Construction Grammar, however, does not adhere to the existence of [Subj] as an independent unit, irrespective of the larger construction it occurs in. This assumption of Radical Construction Grammar is motivated by the fact that the atomic constructions do not occur by themselves in isolation from the larger complex constructions, but instead a subject is always a subject of a predicate. Hence, the atomic units can easily be derived from the complex constructions. Mainstream Construction Grammar thereby assumes both part-whole relations and part-part relations, while Radical Construction Grammar assumes only part-whole relations. A consequence of this is that Radical Construction Grammar does not employ meronymic links to represent relations between constructions, but uses instead only taxonomic links to reproduce constructional relatedness. Furthermore, Radical Construction Grammar assumes that syntactic relations can be derived from semantic and symbolic relations already present in the construction. This can be graphically illustrated as in Figure 2.8 (from Cruse and Croft, in prep: Ch. 11):

Figure 2.8: The symbolic and semantic relations of constructions in RCG. As is obvious from the diagraph above, there are symbolic relations (indicated by s and the dotted lines) between the elements of the syntactic representation (in the upper boxes) and the components of the semantic representation (in the lower boxes), and there is a symbolic relation between the syntactic and the semantic representations as a whole (indicated by s and a dotted line between the two boxes). Further, there is a semantic relation r between the components of the semantic representation, i.e. between [DEF] and [SONG], and given that, syntactic relations need not be postulated, they can be retrieved from the symbolic and semantic relations already present in the representation of the construction. This is the radicality of Radical Construction Grammar.

30

CASE IN ICELANDIC

2.6 The Usage-Based Model The Usage-based model is a model of language use, and of how linguistic knowledge is represented and stored in the minds of speakers. The usagebased model also takes into consideration the effects of frequency in language use. It has been advocated by, amongst others, Langacker (1987, 1988, 1991, 1999), Bybee (1985, 1995, 2001), Goldberg (1995) and Croft (2001). Two basic concepts within the Usage-based model are the concepts of type frequency and token frequency. A construction is high in type frequency if it is instantiated by many lexemes, i.e. if it occurs with many different lexical items, and low in type frequency if it only occurs with a few lexical items. On the other hand, a construction is high in token frequency if it is instantiated many times by the same lexical item, and low in token frequency if the construction, together with the lexical item, is infrequent in use. Another important concept within the Usage-based model is the concept of entrenchment (lexical strength in Bybee's terminology). If a schematic construction is very frequent, i.e. high in type frequency, then it can be said to be entrenched in speakers' minds. If only one instance of the construction is very frequent, i.e. high in token frequency, then only that instance will be deeply entrenched in speakers' minds, while the more abstract, schematic construction it represents will not be well-entrenched. Entrenchment is a consequence of high frequency, either of types or of tokens. Differences in type frequency, and hence entrenchment, of two schematic constructions, for instance the transitive and the ditransitive constructions, can be illustrated in the following way:

Figure 2.9: Difference in type frequency of two constructions. In this case, the lines indicate the types that can occur in the constructions, and since there are more lines, and therefore more types, of the transitive construction then the transitive construction is more entrenched than the ditransitive. The difference between an entrenched schematic construction and an entrenched token of a construction can be graphically illustrated in the following way: 31

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Figure 2.10: Entrenched schematic construction vs. entrenched token. The boxes in bold indicate higher degrees of entrenchment. The leftmost diagram shows a schematic construction which exhibits a relatively high degree of entrenchment because there are many types that instantiate it. The rightmost diagram shows that an instance of a more schematic construction, i.e. one token of the construction is very frequent, and therefore that instance is more entrenched than its superordinate construction since the more abstract construction is instantiated by only one token. Productivity is assumed to be a consequence of a construction's (phonological/lexical/semantic) coherence and its high type frequency. The more open a construction is, and the more lexical items that instantiate it the more productive it is. Thus, the more likely it is that the construction attracts new items and that it spreads to other existing items that otherwise fulfill the relevant criteria for occurrence in that particular construction (Bybee 1985, 1995, Goldberg 1995: Ch. 4). Highly entrenched schematic constructions are productive since their type frequency is high. However, high token frequency of an instance does not contribute to the overall productivity of a schematic construction. Rather, it is only the token that is entrenched, as an independent unit in its own right, and not the superordinate schematic construction, as can be seen in Figure 2.10 above. The example Bybee (1995) gives is from morphology: weak verbs are very high in type frequency in English, thus the -ed preterite is highly productive. On the other hand, strong verbs are low in type frequency but extremely high in token frequency. However, the fact that they are high in token frequency does not contribute to the productivity of the non -ed preterite, since high token frequency only yields the token itself as entrenched and not the schematic construction. The view of the Usage-based model on how linguistic knowledge is stored in the mind of speakers differs from generative models. Within the Usage-based model regular behaviour of linguistic items is captured by schematic constructions and their instances. This knowledge is assumed to be stored in the mind of speakers, with some constructions being more entrenched in speakers' minds than others. Also, as stated above, the entrenchment is a consequence of frequency effects. Generative models,

32

CASE IN ICELANDIC also known as dual processing models, of language acquisition and processing assume that only irregular items are stored in the lexicon while completely regular behaviour is assumed to be generated, while processed, with rules (see Pinker 1999 and the references therein). As pointed out by, for instance, Bybee (1995) these generative models, therefore, do not assume any frequency effects and thereby wrongly predict that storage in the lexicon should be evenly divided across irregular lexical items, thus preventing infrequent irregular items from becoming regular. It is, however, a fact that infrequent irregular items have a tendency to become regular, i.e. historically, in psycholinguistic experiments, and in child language (see Bybee and Slobin 1982, Cruse and Croft in prep and the references therein). Bybee (1995) points out that generative models also predict that regular highly frequent word forms should not be stored in the lexicon since they can be generated on-line with a rule. However, psycholinguistic experiments on word production tasks have shown that highly frequent regular word forms are produced faster than regular word forms that are low in frequency, and the difference is highly significant (see Bybee 1995 and the references there). This evidence speaks for the Usage-based model.

2.7 Morphological Case Within Construction Grammar there are basically two ways of viewing morphological case; first as an indistinguishable part of an argument structure construction, and secondly as a construction of its own. On the first account, different case frames in a language belong to the SYN-part of different argument structure constructions, the semantics of which are defined on the basis of the verbs occurring in these. On the latter account, a morphological case, for instance the dative subject case or the accusative subject case, is considered a construction of its own, a form-meaning correspondence, in this case defined on the basis of the meaning of the schematic construction and the semantic relation that holds between it and its subject argument (see for instance Wierzbicka's (1981:48) discussion of the German Dative of misfortune). These two views do not exclude each other, since constructions can be nested within constructions. Instead, these two representations can be seen as complementing each other in that they capture different aspects of morphological case. In the first representation, different case constructions are compared with each other, whereas in the latter the differences in meanings of one and the same case construction are examined. I now discuss each in turn.

33

CASE IN ICELANDIC Icelandic exhibits various case constructions, such as the transitive Nom-Acc, Nom-Dat, Nom-Gen, Acc-Acc and Dat-Nom, ditransitive constructions such as Nom-Dat-Acc, Nom-Acc-Dat, etc. Argument structure constructions with different types of complements, as for instance prepositional objects and clauses are also found, such as Nom-PP, Acc-PP, Dat-PP, Gen-PP, Nom-S (where S stand for sentence), Acc-S, Dat-S and Gen-S. Icelandic also has intransitive constructions with Nom, Acc, Dat and Gen subjects. This knowledge of the Icelandic speaker can, for instance, be represented as in Figure 2.11. In Figure 2.11 the Nom Subject construction is represented in a bold box as compared to the various Oblique Subject constructions, which are represented in normal mode boxes. This is meant to capture the differences in type frequency between the four subconstructions, in that the Nom Subject construction has higher type frequency than the Oblique subject constructions, and is therefore more entrenched.

Figure 2.11: Some Argument structure constructions in Icelandic.

34

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Figure 2.12: Differences in entrenchment of the various oblique subject constructions. There is also a difference in frequency between the different oblique subject constructions, which can be represented in a similar fashion, shown in Figure 2.12. Figure 2.12 is a detail of Figure 2.11 and is meant to capture the fact that the Dat subject construction is by far the highest one in type frequency of the oblique subject constructions in Icelandic (approx. 700 types for the Dat subject construction vs. approx. 200 for the Acc subject construction), hence it is represented in bold. Regarding the meaning of these constructions, the Nom subject construction has the widest semantic scope of all the case constructions in Icelandic, in that there are no restrictions on what kind of verbs can occur in it. The Oblique subject constructions, on the other hand, are restricted in their meanings since agentive verbs cannot instantiate them (see Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson 1985, Sigurðsson 1992, Jónsson 1997-98, Barðdal 1999a, 2001a). This can be illustrated in the following way for the Nom, Acc and Dat subject constructions:

35

CASE IN ICELANDIC Nom |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| Dat

|-----------------------------|

Acc

|---------------|

The Nom subject construction covers the whole semantic range, the Dat subject construction covers only the non-agentive semantic ranges, with most of the verbs occurring in it denoting human experience, whereas the Acc subject construction covers partly the experience-based semantic range and partly the semantic range of changes within nature and landscape. This is exemplified in (2) below: (2)

a.

Mig dreymdi ömmu. I.acc dreamt grandma

b.

Ána lagði. river-the.acc froze

Thus, the three constructions partly share the same semantics. The exact semantic range covered by the different constructions can also be put forth, but that requires a detailed semantic analysis of all the predicates occurring in each construction, a task beyond the scope of this research. However, a preliminary investigation (Barðdal in prep) reveals that Dat subject verbs are of various types in Icelandic: they can denote cognition, perception, bodily states, changes in bodily states, emotion, intention, permission, obligation, inclination, property, gain, completion, hindrance, and they even denote meanings such as advancing, diminishing, and saying, etc.: (3)

Cognition:

Honum er þetta kunnugt. he.dat is this.nom known 'This is known to him.'

Perception:

Honum smakkaðist maturinn. he.dat tasted food-the.nom 'The food tasted good to him.'

Bodily states:

Honum er illt. he.dat is ill 'He's feeling sick.'

Changes in bodily states:

Honum batnaði. he.dat got-better 36

CASE IN ICELANDIC 'He got better.' Emotion:

Honum leiðist. he.dat be-bored 'He's bored.'

Intention:

Honum gekk gott eitt til. he.dat went good one to 'His intentions were good.'

Permission:

Honum leyfist allt. he.dat be-allowed everything.nom 'He is allowed everything.'

Obligation:

Honum ber að hlýða. he.dat be-obliged to obey 'He is obliged to obey.'

Inclination:

Honum hættir til að ýkja. he.dat tends to at exaggerate 'He tends to exaggerate.'

Property:

Honum liggur hátt rómur. he.dat lies loud voice.nom 'He's got a loud voice.'

Gain:

Honum áskotnaðist byssa. he.dat received gun.nom 'He got a gun.'

Completion:

Honum tókst þetta. he.dat managed this.nom 'He managed to do this.'

Hindrance:

Honum seinkaði. he.dat got-late 'He was late.'

Advancing:

Honum fór fram í ensku he.dat went forward in english.dat 'His English improved.'

37

CASE IN ICELANDIC Diminishing:

Þeim fækkaði. they.dat got-fewer 'They became fewer.'

Saying:

Honum hraut þetta af vörum he.dat fell this.nom of lips.dat 'He accidentally spoke.'

It is important to notice that the Dat subject predicates that are "actional", such a as hrjóta af vörum 'accidentally speak' as in the last example above, cannot be interpreted as intentional action, although the speaker is the "doer" the activity is not volitional. Thus, it seems that agentive predicates can occur in the Dative subject construction, however not with the canonical interpretation that the activity has been volitionally carried out. More research needs to be done on this. The fact that verbs occurring in the Dat subject construction are of various semantic types can be represented as in Figure 2.13. The figure is not intended to be an exhaustive representation of the semantics of the Dat subject construction, it is only intended to illustrate how the meanings of the construction can be represented. This semantic map has two axes, namely, an axis of intention and an axis of action. In the top right part of the map the verbs lowest in actionality and intentionality are located, such as property verbs and verbs of gaining. Emotion, Perception and Cognition verbs can be viewed as more actional than property verbs since property verbs only describe a property of the subject while Emotion, Perception and Cognition verbs denote a feeling or an internal activity of some sort. Changes in bodily states are inchoative and therefore more actional, thus they are located more to the left than their corresponding stative verbs. Verbs of (unintentional) saying are situated in the upper leftmost corner, because they are high in actionality and low in intentionality. Notice that the bottom left part of the map is empty. That is the space allocated to predicates which are high in transitivity and thus actionality, of which the referent denoted by the subject has voluntarily carried out the action. Examples of such verbs occurring in the Dative subject construction are extremely few, although some examples have been reported in the literature, as the ones in (4) below:

38

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Figure 2.13: A semantic map of the verbs occurring in the Dat subject construction. (4)

a.

Sveini talaðist vel á fundinum. Sveinn.dat spoke well on meeting-the.dat 'Sveinn spoke well at the meeting.'

b.

Sveini mæltist þannig. Sveinn.dat spoke thus 'Sveinn said that.' (Barðdal and Eythórsson 2001:70)

However, verbs of speaking are not highly transitive verbs in that the subject does not affect the object in a significant way since these verbs are often intransitive, and when occurring in the transitive construction the object is usually the content of the verb, i.e. the spoken material, which cannot be affected at all (see also the discussion in footnote 2 in Chapter 3 and in section 6.9 below). Finally, I assume that all case constructions in Icelandic are stored as independent constructions in the Constructicon, and that all verbs occurring in each construction are linked to those via II-links. Thus, verbs occurring in the Nom-Acc construction are stored as such, verbs occurring in the Nom-Dat construction are stored as such, and verbs occurring in the DatNom construction are stored together with the Dat-Nom construction. On 39

CASE IN ICELANDIC the basis of this, it is inevitable that nominative and accusative case are "word-bound" as are the dative and the genitive. In summary, morphological case is either regarded as a part of an argument structure construction, which distinguishes itself from other argument structure constructions with different case frames, or as an independent construction of its own. A consequence of this view is that nominative and accusative do not have any special status in the grammar, as is the case within generative theories, where they are assumed to be structural cases (Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson 1985, Sigurðsson 1989, Jónsson 1996, 1997-98), and thus structurally and qualitatively different from, for instance the dative. On a constructional account the Nom-Acc construction has the widest semantic scope and the highest type frequency, while the other constructions are restricted in their semantics and thus lower in type frequency.

2.8 Summary This chapter has given a presentation of the theoretical framework adhered to in this book. Construction Grammar is the syntactic theory of Cognitive Linguistics, originally designed to account for idioms and their idiosyncratic properties, and later to be extended to cover syntax, and all linguistic knowledge of speakers. The main idea within Construction Grammar is that a construction is a form-meaning pairing, and that the construction is the basic linguistic entity central to all linguistic descriptions and theories of language. The meaning of constructions is either general, i.e. derived from the meaning of the parts, or specific, i.e. not derivable from the meaning of the parts, and hence idiosyncratic. Construction Grammar treats all linguistic entities alike, i.e. linguistic entities ranging from the abstract schematic complex construction, traditionally called sentences, to the smallest morphological units, traditionally called morphemes. Constructions are organized in taxonomic networks that contain constructions at different levels of schematicity, ranging from highly abstract constructions to concrete substantive constructions, with the relevant intermediate levels in between. Relations between constructions are captured with polysemy links and metaphorical extension links. Radical Construction Grammar differs from mainstream Construction Grammar in two ways: the complex syntactic construction is assumed to be the basic construction with all atomic constructions treated as derivatives. Furthermore, Radical Construction Grammar dispenses with syntactic relations since they can be derived from semantic relations between the components of the SEM part and the symbolic relation between 40

CASE IN ICELANDIC the SYN and the SEM parts. The Usage-based model can also be implemented into Construction Grammar since the basic assumptions of the Usage-based model, i.e. that frequency affects how linguistic units are stored in the mind of speakers, is compatible with the basic assumptions of Construction Grammar. On a constructional approach morphological case can either be viewed as an indistinguishable part of an argument structure construction, i.e. a part of its form, or it can be regarded as a construction of its own. The former view entails that case constructions, such as for instance the Nom subject construction, are contrasted with other case constructions, such as the Dat subject construction. The latter view entails that for instance the Dat subject construction can exhibit a wider meanings that has to be accounted for in a coherent way. It is furthermore assumed that all constructions are stored in the constructicon with a link to the verbs occurring in them, thus the case frames of all verbs are treated in a uniform way, not giving nominative and accusative a primary status in the grammar. Instead it is assumed that the Nom-Acc construction is only one of many which differs from the others only in terms of being semantically unrestricted and having the highest type frequency. I now proceed to the first one of my main investigations on morphological case in Icelandic, and the syntactic and semantic criteria used when analysing the texts in the corpora.

41

CASE IN ICELANDIC

3 Syntactic and Semantic Analysis 3.1 Introduction This chapter outlines the syntactic (3.2) and semantic (3.3) criteria used in tagging the Modern and Old Icelandic text corpora. I begin with an overview of syntactic functions and how they are defined in this work, and an overview of how the texts have been tagged for syntactic variables (3.2.1). I then illustrate the co-occurrences of syntactic functions and morphological case (3.2.2). Regarding the semantic criteria, in section 3.3.1 I give a general outline of the basis of the semantic analysis, whereas section 3.3.2 presents an overview of the correlation of semantic variables and morphological case.

3.2 Syntactic Overview 3.2.1 The Syntactic Analysis In this work I assume that subjects and objects are structurally distinct from each other. When linear order is considered, I assume that the subject is the first and hence the leftmost argument of an ordinary argument structure construction, and that the object is the second and hence the rightmost argument of an ordinary transitive argument-linking construction. This argument structure construction is illustrated in (1). I call it the Transitive construction. (1)

Sveinn hafði keypt bíl. Sveinn.nom had bought car.acc 'Sveinn had bought a car.'

Transitive

This argument structure construction is identifiable in Icelandic as the construction which exhibits most neutral word order. When I talk about subject in the following I am referring to the argument corresponding to Sveinn in (1) above. When I talk about object I am referring to the argument corresponding to bíl in (1) above. I now discuss each syntactic function in turn, starting with the subject. Subjects can appear in different structural positions in Modern Icelandic, depending on the construction in question. They appear in first position in ordinary Transitive constructions, as in (1) above. However, in

41

CASE IN ICELANDIC the Topicalization construction, and other Inversion constructions, subjects immediately follow the finite verb. This is illustrated in (2) and (3) below: (2)

Í gær hafði Sveinn keypt bíl. yesterday had Sveinn.nom bought car.acc 'Yesterday Sveinn had bought a car.'

Topicalization

(3)

Hafði Sveinn keypt bíl? had Sveinn.nom bought car.acc 'Had Sveinn bougth a car?'

Yes-No Question

Inversion constructions in Icelandic, such as the Topicalization and the Yes-No Question constructions, have different function than the ordinary neutral word order construction; thus they are also identifiable on both formal and functional grounds. In Icelandic, subjects can also occur to the right of the non-finite verb. However, those cases are not instances of an ordinary argument structure construction, i.e. the Transitive construction, but rather the Heavy subject construction and the Indefinite subject construction. A characteristic of these is that the subject is either heavy or indefinite and thus it occurs to the right of the non-finite verbs. This is exemplified below: (4)

Þá hafði keypt bílinn hann Sveinn Jónsson sonur hans Jóns then had bought car-the.acc he Sveinn Jónsson.nom son of-him Jón á Miðfelli bróðir hennar Diddu vinkonu minnar. on Miðfell brother of-her Didda friend my Heavy subject 'Then Sveinn Jónsson had bought the car, the son of Jón at Miðfell who is my friend Didda's brother.'

(5)

Þá hafði keypt bílinn einhver ókunnugur. Indefinite subject I then had bought car-the.acc some stranger.nom 'Then some stranger had bought the car.'

Indefinite subjects can also occur immediately preceding the non-finite verb in the linear order: (6)

Þá hafði nefnilega einhver ókunnugur keypt bílinn. then had namely some stranger.nom bought car-the.acc 'Then some stranger had bought the car.' Indefinite subject II

I now turn to discuss how the subject of (1) above behaves when the neutral word order construction occurs as embedded as a subclause, or a 42

CASE IN ICELANDIC small clause in a larger construction, such as the Subject-to-subject raising construction, Subject-to-object raising construction and the Control construction. The subject occurs in different positions depending on the construction in question. In the Subject-to-subject raising construction (Sto-s-raising) the subject of the lower clause occurs in the position preceding the auxiliary, maintaining its case form. In (7) below the subject appears in the nominative, accusative, dative and genitive, respectively, depending on the case form of the subject of the lower verb (all verbs occurring with accusative, dative and genitive subjects in my corpora are listed in Appendix B): (7)

a.

Sveinn fór að lesa bókina. Sveinn.nom started to read book-the.acc 'Sveinn started reading the book.'

b.

Svein fór að dreyma. Sveinn.acc started to dream 'Sveinn started dreaming.'

c.

Sveini fór að líða illa. Sveinn.dat started to feel bad 'Sveinn started feeling bad.'

d.

Þess fór að gæta í skrifum hans. it.gen started to appear in writing his 'It became obvious in his writings.'

S-to-s-raising

In Subject-to-object raising (S-to-o-raising) constructions the subject of the argument-linking construction, as for instance in (1) above, occurs in the position between the two verbs and has accusative case (8a). In a subconstruction of the Subject-to-object raising construction, available to impersonal verbs selecting for dative or genitive subjects, the subject of the argument-linking construction occurs between the two verbs but has maintained its dative (8b) or genitive case and does not show up case marked as an accusative (8c). Thus, (8c) is ungrammatical: (8)

a.

Ég lét Svein kaupa bílinn. I let Sveinn.acc buy car-the.acc 'I made Sveinn buy the car.'

b.

Ég lét Sveini líða illa. I let Sveinn.dat feel bad 'I made Sveinn feel bad.' 43

S-to-o-raising

CASE IN ICELANDIC c.

*Ég lét Svein líða illa. I let Sveinn.acc feel bad

In the Control construction, however, the subject of an ordinary- argument linking construction is left unexpressed on identification with the subject of the control verb or on identification with an indefinite argument retrievable from the context: (9)

a.

Sveinn lofaði að kaupa bílinn. Sveinn.nom promised to _____ buy car-the.acc 'Sveinn promised that he would buy the car.'

b.

Það er gaman að kaupa bíl. it.nom is fun to ______ buy car.acc 'It is fun to buy a car.'

Control

Notice that objects behave differently from subjects in the Control construction in that it is only the subject of an ordinary argument linking construction that is left unexpressed in a Control construction, while the object always follows the non-finite verb. Thus, objects can never be left unexpressed in Control constructions: (10) #Það er gaman að kaupa. it.nom is fun to _____ buy 'It is fun buying.' not #It's fun to buy a car.' The sentence in (10) is grammatical only on the interpretation that the subject be retrievable from the context and not that the lower argument bíl should be interpreted as the unexpressed argument. The common property identifiable for the so-called subject in all of the examples above is the property that it is the first argument of an argument-linking construction. The second argument of an ordinary argument-linking construction behaves differently from the first one, as is evident from the examples above: The second argument, i.e. the object, follows the main verb in an ordinary argument structure construction. It also follows the main verb in the Inversion construction, unless it is a Topicalization construction where the object itself has been topicalized, then it precedes the finite verb. In the Heavy subject construction and the Indefinite subject construction I it occurs between the main verb and the subject. In the Indefinite subject construction II it also immediately follows the non-finite verb. In the Subject-to-subject raising construction, the Subject-to-object raising construction and the Control construction the argument corresponding to the object of an ordinary Transitive 44

CASE IN ICELANDIC construction immediately follows the non-finite verb. This examination shows that subjects and objects behave differently in different constructions in Icelandic. Crosslinguistically, an argument's ability to appear as the subject in a passive construction has also been used to identify it as an object: (11) Bíllinn var keyptur. car-the.nom was bought

Passive

However, this cannot be used as a criterion for the object in Icelandic since only highly agentive verbs can occur in the passive construction. Thus, verbs lower in transitivity do not occur in the passive in Icelandic: (12) *Bíllinn var áttur. car-the.nom was owned Hence, an object in Icelandic is the argument identifiable as the second argument of an ordinary transitive construction, which follows the finite verb in the linear order, and which follows the non-finite verb when there are two verbs in the clause, i.e. the former verb being an auxiliary, a raising verb or a control verb. If a speaker of a language knows which argument is the first argument and which is the second argument of an ordinary argumentlinking construction, and if s/he has knowledge of the inventory of constructions in his/her language, and how they are divisible into parts, s/he also knows which argument is the subject and which is the object, since the behaviour of these arguments is derivable from the fact that they are first and second arguments of an ordinary argument structure construction (see Croft 2001: Ch 4 for a discussion of this). This knowledge of the speaker can be illustrated as in the figure below:

Figure 3.1: The relations between parts of constructions.

45

CASE IN ICELANDIC The knowledge a speaker has of his/her language consists of information on the internal structure of constructions, and the relations between constructions, including how an argument of an ordinary argument structure construction behaves in other constructions of the language. As already mentioned in Chapter 1, in Icelandic the syntactic subject is not confined to nominative case, and objects can bear nominative case as well as accusative, dative and genitive. This has been amply documented in the syntactic literature (on non-nominative subjects, cf. Andrews 1976, Thráinsson 1979, Bernódusson 1982, Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson 1985, Sigurðsson 1989, 1992, Jónsson 1996, 1997-98, Barðdal 1999a, 2001a, and on nominative objects, cf. Bernódusson 1982, Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson 1985, Sigurðsson 1990-1991, Maling and Jónsson 1995, Jónsson 1996, 1997-98, Barðdal 1999a, 2001a). Most of the research on the syntactic behaviour of oblique subjects has focused on accusative and dative subjects. Such examples are given in (13) below: (13) b.

c.

Þig hefur dreymt Svein. you.acc have dreamt Sveinn.acc 'You have dreamt of Sveinn.'

Transitive

Þér hefur líkað maturinn? you.dat has pleased food-the.nom 'Did you like the food?'

These accusative and dative subjects behave like the nominative Sveinn in examples (1-12) above, and the nominative maturinn in (13b) behaves like the object in (1-12). The sentences in (14) below contain Control infinitives, illustrating that the accusative subject of dreyma from (13a) and the dative subject of líka from (13b) are the unexpressed arguments in the Control construction: (14) a.

b.

Það er gaman að dreyma Svein. it.nom is fun to ______ dream Sveinn.acc 'It is fun to dream of Sveinn.'

Control

Það er gott að líka maturinn. it.nom is good to ______ please food-the.nom 'It is good to like the food.'

These examples therefore show that in Modern Icelandic syntactic subjecthood is not confined to nominative.

46

CASE IN ICELANDIC By the term object, I both mean the second argument of an ordinary Transitive construction and the third argument of a Ditransitive construction: (15) a.

b.

Sveinn hafði keypt bíl Sveinn.nom had bought car.acc 'Sveinn had bought a car.'

Transitive

Sveinn sendi honum bókina. Sveinn.nom sent he.dat book-the.acc 'Sveinn sent him the book.'

Ditransitive

Turning now to the indirect object, it is here defined as the first object of two in the linear order of a Ditransitive construction: (16) Sveinn sendi honum bókina. Sveinn.nom sent he.dat book-the.acc

Ditransitive

However, the Beneficiary argument of senda 'send' is not defined as an indirect object when it occurs governed by a preposition: (17) Sveinn sendi bókina til hans. Sveinn.nom send book-the.acc to he.gen

Transfer

Thus, an indirect object is structurally defined and not semantically. The argument following a preposition I call an object of a preposition (18a), while a prepositional object is a complement of a verb (18b), in contrast to a verbal complement which is a direct object (18c), and in contrast to a prepositional phrase which has an adverbial function (18d): (18) a.

til hans to he.gen

b.

Sveinn horfir á sjónvarpið. Sveinn.nom watches on television-the.acc

c.

Sveinn keypti bíl. Sveinn.nom bought car.acc

d.

Sveinn keypti bíl hjá Jóni. Sveinn.nom bought car.acc at Jón.dat 'Sveinn bought a car at John's.' 47

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Regarding the preposition-particle continuum, I have consistently distinguished between prepositions and particles by using the object shift test: (19) a.

Jón tók til dótið/*það. Jón.nom took to things-the/it.acc 'Jón sorted out the stuff.'

b.

Jón tók dótið/það til. Jón.nom took things-the/it.acc to 'Jón sorted out the stuff.'

(20) a.

Dótið er til þín. things-the.nom are to you.gen 'This stuff is for you.'

b.

*Dótið er þín til. things-the.nom are you.gen to

If pronominalized arguments precede the preposition/particle, and cannot follow it, as in (19a) then the argument is an object of a particle verb, otherwise it is an object of a preposition (20). The reflexive object of reflexive verbs is only analysed as an argument when it can be replaced by a non-reflexive object, as illustrated below: (21) a. b.

Hann þvoði sér/henni he washed himself.dat/she.dat Hann skammaðist sín/*hennar he was-ashamed himself.gen/*she.gen

I assume that sér in (21a) is an argument, but that sín in (21b) is not an argument but rather a part of a complex predicate, comparable to the particle in particle verbs. For the purpose of the study presented in the following chapters of this book, it is not necessary to distinguish between predicative complements occurring with subjects or objects. Both are counted and categorized as predicative complements. On the other hand I have not included predicative complements of elliptic clauses, like há og reist in (24) below (the analysis of há og reist as a predicative complement of an

48

CASE IN ICELANDIC elliptic clause is based on Teleman 1974). Such examples are not included in my statistics. In accordance with the Icelandic tradition, I have not distinguished between objects of verbs and objects of adjectives. Both are labelled objects: (22) a. b.

Sveinn keypti bíl. Sveinn.nom bought car.acc Sveinn er trúr Kristínu. Sveinn.nom is faithful.nom Kristín.dat

Further, it is not always clear how to syntactically categorize certain instrumental datives, like the one in the following example: (23) Ég örva þig til dáða blautri tungu. I encourage you to deeds wet tongue.dat 'I encourage you to continue with my wet tongue.' (Höf 1994:134-136) On this point I will take a Construction Grammar position and view instrumental datives as objects, not necessarily of verbs, but rather as objects of constructions. Within traditional frameworks these instrumental datives are usually regarded as non-governed adverbials since the verbs they occur with are not assumed to subcategorize for such instrumentals. However, since the whole concept of subcategorization frames is used to capture the most common argument structures occurring with verbs, it is not clear that other less common argument structures should be treated differently. Titles, when they precede names, are analysed as belonging to the same phrase as the name: (24) Frú Jósefína Súsanna sat há og reist í stólnum, Mrs. Jósefína Súsanna.nom sat tall and straight in chair-the.dat (Fal 1996:192-193) However, when the title follows the name it is analysed as an apposition: (25) [...] sem Þórarinn bóndi í Laufási auglýsti eftir [...] which Þórarinn.nom farmer in Laufás.dat advertised after '[...] which Þórarinn, farmer in Laufás, advertised for [...]' (Rad 1995:134-136)

49

CASE IN ICELANDIC A special object is a category created to capture a special kind of objects which occur in their "lexicon" form, i.e. nominative, but are nevertheless syntactic objects, strictly speaking: (26) Tökum bara hugtakið kraftur sem er [...]. Take just concept-the.acc force.nom which is 'Let's just take the concept 'force' as [...]' (Hug 1996:108-109) These are often objects of verbs with the meaning say, shout and so on. Sometimes these constituents can also be analysed as appositions or sentence-external phrases. It is not always clear how to analyse them, but I have consistently analysed them as special objects. The category as-predicates contains predicates with the comparative particle sem 'as' and eins og 'like'. These predicates inherit the same case form as their correlates in the matrix clause and can therefore occur in all morphological cases: (27) a.

b.

Ránið [...] var aðeins hægt að skilja sem svívirðilega hefndarráðstöfun [...] kidnapping-the.acc was only possible to understand as horrible revenge.acc 'The kidnapping [...] could only be understood as a horrible revenge [...]' (Frá 1997:15-17) Á heilsuhælinu var Hálfdáni tekið eins og langþráðum sjúklingi [...] on sanitary-the was Hálfdán.dat received as and much-longedfor patient.dat 'Hálfdán was welcomed as an eagerly awaited patient [...]' (Han 1997:126-128)

I have chosen to categorize them all together, as as-predicates, for the purpose of this study. I use the term nominal attribute in its traditional way for a noun having the function of an attribute to a head noun: (28) Þetta er sonur Guðmundar. this is son.nom Guðmundur.gen 'This is Guðmundur's son.' Subjects cliticized on verbs are always tagged as subjects and nominative. They are common in questions and imperatives in Icelandic:

50

CASE IN ICELANDIC (29) a.

b.

En segðu mér [...] but tell-you me 'but tell me [...]

Imperative (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

Hvert varstu að fara? where were-you to go 'Where were you going?'

Yes-No Question (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

There are two exceptions to cliticized subjects being tagged as nominatives and subjects. The first one is the complex heyrðu, which literally means 'listen you (imp.)', but is used as a filler and is very common in spoken Icelandic. The second one is the complex komdu 'come you' in komdu sæll, which means 'hello' or 'hi', and is common in spoken Icelandic. The same argument applies to vertu 'be you (imp.)' in vertu sæll which means 'goodbye'. Therefore I have not treated those as having any syntactic structure, and they are excluded from all statistics. For the Subject-to-object raising construction, I have categorically analysed the "raised" subject as a syntactic object when it occurs in the accusative case in this construction. Thus all nominative subjects of NomAcc verbs are tagged as accusative and object when they occur in the Subject-to-object raising construction. However, for the dative and genitive subconstructions of the Subject-to-object raising construction, I have analysed the "raised" dative and genitive as a subject. The reason is simple. If these datives and genitives were not marked as subjects, they would not be visible in my statistics, thus we would not gain knowledge of how frequent the impersonal verbs in Icelandic are in actual language use. This only applies to the Old Icelandic material, in which there are numerous instances of Subject-to-object raising verbs selecting for dative subject verbs. No such examples are found in my Modern Icelandic material. In this research I have categorized all morphologically marked syntactic elements. A consequence of this is that not all syntactic variables used in the tagging process are equal, as many case-marked elements belong to different syntactic levels: for instance, an object of a preposition can be both a PP and a part of an apposition. Such cases are only labelled as objects of prepositions and not as appositions. Conjoined syntactic elements are not counted in this study, as that would indicate double counting of syntactic functions. This means that a subject containing two nominals, conjoined with for instance og 'and', is only counted once. This is true for all levels except the sentence level. I now proceed to an overview of the co-occurrences of morphological case and syntactic functions.

51

CASE IN ICELANDIC 3.2.2 Morphological Case and Syntactic Functions 3.2.2.1 Nominative An NP in nominative case can have the syntactic function of a subject, predicative complement and an object. These are illustrated in (30a-c): (30) a.

b.

c.

Ævintýramenn og lukkuriddarar runnu á slóðina adventurers and fortune-seekers.nom ran on path-the.acc 'Adventurers and fortune seekers hunted us down' (Ráð 1992:111-112) Hann var fyrsti maðurinn [...] he was first man-the.nom 'He was the first man [...]'

(Ævi 1991:209-211)

[...] og e.t.v. fylgdu honum einhverjir slíkir menn and perhaps followed him.dat some such men.nom 'and perhaps he was accompanied by some men of that kind' (Haf 1997:284-286)

3.2.2.2 Accusative An NP in accusative case can have the syntactic function of the subject, the direct object and the indirect object, as exemplified in (31a-c): (31) a.

b. c.

[...] að þekkingu skorti á eftirfarandi þáttum: that knowledge.acc lacked on following factors.dat '[...] that there was a shortage of knowledge in the following areas:' (þjó 1994:39-40) Mamma hefur gefið honum merki Mother.nom has given him signal.acc (Eng 1955:153-155) Hann spurði þá félaga nokkurra spurninga he.nom asked them companions.acc some questions.gen (Býl 1996:191-192)

Accusatives can also occur as objects of prepositions in Icelandic. Some common prepositions assigning accusative case in Icelandic are the following: (32) um (í) gegnum inn kringum

'around' 'through' 'in' 'around'

52

CASE IN ICELANDIC umhverfis

'surrounded by'

Some examples of accusative objects of prepositions are illustrated in (33): (33) a.

b.

ef hann vildi gangast lífinu á hönd if he.nom wanted go life-the on hand.acc 'if he wanted to submit/surrender to life' (Hæf 1996:105-106) Tíu þúsund hermenn á hlaupum upp fjöruna ten thousand soldiers.nom on run-the up beach-the.acc 'Ten thousand soldiers running on the beach' (Fer 1998:122-123)

Predicative complements also turn up in the accusative case: (34) [...] sem gerði fyrsta daginn [...] svona kvíðvænlegan. which made first day-the.acc so anguished.acc '[...] which made the first day [...] so filled with agony.' (Hjó 1994:119-120) Finally, NPs in accusative case can be non-governed or have an adverbial function: (35) a.

b.

c.

Góða ferð! kallaði Fríða og [...] good travel.acc shouted Fríða.nom and 'Have a nice trip! Fríða shouted and [...]' (Frí 1992:15-19) [...] að þeir hafi farið alllanga leið [...] that they.nom have gone pretty-long way.acc [...] that they have gone a long way [...] (Vín 1997:36-38) Ég sef ekki þessa nótt I.nom sleep not this night.acc 'I won't sleep at all this night' (Eng 1995:153-155)

3.2.2.3 Dative Dative NPs occur as subjects, direct objects and indirect objects: (36) a.

Samt varð mér ekki rótt yet became I.dat not calm 'Yet I didn't calm down' 53

(Peð 1995:158-160)

CASE IN ICELANDIC b.

[...] hvort hann gæti lofað því eilífu lífi [...] whether he.nom could promise it.dat eternal life.dat (Hæf 1996:105-106)

c.

[...] sem gefur manni von [...] which gives man.dat hope.acc '[...] which gives you some hope [...] (Sat 1997:97-98)

Dative NPs can also occur as objects of prepositions. Prepositions which assign dative include the following: (37) að af frá hjá úr gegn

'to' 'of' 'from' 'at' 'out of' 'against'

Objects of prepositions in the dative case are shown in the following examples: (38) a.

b.

[...] og hann hlýtur að hafa hjá sér blek. and he.nom must to have with himself.dat ink '[...] and he must have ink with him.' (Sat 1997:97-98) Um leið var spjótum oft beint gegn rómönskum áhrifum [...] around way was spears.dat often turned against Romanic influence.dat 'At the same time Romanic influence were often attacked [...]' (Ísl 1996:83-85)

Predicative complements also turn up in the dative case: (39) [...] held þér svo föstum með fótum mínum, hold you.dat then tight.dat with feet.dat my '[...] then I hold you still with my feet,' (Höf 1994:134-136) Some non-governed adverbials are also datives: (40) a.

Þeir frændurnir [...] skiptust öðru hverju á orðum [...] they cousins-the.nom changed other while.dat on words.dat 'The cousins [...] exchanged words once in a while [...]' 54

CASE IN ICELANDIC (Fal 1996:192-193) b.

Teresa hafði nokkrum sinnum reynt að [...] Terese.nom had some times.dat tried to 'Terese had tried a few times to [...]' (Fal 1996:192-193)

Finally, dative NPs are also found as nominal attributes: (41) a.

b.

Hún heyrði fuglasöng í iðrum sér [...] she.nom heard birdsong.acc in intestines.dat herself.dat 'She heard a bird singing in her intestines' (Höf 1994:134-136) [...] að skilja hvaða áform lægju að baki öllum hlutum.1 to understand which plans.nom lay at back.dat all things.dat '[...] to understand what plans lay behind all things.' (Hæf 1996:105-106)

3.2.2.4 Genitive NPs in genitive case are found as subjects and direct objects: (42) a.

b.

Þess hefur verið getið til að [...] it.gen has been guessed to that 'It has been been guessed that [...]'

(Haf 1997:284-286)

Hann spurði þá félaga nokkurra spurninga [...] he.nom asked them companions.acc some questions.gen (Býl 1996:191-192)

Genitive NPs also occur as objects of prepositions in Icelandic. Some common genitive-assigning prepositions are the following: (43) til án innan meðal vegna

'to' 'without' 'within' 'amongst' 'because of'

Prepositional genitive is illustrated in the following examples:

1

It is also possible to analyse bak 'back' in að baki 'at back' and á bak 'on back' as a part of a compositional preposition governing the dative. 55

CASE IN ICELANDIC (44) a. b.

[...] ef ég má ekki fara til þeirra. if I may not go to them.gen

(Eng 1995:153-155)

Meðal merkilegri kvikmynda sem voru sýndar þennan vetur [...] amongst the-more-noteworthy films.gen which were shown this winter.acc 'Amongst the more noteworthy films that were shown this winter [...]' (Ská 1994:111-113)

Some adverbials have genitive forms as well: (45) a.

b.

[...] og horfði annars hugar á [...] and watched other mind.gen on '[...] and watched, distractedly [...]' (Dóm 1992:94-95) [...] snemma morguns geng ég eftir Keflavíkurveginum [...] early morning.gen walk I.nom along Keflavík-road.dat '[...] early in the morning I walk along the road to Keflavík [...]' (Eng 1995:153-155)

Finally, genitive case is used on nominal attributes: (46) a.

b.

[...] sem menn Þorvalds Eiríkssonar fundu í eyju vestarlega. which men.nom Þorvaldur Eiríksson.gen found in island westerly 'which Þorvaldur Eiríksson's men found on an island in the west.' (Vín 1997:36-38) sú nánd [...] hafði vakið innra með þeim tálsýn ástarinnar. that intimacy.nom had waken in with they.dat illusion lovethe.gen 'that intimacy [...] had awakened the illusion of love within them.' (Mjö 1997:169-170)

3.2.2.5 Summary The results of this syntactic overview are summarized in Table 3.1:

56

CASE IN ICELANDIC Table 3.1: Distribution of Morphological Case across Syntactic Functions. Nom Acc Dat Gen Subject x x x x Pred. Compl. x x x x Object x x x x Indirect object x x Prep. object x x x Attribute x x Adverbial x x x Comparing the syntactic functions of the four cases, it seems clear that nominative differs the most from the other three in that it only exhibits three of seven functions and therefore has the narrowest syntactic distribution. Accusative and genitive exhibit six of seven functions, while the dative has the widest syntactic distribution as it exhibits all seven usages. What differentiates nominative in its usages from the other cases is, apart from being the most common predicative case, that it is only found with direct syntactic relations, called core relations within typology (see Blake 1994). However, nominative does not occur with all core relations, as it never occurs with indirect objects. Accusative differs from dative and genitive in not functioning as an attributive case. Dative and genitive, on the other hand, are different from each other in that dative can function as an indirect object while genitive cannot. Examining what the cases have in common, we see from the table that all the four cases can function as a subject, and as a predicative complement, and all the four cases can function as an object. Accusative, dative and genitive can all exhibit the function of being objects of prepositions. The question arises whether we want to say that the distribution of morphological case across syntactic functions is free or relatively free. That is certainly what Table 3.1 implies. Obviously, there is no one-to-one relation between morphological case and syntactic functions. At the same time, a schema like the one above does not give us any information on how frequent these correlations are. I believe that an adequate description of these correlations has to take frequencies into account. The results of such an investigation will be presented in Chapter 4 below. I now proceed to the semantic analysis.

3.3 Semantic Overview 3.3.1 Semantic Analysis

57

CASE IN ICELANDIC When carrying out an investigation like the one presented here, it is important to distinguish between two levels of representation, which I call a REAL WORLD LEVEL and a LANGUAGE ENCODING LEVEL (conceptual vs. semantic level in Langacker's (1988) terms). For instance, it is not contradictory to assume that someone who is travelling is a "doer" at the real world level, since he is acting out the event expressed by the predicate. This can be encoded in different ways crosslinguistically and even within the same language. Consider the following Icelandic examples: (47)

a.

Hvert ferðaðistu? where-to did-you.nom-travel 'Where did you go?

b.

Hvaða ferðalag var þetta á þér? which travel was this.nom on you.dat 'What trip were you making?'

In (47a) the real world "doer" is encoded as an Agent and a subject. In (47b), however, he is encoded as neither, but is realized as an object of a prepositional phrase, and, thus, as some sort of a locative phrase. The question arises whether it is desireable to reserve the term Agent for human subjects of causative structures, and not use it for all "doers" irrespective of syntactic functions. In this work I use the term Agent only for human subjects of causative structures, and label other "doers" differently (see below). It is necessary to distinguish between these two levels, as can be illustrated with some crosslinguistic comparison: (48) a. b.

(49) a. b.

Hann horfir á sjónvarpið. he.nom watches on television-the.acc

Icelandic

Ég hringi í þig! I.nom phone in you.acc He watches television. I'll phone you!

English

These examples show that different languages encode the same real world phenomena differently, Icelandic encodes the verbal complement as a prepositional object, English as a direct object. In this research, when tagging arguments for thematic roles I have consistently tagged all arguments, both core arguments, such as subjects

58

CASE IN ICELANDIC and objects, and also objects of prepositions according to the LANGUAGE ENCODING LEVEL. Consider the following examples: (50) a.

Þetta fellur mér vel. this.nom suits I.dat fine

b.

Þetta hræðir mig. this.nom frightens I.acc

The objects of (50a-b) are Experiencers at the REAL WORLD LEVEL, but when tagging the texts I felt great resistance to tagging the accusative object in (50b) as an Experiencer, presumably because of the accusative case: The semantics of the accusative object is more that of an affected Theme than of an Experiencer. They are also tagged accordingly. This does not, however, affect my statistics since there were only 16 examples of the type in (50b) in the material. Consider also the examples in (51): (51) a.

b.

Það fauk í mig. it blew in I.acc 'I became angry.' Finnst þér þetta gott lag hjá henni? find you.dat this.nom a good hit.nom at/with she.dat 'Do you like her song?'

In (51a) the prepositional object is an Experiencer at the REAL WORLD LEVEL, but not at the LANGUAGE ENCODING LEVEL. There it is more of a Goal, being an object of a preposition. Hence, it is tagged as such. Further, the PP hjá henni in (49b) can be regarded as having the function of a possessor, as is obvious from the English translation (compare also the Faroese preposition hjá 'at, with' which is the standard possessive marker in that language); however, it is also a locative phrase. Such arguments were tagged as a Goal and a Location, respectively, proceeding from a LANGUAGE ENCODING LEVEL.2 2

Moreover, distinguishing between a REAL WORLD LEVEL and a LANGUAGE ENCODING can help us to understand some of the disputes on thematic roles that have arisen in the literature. A good example is found in Jónsson (1997-98:23). Jónsson discusses pairs such as tala 'speak' vs. talast 'speak', where tala is constructed with a nominative subject and talast with a dative one. Jónsson cites Ottósson (1986) who defines the subject of talast as an Agent. Jónsson disputes that and argues that the subject of talast is an Experiencer on the basis of the fact that clauses with tala pass some agenthood tests while equivalent clauses with talast do not. Jónsson does not discuss the fact that tala and talast have the same lexical meaning, and subsequently they should assign the LEVEL

59

CASE IN ICELANDIC Let us now consider the syntactic distribution of thematic roles. The following examples serve to illustrate that the Beneficiary can be realized as the syntactic subject, the indirect object, the object of a preposition, and the direct object: (52) a.

She got the book. (Subj)

b.

I sent her the book. (IObj)

c.

I sent the book to her. (Prep)

d.

I support her. (Obj

Similar distributional variation is found for many other roles, revealing that thematic roles cannot be considered labels on argument slots or structural positions. Most current theories view them as being, not semantic primitives, but rather as being derived from the basic meaning of the verb or the predicate. In other words, thematic roles are the direct result of the event denoted by the predicate (Croft 1998, Arad 1998). The position taken for instance in Goldberg (1995) is that there are two types of roles: participant roles and argument roles. The participant roles are verb-specific roles, whereas argument roles are the roles of the construction. Since the meaning of a construction is a generalization over the meanings of the verbs which occur in the construction, argument roles are also generalizations over participant roles. On this approach roles are assumed to be parts of constructions, either argument structure constructions or other constructions that verbs can occur in, as for instance modal/aspectual constructions. Compare the same thematic roles to their arguments, according to the standard view that thematic roles are not semantic primitives but rather that they originate in the meaning of the lexical predicates of the clause. It seems obvious that Ottósson, in his judgements of thematic roles, proceeded from a REAL WORLD LEVEL, while Jónsson exceeds from a LANGUAGE ENCODING LEVEL, and that is why they have reached different conclusions on the thematic role of the subject of talast. In my opinion, the reason why sentences with talast do not pass the agenthood tests otherwise passed by tala, is that talast differs from tala in that it is a speaker-affected verb and not a subject-affected verb (cf. Barðdal in prep), thus we would not expect the intentions or feelings of the referent denoted by the subject to be measurable by tests of agentivity.

60

CASE IN ICELANDIC two following inchoative constructions in Icelandic (see further Barðdal 2001b): (53) a. b.

(54) a. b.

Hann byrjaði að tala he.nom began to talk Hann tók til við að tala he.nom took to with to talk 'He started talking' Glasið byrjaði að brotna glass-the.nom began to break *Glasið tók til við að brotna glass-the.nom took to with to break'

The Icelandic inchoative auxiliary byrja 'begin' is a subject-to-subject raising verb, with an open subject slot, selecting all kinds of main verbs, while taka til við að 'begin' is a control verb which only selects for agentive main verbs. I therefore assume that the inchoative byrja does not assign a thematic role to its subject, while the inchoative taka til við að only assigns the thematic role of an Agent to its subject. In this work I take the standpoint that thematic roles can be assumed to exist at different levels, as participant roles of single predicates or low level constructions, as argument roles of higher level more abstract constructions, and thus, at intermediate levels, which are generalizations over verb groups or subgroups. In this investigation I have, with one exception, tagged my material for high level argument roles. It is only in the case of the psych-verbs that I use lower level roles, in that I distinguish between Emotive verbs, Cognition verbs and Perception verbs. This is done in order to investigate to what extent there is a correlation between Dative subjects and psych-verbs. Moreover, following Croft (1998) I use the the causal/aspectual structure of a sentence as the main indicator of the thematic roles of the arguments. This can be illustrated as in the following: (55) a.

I bought a book. Agent Theme

Transitive Construction

b.

He danced. Agent

Intransitive Construction

c.

He fell.

Intransitive Construction 61

CASE IN ICELANDIC Theme d.

The book is on the table. Station

Predicate Construction

The subject of the verb buy in (55a) is an Agent as it transmits force onto another entity, which again is affected in some way, and is thus a Theme. In (55b) the subject acts, even though it does not act upon another entity, hence it is also an Agent. In (55c) the subject is affected and is therefore categorized as a Theme. For subjects of the Predicate Construction, which are inherently stative as in (55d), I will use the label Station. This is valid for verbs like be, have, own, sit, stand and so on. However, as mentioned above, for psych-verbs I distinguish between certain verb classes. I confine the label Experiencer to Emotive verbs, while using labels as Perceiver for Perception verbs and Cognizer for Cognition verbs. (56) a. Experiencers: gleðjast 'be happy', hræðast 'be scared', verða fyrir vonbrigðum 'become disappointed', vera glaður 'be happy', vilja 'will', þurfa 'need', óska e-s 'wish for sth', etc. b. Perceivers: heyra 'hear', sjá 'see', birtast 'appear', lykta 'smell' etc. c. Cognizers: halda 'think', muna 'remember', hugsa 'think', skilja 'understand, skynja 'sense' vita, 'know', kunna 'know how to', vera sammála 'agree', meina 'have an opinion', virða 'respect', læra, 'learn', skoða 'look at', halda með e-m 'support sby', ætla 'intend'. d. Agents: þakka 'thank', lesa 'read', segja 'say', trylla 'drive fast', þjóta 'rush', rökstyðja 'argue', benda 'point out', gera 'do', vinna 'win'. The boundaries between the different classes can be fuzzy, and even vary for different individuals. I believe, however, that there is a consensus on the most prototypical examples of these categories, while other verbs may be considered more peripheral, as for instance skoða 'look at' in c. above, which some might consider to be more of a perception verb than a cognition verb. These plausible differences in category judgements may, of course, result in statistical differences. A future investigation, comparable to this one, would have to bear that in mind. Note further that I use the label Content to include the objects, or prepositional objects of psych-verbs, such as be happy about something, etc. I do this because they are, strictly speaking, not affected, which is the 62

CASE IN ICELANDIC defining criteria for Themes. Also, the label Content is used for objects of verbs of having and owning. In that sense, Content is similar to a cognate object of a verb. I will now list the thematic roles used in this study: (57) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s.

Agent: the person that initiates or volitionally performs the action expressed by the predicate. Cause: the thing or force which causes an effect on an affected entity. Theme/Patient: the person or thing undergoing or moved by the event expressed by the predicate. Station: the person or thing located somewhere in space or time. Experiencer: the person who experiences the psychological effect expressed by the predicate. Perceiver: the person who perceives the effect expressed by the predicate. Cognizer: the person who has the cognitive skills denoted by the predicate. Beneficiary/Recipient: the entity that benefits from the event expressed by the predicate. Content: the entity that has attention directed towards it, or is the content of the predicate. Goal: the entity towards which the event expressed by the predicate is directed. Source: the entity from which something is moved/moves as a result of the event expressed by the predicate. Instrument: the entity used to perfom the event expressed by the predicate. Path: the path something moves on during the event expressed by the predicate. Location: the place in which the event expressed by the predicate is situated. Time: the entity denoting time of reference. Manner: the entity denoting the manner in which the event expressed by the predicate is carried out. Measure: the entity denoting a measurement, which is a part of the event expressed by the verb. Reason: the purpose given for the event denoted by the predicate. Comitative: the entity being together with another entity participating in the event expressed by the predicate.

63

CASE IN ICELANDIC I distinghish between Agent and Cause to capture the difference between the human subject of ordinary transitive clauses and the (non-human) subject of affecting predicates. This is illustrated in the following examples, where I analyse the subject of kaupa 'buy' as an Agent, while the subjects of trufla 'bother' and bræða 'melt' as Cause. (58) a.

Ég keypti bókina. I.nom bought book-the.acc

b.

Bókin truflaði mig. book-the.nom bothered I.acc

c.

Snjórinn bræddi ísinn. snow-the.nom melted ice-the.acc

Viewing thematic roles as being derived from the lexical and causal properties of verbs/predicates can entail that idiomatic expressions exhibit fewer thematic roles or arguments than syntactic functions (cf. Nunberg, Sag and Wasow 1994). Consider the following examples: (59) a.

[...] þegar þau fara að etja kappi í fjölmiðlum. when they.nom go to perform competition.dat in media.the.dat '[...] when they start fighting in media.' (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

b.

Ég ætla nú bara svona að taka þátt í þessari júróvísíonkeppni [...] I.nom intend now just so to take part.acc in this Eurovision contest.dat 'I just want to participate in this eurovision contest [...] (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

c.

[...] og nú kom hún auga á kertisstubb í stjaka [...] and now came she.nom eye.dat on candle.acc in candlestick. dat '[...] and now she saw a candle in a candlestick [...]' (Sof 1995:136-138)

In these examples etja kappi, taka þátt and koma auga á are complex predicates, where the object is not a complement of the predicate in the same sense as direct objects are, but rather are they an indistinguishable part of the predicate. However, for the sake of simplicity, I assume here that kappi, þátt and auga are objects of etja, taka and koma, and that they 64

CASE IN ICELANDIC have the thematic role of the Content. I do this in order to avoid having to decide when a predicate is used literally as opposed to metaphorically. The roles of Goal, Source, Path and Location are assigned on the basis of the meaning of the sentence as a whole, i.e. both on basis of the meaning of the predicate and the meaning of the preposition. This is illustrated in the following examples: (60) a.

Hann er í Reykjavík he.nom is in Reykjavík.dat

Location

b.

Hann er frá Reykjavík he.nom is from Reykjavík.dat

Source

c.

Hann kom frá Reykjavík he.nom came from Reykjavík.dat

Source

d.

Hann fer til Reykjavíkur he.nom goes to Reykjavík.gen

Goal

e.

Hann fór í gegnum Reykjavík he.nom went in through Reykjavík.acc

Path

The object of the agentive phrase of passives, governed by the preposition af 'by, of' in Icelandic, is classified as a Source. However, there was only one such example in our Modern Icelandic material. The object of the preposition af is also analysed as a Source in examples of the following kind, more typical of Old Icelandic than Modern Icelandic: (61) Hann var vinsæll af allri alþýðu. he.nom was popular by all common-people.dat 'He was popular with the people.' Note further that I define Experiencer more narrowly than for instance Maling (1999) or Jónsson (1999). Maling (1999), for instance, gives the following examples (from Barðdal 1993) as minimal pairs of verbs assigning either accusative or dative case to their objects: (62) a. b.

þurrka barninu dry child-the.dat þurrka handklæðið dry towel-the.acc

65

CASE IN ICELANDIC (63) a. b.

greiða barninu comb child-the.dat greiða hárið comb hair-the.acc

Maling assumes that the dative objects are Experiencers, while the accusative objects are Themes. In this study I define Experiencers as the thematic roles of arguments of verbs which express feelings, and not as the thematic roles of arguments capable of having feelings, as is the implicit assumption of both Maling (1999) and Jónsson (1999). As far as I can tell, all dative human arguments classify as Experiencers on their account (as in (62-63) above). On my account the (a) examples are analysed as Beneficiaries while the (b) examples are Themes. A consequence of the above categorization is that some predicates which have dative subject are analysed as the subject having the thematic role Theme and not the thematic role Experiencer, which is contrary to many descriptions of Modern Icelandic, where dative subjects are always analysed as having the thematic role Experiencer (or Beneficiary) (Jónsson 1997-98 is, however, an exception to this; he identifies four thematic roles for dative subject verbs). Consider, for instance, the following modal construction: (64) Þér ber að tala fallega um þá látnu. you.dat should to speak nicely about them dead.acc 'You should speak nicely about the dead.' Irrespective of the thematic role of the subject of the main verb tala 'speak', which undeniably is an Agent, the subject of the clause receives its thematic role from the auxiliary bera 'be supposed to', here analysed as Theme, because it is subject to a duty passed on from above. With the modal verb bera, the dative subject does not have the function of expressing an Experiencer, rather the dative signals lack of volition on the part of the subject. Regarding Subject-to-object raising constructions, I have consistently analysed the "raised" subject according to the semantics of the matrix verb and not the semantics of the lower verbs. Since most Subjectto-object raising verbs are presumably cognition verbs the "raised" subject is analysed as a Content (of the raising verb). However, for oblique subject verbs, I have proceeded from the semantics of the lower verb, in order to investigate whether there is a relation between the semantics of the verb and the case marking. This only applies to the Old Icelandic material since

66

CASE IN ICELANDIC subject-to-object raising of oblique subject verbs does not occur in my Modern Icelandic material. In this investigation I have analysed the semantic relations which hold between core arguments, i.e. subjects and objects, and their predicates. I have also analysed the semantics of PPs governed by nouns, PPs governed by verbs, and adverbial PPs. However, I have refrained from analysing the semantic relations that hold between a noun and its genitive attribute, as that would considerably increase the size of this investigation. Moreover, genitive attributes are similar to compounds in many respects. For instance, in Icelandic the first base of a compound is often genitive in form. In this work I have not at all considered the internal semantic relations of compound words. I will now give examples of the co-occurrences of thematic roles and morphological case in Icelandic. 3.3.2 Morphological Case and Thematic Roles 3.3.2.1 Nominative Nominatives may be assigned different thematic roles, such as Agent, Cause, Theme, Content, Station, Experiencer, Cognizer, Perceiver, Beneficiary, Source, Path, Manner, and Time: (65) a. Agent

Ég held að hann mundi breyta þjóðsöngnum [...] I.nom think that he.nom would change national-song-the.dat (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

b.

[...] sem ránið vakti meðal almennings which kidnap-the.nom awoke among people.gen '[...] which the kidnapping caused among the people' (Frá 1997:15-17)

c.

Það er aldrei að vita hvar maður lendir sko. it is never to know where man/one.nom land that-is 'You never know where you might end up.' (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

Cause

Theme d. Content e. Station

Þessu fylgdi léttur höfuðverkur í fyrstu. this.dat followed light headache.nom in first 'To begin with, this was accompanied by a mild headache.' (Kom 1995:135-137) Við Halla höfum þó orðið góðir vinir [...] we Halla.nom have though become good friends.nom 'Halla and I have become good friends though [...] 67

CASE IN ICELANDIC (Ste 1998:148-149) f.

Ertu hrifin af laginu? are-you.nom fascinated by song-the.dat 'Do you like the song?' (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

g.

Ég reikna auðvitað með að [...] I.nom count of-course with at 'I assume, of course, that [...]

Exp.

Cognizer h. Perceiver

(Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

Við sjáum ekki handa skil, sagði Jórunn [...] we.nom see not hands.gen mark.acc, said Jórunn.nom 'We don't see anything, Jórunn said [...] (Sof 1995:136-138)

i.

Fáið þið [...] aðstoð við garðvinnuna? get you.nom assistance.acc with gardening-the.acc 'Do you get any help with the gardening?' (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

j.

að tregðulögmálið kveður á um hluti sem [...] that law-of-inertia-the.nom states on about things.acc. which 'that the law of inertia states about things which [...] (Hug 1996:108-109)

Ben.

Source k. Path

Þessi stígur er mikið farinn. this path.nom is much gone 'This path is much used.'

l. Manner

[...] er engin leið að fá það aftur? is no way.nom to get it.acc back

m. Time

(Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

Hann var sýndur á laugardegi klukkan eitt [...] he.nom was shown on Saturday.dat clock.nom one 'It was on the air on a Saturday at one o'clock [...]'

3.3.2.2 Accusative Accusatives can be assigned the thematic roles of Themes, Contents, Experiencers, Cognizer, Beneficiaries, Goals, Reason, Source, Comitative, Paths, Locatives, Manner, Measure and Time: (66) a. Theme

Já og ef að þú kaupir fálkann [...] yes and if that you.nom buy falcon-the.acc 'Yes, and if you buy the falcon [...]' (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997) 68

CASE IN ICELANDIC

b. Contents c. Exp. d. Cognizer

þegar Júlíus orðaði við þau þessa veislu, when Júlíus.nom worded with them.acc this party.acc 'when Júlíus mentioned this party to them.' (Fal 1996:192-193) Mig langar bara að vita [...] I.acc want only to know 'I only want to know [...]

(Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

Auk þess undrar mig [...] apart that.gen wonder I.acc 'Apart from that I wonder [...]' (Sat 1997:97-98)

e.

[...] að ríkið mætti nú styrkja þá sem [...] that state-the.nom could well support those.acc that (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

f.

[...] sem að við höfum sent í keppnina. which that we.nom have sent in competition-the.acc '[...] which we have submitted to the competition.' (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

g.

Fá hann í vinnu hér [...] get him.acc in work.acc. here 'To get him to come here to work [...]

Ben.

Goal

Reason

(Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997) h.

Source

[...] fær Sigurður skýrslu um fornleifafundinn gets Sigurður.nom report.acc about archeological-findingseftir starfsbróður sinn the.acc after colleague.acc his '[...] Sigurður gets a report by a colleague on the archeological findings' (Ævi 1991:209-211)

i.

en kom aftur með þjónustustúlku og [...] but came back with servant.acc and Comitative 'but he came back with a servant and [...] (Býl 1996:191-192) j. Path

[...] að ég þyrfti að fara yfir götuna til þess [...] that I.nom need to go across street-the.acc to that '[...] that I would have to cross the street in order to [...]' 69

CASE IN ICELANDIC (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997) k.

Jú úr því að þú ert kominn á línuna þá gerirðu það. yes since you.nom are come on line-the.acc then do-you.nom that.acc 'Yes, since you're on the line, you can do that.' (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

l.

[...] hann er hvítur á litinn [...] he.nom is white in colour-the.acc '[...] he is white [...]'

Loc.

Manner m.

Measure n. Time

(Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

[...] sem höfðu verið steyptar þrjá metra niður í árbotninn [...] which had been cast/found three metres.acc down in riverbottom-the.acc '[...] which had been cast/found three metres down at the bottom of the river [...] (Fer 1998:122-123) Það er spurning í hvaða sæti við lendum annað kvöld. it is question.nom in which place.dat we land other night.acc 'The question is where we land tomorrow night.' (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

3.3.2.3 Dative Dative case is found with arguments denoting Themes, Contents, Stations, Experiencers, Cognizer, Perceivers, Beneficiaries, Goals, Reasons, Sources, Instruments, Comitatives, Manners, Locatives, Paths, Measures and Time: (67) a. Theme b. Content c. Station

en súgurinn hlaut að feykja manni útaf og [...] but wind-the.nom must to blow man.dat off and 'but the wind had to blow one off and [...] (Fer 1998:122-123) þjálfuð í framgöngu og vinnubrögðum fasista trained in deportment and working-methods.dat fascists.gen 'trained in fascistic deportment and working methods (Múl 1996: 226-227) þar sem gjallmölinni hallaði niður að ánni where gravel.dat slopes down at river 'where the gravel slopes to the river' (Fer 1998:122-123)

70

CASE IN ICELANDIC d.

Nú fer mér að leiðast svolítið [...] now begin I.dat to be-bored little 'I'm starting to get bored a little [...]'(Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

e.

Heyrið, hvað mér datt í hug. hear-you, what I.dat fell in mind.acc 'Listen, I got an idea.' (Sat 1997:97-98)

Exp.

Cognizer f. Perceiver g. Ben.

Á flatlendinu verður mér starsýnt á gröfu on flat-land.dat becomes I.dat staring on excavator.acc 'In the flat country I started staring at an excavator (Hei 1997:42-44) Það er ekki öllum gefið. it.nom is not everyone.dat given 'Not everyone can do that.'

(Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

h.

Ég [...] keyri hann upp að veggnum. I.nom drive him.acc up at wall-the.dat 'I [...] push him to the wall.' (Eng 1995:153-155)

i.

Hann var bullsveittur af áreynslunni og átinu, he was real-sweaty of exertion-the.dat and eating-the.dat 'He was really sweaty from the exertion and the eating,' (Han 1997:126-128)

Goal

Reason j. Source k. Instr.

Frá honum lagði indæla fiskilykt. from him.dat lay lovely fish-smell.acc 'A lovely smell of fish wafted from it.' (Ísb 1992:2-9) [...] og ýtti rösklega við honum með trýninu, and pushed forcefully with him.dat with nose-the.dat '[...] and pushed him forcefully with its snout,' (Ísb 1992:2-9)

l.

að sitja með okkur til borðs. to sit with us.dat to table.gen Comitative 'to sit together with us at the table. m. Manner

(Fal 1996:192-193)

Þá kom mamma á harðaspretti til að [...] then came mother.nom on fast-run.dat to at 'Then Mother came rushing in to [...]' (Peð 1995:158-160)

71

CASE IN ICELANDIC n.

Hann stendur á svona bergi. he.nom stands on such rock.dat 'He is situated on a rock.' (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

o.

[...] snemma morguns geng ég eftir Keflavíkurveginum [...] early morning.gen walk I.nom along Keflavík-road.dat '[...] early in the morning I walk along the road to Keflavík [...]' (Eng 1995:153-155)

p.

[...] Örn á undan og Gils tveimur þrepum á eftir. Örn.nom on ahead and Gils.nom two steps.dat on behind '[...] Örn first and then Gils two steps behind.' (Vei 1994:94-96)

Loc.

Path

Measure q. Time

Ég hef aldrei á ævinni lent í að fá svona móttökur. I.nom have never on life-the.dat landed in to get such reception.acc 'I have never in my life been received in such a way.' (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

3.3.2.4 Genitive Genitives can have the thematic roles of Themes, Contents, Goals, Reasons, Source, Comitatives, Locatives, Paths, Manners, Measures and Time: (68) a. Theme b. Content

Læknirinn kom að vitja þeirra [...] doctor-the.nom came to visit they.gen 'The doctor saw to them [...] (Býl 1996:191-192) Ég ætla að vekja aðeins máls á [...] I.nom intend to wake just speech.nom on 'I just want to draw the attention to [...] (Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

c.

Hefur hann aldrei komið til Reykjavíkur [...] has he.nom never come to Reykjavík.gen 'Has he never been to Reykjavík [...]'(Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

d.

... í leit að handritum og skjölum vegna eigin in search.dat at manuscipts and documents.dat because own rannsókna. research.gen

Goal

72

CASE IN ICELANDIC Reason e.

Source

[...] en þessar rofmyndir má fyrst og fremst rekja til beitar [...] and these erosion-pictures.acc may first and foremost trace to grazing.gen [...] but these patterns of erosion can primarily be traced to grazing [...]' (Rof 1997:56-62)

f.

[...] og rökkrið var að síga að milli húsanna, and twilight-the.nom was to sink at between houses-the.gen '[...] and it was getting dark in the neighbourhood,' (Þrö 1994:46-49)

g.

Þeir fóru á milli bændabýla í nágrenninu [...] they.nom went on between farms.gen in neighbourhoodthe.gen 'They went from farm to farm in the neighourhood [...]' (Ráð 1992:111-112)

h.

Stend með ykkur, heilshugar. stand with you.dat, whole-mind.gen 'I support you, wholeheartedly.'(Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

Loc

Path

Manner i. Measure j. Time

[...] looking for manuscripts and documents because of their own research. (Árn 1998:115-116)

Ég er tólf ára. I.nom am twelve years.gen 'I am twelve years old'.

(Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997)

[...] sem höfðu dugað þeim í vetrarhörkunum og til vors. that had lasted them.dat in winter-hardness-the.dat and 'til spring.gen '[...] that had been good enough for them during the hard winter until springtime.' (Vín 1997:36-38)

3.3.2.5 Summary A schematic overview of the distribution of thematic roles across morphological case is given in Table 3.2:

73

CASE IN ICELANDIC Table 3.2: Distribution of morphological case across thematic roles. Nom Acc Dat Gen Agent x Cause x Theme x x x x Content x x x x Station x x Experiencer x x x Cognizer x x x Perceiver x x Beneficiary x x x Goal x x x Reason x x x Source x x x x Instrument x Comitative x x x Path x x x x Location x x x Time x x x x Manner x x x x Measure x x x The tendencies are clear. Datives have the widest range of thematic functions, 17, followed by accusatives which exhibit 14 functions. Nominative has 13 thematic functions, while genitive has the narrowest range of thematic functions, only 11. Examining the different thematic roles, it is clear that the Agent, the Cause and the Instrument are the only thematic roles which are consistently encoded with a single morphological case, i.e. nominative and dative respectively. The widest thematic functions are first the Theme and the Content, encoded with all the morphological cases, followed by Source, Path, Time and Manner, also encoded with all four morphological cases. The thematic roles of the Experiencer, Cognizer and Beneficiary are narrowly distributed among the morphological cases as three cases are used to encode them, i.e. nominative, accusative and dative. The same holds for the Goal, Reason, Comitative, Location and Measure, which are also more narrowly distributed across morphological case since three cases, i.e. accusative, dative and genitive are employed to encode them. The Station and the Perceiver are encoded only by the nominative and the dative. It should be pointed out that the overview above need not be a fully exhaustive overview. I have, for instance, not included the possibility of nominatives encoding the Instrument, as in the follwing example:

74

CASE IN ICELANDIC (69) Lykillinn opnaði dyrnar. key-the.nom opened door-the.acc The reason is very simple: Although, not structurally or semantically excluded, I find the sentence in (69) pragmatically odd. In my opinion Instruments are not natural (nominative) subjects in Icelandic. The example in (70) is possible, but contextually marked: (70) Það var ekki ég sem braut rúðuna, boltinn gerði það. it was not I.nom which broke glass-the.acc, ball-the.nom did itthe.acc 'I didn't break the glass, the ball did it.' This would only be a natural sentence uttered by a child who accidentally broke a glass when playing ball. Only one example of an Instrument occurring as a subject is found in my corpus: (71) Um leið var spjótum oft beint gegn rómönskum áhrifum [...] around way was spears.dat often turned against Romanic influence.dat 'At the same time Romanic influence were often attacked [...]' (Ísl 1996:83-85) Note that the Instrument subject is in the dative case in this passive construction. To sum up, there is not a one-to-one relation between morphological case and thematic roles, even though Instruments are always encoded as dative and Agents and Causes are always encoded as nominative. Nominative, on the other hand, is certainly used to encode a much broader range of thematic roles than only the Agent and the Cause. The same holds for the dative. As with Table 3.1 on the distribution of morphological case across syntactic functions, Table 3.2 does not show any information on the statistical relation between the two variables discussed in this section. Those frequencies will be the subject of Chapter 4 below. First, however, I will describe the research procedure of the investigation, and the compiling of the text corpora, carried out to acquire the frequencies. I now proceed to that.

75

CASE IN ICELANDIC

4 Statistical Distribution of Case in Modern Icelandic 4.1 Introduction Traditional grammar books on the Germanic languages state that nominative is the case for subjects, predicative complements and perhaps vocatives. Accusative is the case for direct objects and adverbials of time, space and manner. Dative is the case for the indirect object, genitive is the case for attributes. The description varies, of course. Older textbooks are often more thorough, especially when it comes to the number of examples, while more recent books use substantially less space to explain morphological case and its role in the language. Petterson (1996:102-103) in an overview of Old Swedish, gives nominative as the subject case, accusative as the case of direct objects, dative as the case of indirect objects and genitive as attributive case. This is the general pattern, according to Petterson, to which exceptions can, of course, be found. Haugen (1993:258-267) gives a more detailed description of the situation in Old Norse, but does not leave the traditional track of viewing the subject as nominative and the object as accusative, dative and genitive. One way of approaching the problem of the function of case is to do a statistical investigation on morphological case, and that is the goal of this chapter. I will primarily be concerned with the statistical relation between morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles. I begin with a description of the investigation and its principles, and follow up with a section on the frequency and co-occurrences of the three variables. The last section is a summary.

4.2 The Investigation In this section I first give an overview of how I have compiled my corpus of Modern Icelandic texts, i.e. which genres are represented and how the texts were chosen. In section 4.2.2 I report on how the material was computerized and tagged, and which linguistic variables were used. In section 4.2.3 I give an overview of how I categorize for Word Category for the purpose of making a comparison easier between my study and an earlier study on word frequency in Icelandic. Such a comparison is carried 75

CASE IN ICELANDIC out in section 4.2.4 and there it is established that my small corpus is highly representative of its genres. 4.2.1 The Corpus Count frequencies of morphological case were carried out in a study of word frequency in Icelandic (see Íslensk Orðtíðnibók 1991), done by Orðabók Háskólans (The Institute of Lexicography at the University of Iceland). The grammatical categories tagged for case were nouns, pronouns, adjectives and numerals. In order to be able to compare the results of our study with this previous study, I have compiled my text corpus according to the same principles as were applied in 1991. Since my text corpus is very small, only 40,000 words, while the 1991 text corpus contained 500,000 words, it is important that they be comparable. If the proportional/percentual figures for the distribution of the morphological cases is the same in both studies, then we can assume that the general results of our study should hold irrespective of the size (or smallness) of the corpus. As stated above, the 1991 frequency study was done with a corpus of 500,000 words. The text material was divided into the following five genres: (1)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Icelandic fiction Translated fiction Biographies and memoirs Non-fiction Teenage and children's literature

Each genre consisted of twenty texts, with samples of 5,000 words from each text. All the texts were published during the 1980s, and no author (or translator) was represented more than once. The sample was a convenience sample. My corpus consists of the same five genres (see references to the titles under Corpus of written Icelandic), all typical of the written language, and in addition it includes a corpus of spoken Icelandic (see Þjóðarsálin 1996-1997). Each genre is represented by ten titles, with a passage of 500 words, randomly selected from each title, a total of 50 passages containing 25,000 words. The spoken material consists of interactive radio programmes, where listeners are encouraged to phone in and state their opinions on the topics on the agenda. My corpus of spoken Icelandic contains the first 15,000 words of the recorded material, hence the total sum for both the written and spoken language is 40,000 words. The sample is a convenience sample, the titles in the written genres were collected from my own home library, Stadsbiblioteket i Lund (Lund City 76

CASE IN ICELANDIC Library), and the private libraries of friends and fellow Icelanders in Lund. Only titles first published in 1990 and later are included. The genre Teenage and children's literature was evenly divided between Icelandic and translated material, as in the 1991 study, and the genre Non-fiction was evenly divided between humanities and natural sciences, also as in the 1991 study. Since some of the non-fiction titles I used are multidisciplinary I have chosen to categorize them according to the profession of the author. Thereby, the following five texts are categorized as humanities: Haf, Hug, Ísl, Lög and Mey, since the authors are a linguist, philosopher, historian, book historian and literary critic. The remaining titles are categorized as natural sciences: C-14, For, Rof, Vín and Þjó, since the authors are a physicist, archaeologist, geologist, biologist and meteorologist, respectively. Archaeology is classified as a humanist subject at Lund University but since it is classified as natural science in Iceland and the text is written by an Icelandic archaeologist the Icelandic classification will be used here. Otherwise Haf may be considered as both linguistics and cultural history, Hug as both philosophy and linguistics, Lög as both book history and philology, C-14 as both physics and geology, For as both archaeology and history, and Vín as history, meteorology and literary criticism. When counting the words in the excerpted material, the limit of 500 words was not reached after a precise count of 500 lexical units: Some authors write two words as one, for instance þarsem ('where', 'since') in Rad, while others write it as two words. I have chosen to count words in accordance with each author's orthography, so that for instance þarsem is counted as one word in Rad but as two in other texts, where it is written þar sem. All parenthetical references and all quotes from other texts were excluded. All abbreviations were counted as single words. I found two typographical errors in C-14: one was "þykkt af lag parafíni" (thick of layer paraffin), which should clearly be "þykkt lag af parafíni" (thick layer of paraffin), and the other was "af massa hefðbundinna kerfi" (from the mass of traditional systems) where kerfi is a genitive attribute to massa, the object of the preposition, and should therefore be "af massa hefðbundinna kerfa" where kerfa is genitive, rather than kerfi (nom.). Both these errors were corrected in my corpus. From the corpus of spoken Icelandic, the first 15,000 words were selected. Everything complicating the word count was removed, for instance various signs which had been put in during an earlier transcription of the corpus, such as colons in the middles of words, indications of turntaking signalled with the initials of the people talking (which thus do not qualify as words), and so on. All hesitations (eh, uh, uhm), interjections and half words were removed. Fillers, such as sko, hérna, þarna, já and ha ('sort of, well') were kept in the text since they qualify as whole words. 77

CASE IN ICELANDIC Also, very often content words are used as fillers and since I want to refrain from having to decide when a content word is used as a filler, and when not, all fillers were maintained. The spoken language differs from the written language in that utterances, or parts of utterances, are often repeated; or in the middle of an utterance the speaker reformulates what s/he was going to say, resulting in the corpus of spoken language not being as structured grammatically as a corpus of written language. This means that a corpus of spoken language will not have as high a frequency of nominals, or arguments per word, as a corpus of written language. 4.2.2 The Tagging of the Texts I tagged the corpus for morphological case, tagging nouns, adjectives and personal pronouns for word category, and I tagged the corpus for syntactic functions, thematic roles, and finally for text and genre. It is possible to carry out a frequency study of morphological case on two levels: the word level and the phrase level. A study on the word level is valuable since it makes comparisons with other studies possible. However, a study on the phrase level allows us to search for co-variation of variables and possible statistical relations between, for instance, morphological case and syntactic functions or thematic roles. That is my primary goal here, but I also want to compare my study with the 1991 frequency study and thus I tagged my material for word category. Due to space limitations I only tagged nouns, adjectives and personal pronouns. The tagging of the texts was done in the statistical program SPSS 6.1, with one lexical word per line, i.e. with the text in the first column and then the following six variables in each subsequent column: The variable Word Category has three values, i.e. Noun, Adjective and (personal) Pronoun; the variable Morphological Case has four values, i.e. nominative, accusative, dative and genitive; the variable Syntactic Functions has 11 values, i.e. subject, predicative complement, direct object, indirect object, object of preposition, adverbial phrase, adnominal attribute, apposition, special object, as-predicate and sentence-external phrase; the variable Thematic Roles has 19 values, i.e. Agent, Cause, Content, Theme, Station, Experiencer, Cognizer, Perceiver, Beneficiary, Instrument, Comitative, Goal, Reason, Source, Measure, Manner, Time, Location and Path; the variable Text has 51 values, as the number of written texts is 50, a total of 51 together with the spoken Icelandic material; and finally the variable Genre has six values, i.e. five different genres of written Icelandic and then spoken Icelandic. This is summarized below: (2)

Var 1: Word Category; Noun, Adj., Pronoun.

78

CASE IN ICELANDIC Var 2: Morphological Case: nominative, accusative, dative, genitive. Var 3: Syntactic Functions; subject, predicative complement, direct object, indirect object, prepositional object, adverbial phrase, adnominal attribute, apposition, special object, aspredicate and sentence-external phrase. Var 4: Thematic Roles; Agent, Cause, Content, Theme, Station, Experiencer, Cognizer, Perceiver, Beneficiary, Instrument, Comitative, Goal, Reason, Source, Measure, Manner, Time, Location, and Path. Var 5: Text; 51. Var 6: Genre; Icelandic fiction, Translated fiction, Biographies and memoirs, Nonfiction, Teenage and children's literature. Regarding the analysis of case forms, whenever a form was ambiguous between two forms (see for instance Table 1.1 above) the substitution method was used to disambiguate the form; i.e. a word was replaced with a word from another declension which does not have identical forms for the two relevant cases. 4.2.3 Grammatical Analysis The analysis of Word Category is relatively uncontroversial in Icelandic and I have consistently followed the analysis of the 1991 frequency study (see 1991:xxiv-xl). Adjectives occur as predicative complements and adnominally with nouns, while adjectival stems used adverbially are categorized as adverbs, however, with one exception: dative singular forms of strong declensional adjectives, used adverbially, but declined adjectively, like löngu in löngu síðar, are categorized as adjectives. Adjectives and present participles used as nouns are categorized as nouns, those used as adjectives are categorized as adjectives, and those used adverbally are classified as adverbs. Ordinal numbers are categorized as adjectives. The lexical word það has functions corresponding to (at least) three different categories: a personal pronoun, an expletive and a demonstrative pronoun. It is categorized as an expletive when it does not invert with the finite verb, as a personal pronoun when it occurs alone and refers to a noun, and it is categorized as a personal pronoun used impersonally when it anticipates an að-clause (that-clause). When það occurs with a noun it is a demonstrative. Consider the following example of það from Íslensk orðtíðnibók (1991:xxxii):

79

CASE IN ICELANDIC (3)

Ég nenni ekki að vera að bera á borð það sem enginn vill borða. I.nom bother not to be to carry on table.acc that which nobody.nom wants eat 'I don't bother to cook food that nobody wants to eat.'

In the 1991 study, það, when it occurs as a correlate for a relative clause, is analysed as a demonstrative pronoun and not as a personal pronoun used impersonally. I have done the same in this study in order to obtain comparable frequency figures. The genitive forms of the personal pronouns, míns, þíns, hans, hennar, þess, okkar, ykkar and þeirra are categorized as personal pronouns when they occur alone but as possessive pronouns when they occur together with a noun. The reflexive pronouns are categorized as personal pronouns, but as possessive pronouns together with a noun. For more information I refer the reader to Íslensk orðtíðnibók (1991). Sentence-external phrases, occurring in a form analysable as either nominative or accusative (see section 1.1 for homophonous morphological forms), are always analysed as nominatives. Consequently, nominative is treated as a default case, while a phrase is only analysed as an accusative phrase if it occurs with a predicate which assigns accusative. Subjects cliticized on verbs, as in questions and imperatives, are excluded from the statistics on morphological case and word category, since in the 1991 frequency study, cliticized subjects are treated as verbal morphology (Jörgen Pind p.c.). 4.2.4 Comparison with Older Studies In order to establish whether the figures obtained from my small corpus can be regarded as valid for Icelandic I will compare them with figures from the 1991 study. As stated above, in the 1991 study nouns, personal pronouns and adjectives, among other categories, were tagged for case. The results are presented in the following tables together with the results of my study. All the 1991 figures are adopted from tables 14.2.8, 14.3.13 and 14.4.8 (1991:1161-1179). In Table 4.1 the 1991 study is shown to the left and my study (2001) to the right. The total figures in Table 4.1, on the percentual frequencies of morphological case of nouns in all genres, are almost identical. At most there is one percent difference between genitives, 11.9 vs. 10.8, and at least there is 0.2 percent difference between accusatives, 27.9 vs. 28.1. The rates of the morphological cases divided on genres show the same results, only with a more variance in the differences of the percentages. The smallest difference is 0.3 percent in the cases of nominatives in genre 2 Translated fiction. The difference is at most 4.2% in the rates of accusatives in genre 1 80

CASE IN ICELANDIC Icelandic fiction, where the 1991 study has 31.7% accusatives while our study has 35.9% accusatives. There are certain things worth pointing out in Table 4.1. Most differences in the frequencies between cases in the 1991 study are also visible in my corpus. Starting with genre 1 Icelandic fiction, we find that the accusative is more frequent than the nominative in both studies. Conversely, in genres 2 Translated fiction, 4 Non-fiction and 5 Teenage and children's literature the nominative is always slightly more frequent than the accusative. Otherwise nominative, accusative and dative range from being approximately 26% to being around 31%, with some variance: We find 36% accusative in genre 1 Icelandic fiction, which is 4.2% higher than the corresponding figures for the 1991 study. Likewise, accusative in genre 4 Non-fiction is 20.1%, or 3.2% lower than 1991 and, our nominative in genre 5 Teenage and children's literature is 40.7%, or 3.9% higher than the nominative in the 1991 study. Finally, dative in genre 5 Teenage and children's literature is only 24.9% to be compared with 26.4 in 1991. However, even though the percentage differences vary more when we divide the results by genres rather than measuring the totality of the rates presented in the last column in Table 4.1, the tendencies remain the same. By that I mean that if a nominative rates highest within a genre, it does so in both studies, if a genitive rates lowest, it does so in both studies. Table 4.1:Frequencies of morphological case, nouns and genres, 1991 and 2001. Genre Case 1991 2001 f % f % 1 Nom 6,459 29.9 326 28.5 Acc 6,859 31.7 411 35.9 Icelandic Dat 6,632 30.7 327 28.5 fiction Gen 1,682 7.8 81 7.1 21.632 2 Translated fiction Gen

Nom Acc Dat

7,050 6,323 6,196 1,983

1,145 32.7 29.3 28.7 9.2

21,552 3

Nom Acc Biographies Dat and memoirs Gen

8,251 7,355 8,181 3,659

330 311 303 74

32.4 30.5 29.8 7.3

1,018 30.1 26.8 29.8 13.3

27,445

381 394 467 209 1,451

81

26.2 27.2 32.2 14.4

CASE IN ICELANDIC 4 Non-fiction

Nom Acc Dat Gen

8,856 7,280 9,076 6,047

28.3 23.3 29.0 19.3

31,259 5 Children's Literature

Nom Acc Dat Gen

7,633 6,394 5,468 1,240

Nom Acc Dat Gen

38,249 34,211 35,553 14,610

31.4 20.1 31.3 17.2

1,520 36.8 30.8 26.4 6.0

20,735 Total

477 306 476 261

420 311 257 44

40.7 30.1 24.9 4.3

1,032 31.2 27.9 29.0 11.9

122,623

1,934 1,733 1,830 669

31.4 28.1 29.7 10.8

6,166

The distribution of the genitive is also noteworthy. In genre 1 Icelandic fiction it is 7.8 vs. 7.1%, in genre 2 Translated fiction it is 9.2 vs. 7.2%. However, in genre 3 Biographies and memoirs it rates much higher, or 13.3 vs. 14.4%, and in genre 4 Non-fiction it rates even still higher or 19.3 vs. 17.2%. Finally in genre 5 Teenage and children's literature it is much lower or 6.0 vs. 4.3%. This means that either verbs selecting genitive objects, or more likely, that genitive attributes are used more often in the nonfictional literature (Biographies and Non-fiction) than in the fictional literature (Icelandic fiction, Translated fiction and Teenage and Children's literature), and that within the non-fiction literature, Biographies contain fewer genitive attributes than the Nonfiction. The frequencies of nominatives are always approximately the same as accusatives and datives, apart from in genre 5 Teenage and children's literature. There the amount of nominatives is higher than in the other genres, or 36.8 vs. 40.7%, while nominatives range from 26.2, in genre 3 Biographies and memoirs in my study, to 32.7% in genre 2 Translated fiction in the 1991 study. To sum up so far, it seems beyond doubt that my corpus of only 25,000 words is highly representative, since it shows similarities, bordering on identity, with another Icelandic text corpus of 500,000 words. So far I have been discussing nouns, I now turn to adjectives. When comparing the total frequencies of the case forms of adjectives in Table 4.2, one clearly sees that the differences between the two studies are minimal, being at most 2.2 % for datives, i.e. 20.9 vs. 23.1%, and at least

82

CASE IN ICELANDIC 1.4% for genitives, i.e. 4.8 vs. 6.2%. Dividing the rates between the genres we find more variation in the frequencies. Nominatives are 4-6% lower in genres 1 Icelandic fiction and 3 Biographies and memoirs in my study. Datives are 3.8% higher in genre 1 Icelandic fiction in my study, 4.1% higher in genre 3 Biographies and memoirs in my study, and 4% higher in genre 4 Non-fiction in my study, while the accusatives are almost exactly the same in genre 3 Biographies and memoirs in both studies. Another interesting fact is that accusatives are only 16.3% in genre 4 Non-fiction in my study while they are 21.1% in the 1991 study. Table 4.2: Frequencies of morphological case, adjectives and genres, 1991 and 2001. Genre Case 1991 2001 f % f % 1 Nom 3,822 55.9 127 49.0 Acc 1,439 21.1 59 22.8 Icelandic Dat 1,403 20.5 63 24.3 fiction Gen 168 2.5 10 3.9 6,832 2 Translated fiction

Nom Acc Dat Gen

3,848 1,505 1,485 269

259 54.1 21.2 20.9 3.8

7,107 3

Nom Acc Biographies Dat and memoirs Gen

3,694 1,583 1,512 343

Non-fiction

Nom Acc Dat Gen

3,583 1,703 1,936 837

51.8 22.2 21.2 4.8

Children's Literature

Nom Acc Dat Gen

3,980 1,353 1,123 83

135 64 74 20

46.1 22.8 25.3 6.8

293 44.5 21.1 24.0 10.4

8,059 5

57.9 18.5 20.6 3.0

233

7,132 4

135 43 48 7

181 65 112 42

45.2 16.3 28.0 10.5

400 60.9 20.7 17.2 1.3

6,539

175 56 42 12 285

83

61.4 19.7 14.7 4.2

CASE IN ICELANDIC Total

Nom Acc Dat Gen

18,927 7,583 7,459 1,700

53.1 21.3 20.9 4.8

35,669

753 287 339 91

51.2 19.5 23.1 6.2

1,470

The Icelandic Word Frequency Book (Íslensk Orðtíðnibók 1991) does not give figures on the distribution of case forms among personal pronouns across genres, but only total numbers. Therefore I cannot make inter-genre comparisons but only compare the total numbers. Table 4.3: Morphological case of personal pronouns, 1991 and 2001. Case 1991 2001 f % f Total Nom 27,408 56.0 1,204 Acc 6,526 13.3 288 Dat 10,051 20.6 424 Gen 4,934 10.1 106 48,919

% 59.5 14.2 21.0 5.3

2,022

Table 4.3 shows that the tendencies are definitely the same in both studies. Nominatives have the highest rates, 56.0 vs. 59.5%, datives follow with 20.6 vs. 21%, then we have accusatives a bit below 15% and genitives at 10.1 vs. 5.3%. My study differs in that nominatives rate a little higher at the expense of the genitives which rate a little lower in my study than in the 1991 study. Two interesting questions arise. Why do nominative personal pronouns have a higher percentage than nominative nouns? Why do accusative pronouns rate much lower than dative pronouns, when accusative and dative nouns rate approximately the same? An immediate answer offers itself to the first question: personal pronouns are inherently topical, while nouns need not be topical. This means that since subjects are often in the nominative case and also more often topical than objects are, then subjects are clearly more often pronouns than objects. Therefore we have a higher percentage of nominative pronouns than oblique pronouns. The other question, why dative pronouns rate higher than accusative pronouns, whereas the same cannot be found for nouns, does not have any obvious answer. One possible explanation is that more oblique subjects are datives than accusatives, since subjects are more often pronouns than objects are. Another possibility is that more reflexive objects are datives than accusatives, since reflexive objects are always pronouns. An investigation of the first text in the first genre (Býl) reveals that neither of the two hypotheses above holds. In Býl there are 4 accusative 84

CASE IN ICELANDIC pronouns and 14 dative pronouns. The dative pronouns seem to divide rather equally between reflexive objects, dative objects, indirect objects and prepositional objects. I return to this issue in section 7.3.1 below. Combining nouns and pronouns into one category, we obtain the figures presented in Table 4.4. Table 4.4: Morphological case of nouns and pronouns, 1991 and 2001. Case 1991 2001 f % f Total Nom 65,657 38.3 3,138 Acc 40,737 23.7 2,021 Dat 45,604 26.6 2,254 Gen 19,544 11.4 775 171,542

% 38.3 24.7 27.5 9.5

8,188

The figures from the two corpora are strikingly similar. To sum up so far, a comparison of the total frequencies of nouns, adjectives and personal pronouns across the two corpora has established that my corpus containing only 25,000 words (5% of the size of the comparison material) is highly representative of the five genres in spite of its smallness. Comparing the percentage frequencies of case forms of nouns in Icelandic with similar figures from other languages, it turns out that Icelandic differs from them. Greenberg (1966:38) provides statistics from Sanskrit, Latin and Russian in a comparative study on the frequencies of direct (nominative and accusative) and oblique cases (dative, genitive and others). Svavarsdóttir (1993:52) points out that direct case, in Icelandic, is somewhat less common than in Greenberg's material, but is nevertheless more common than the oblique cases: Table 4.5: A comparison of frequencies of direct and oblique case forms. Sample size Direct Oblique Sanskrit 93.277 72,5% 27,5% Latin 8.343 68,7% 31,3% Russian 6.194 65,2% 34,8% Icelandic 122.623 59,1% 40,1%

As we have seen from the tables above, the frequency of datives in the corpora is high, and might constitute a reason for the high frequency of oblique case in Icelandic.

85

CASE IN ICELANDIC

4.3 Frequencies In this section I first discuss the co-occurrences of morphological case and syntactic functions. The figures reveal that the subject is normally nominative, the indirect object is normally dative, the nominal attribute is normally genitive, while direct objects, objects of prepositions and adverbials divide between two morphological cases. In section 4.3.2 I examine the statistics of morphological case and thematic roles. It turns out that Agents, Causes, Stations, and Perceivers are most often encoded with the nominative, Instruments and Sources are most often encoded with the dative, Beneficiaries, Comitatives, Locations and Manners are in the majority of cases encoded with the dative, while Contents, Goals, Paths and Times are in the majority of cases in the accusative. Themes, Experiencers and Cognizers are more evenly distributed among nominative, accusative and dative. Then I give an overview of the statistics for syntactic functions and thematic roles, in section 4.3.3, concluding that the Agent, Cause, Theme, Content, Station, Experiencer, Cognizer, Perceiver and Beneficary usually link with core relations, whereas the Goal, Source, Instrument, Location, Path, Manner, Measure and Time link with non-core relations. Also, stative subject roles are more common in language use than causative/agential subject roles, while the most common object is a Content and not an affected Theme. Finally, in section 4.3.4 I gather the three variables into one table and give an overview of the co-occurrences of morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles. In section 4.3.5 I summarize the main results of this chapter. 4.3.1 Morphological Case and Syntactic Functions The statistics for morphological case and syntactic functions are shown in Table 4.6, for all the genres. The highest numbers are in bold: Table 4.6: Distribution of morphological cases across syntactic functions. Nominative Accusative Dative Genitive Subject 4,351 49 221 9 Object 110 1,268 479 38 Indirect Object 5 74 Attribute 16 417 Prep. phrase 1,369 2,185 306 Adverb 3 158 37 56 Predicate 846 17 5 1 As-predicate 52 12 8 2 Extra-sent. phrases 248 11 11 Apposition 127 21 31 14

86

CASE IN ICELANDIC Sp. object

25

I begin by commenting on the last four syntactic functions and then go on to the functions which are traditionally associated with a particular case. As-predicates occur most often in the nominative but do, however appear in other case forms. Most extra-sentential phrases are nominatives, which is not surprising given the fact that the category includes, for instance, vocatives and proper names, which often occur outside the proper clause. Appositions are more often nominatives than any other case, and special objects are nominatives by definition. The main conclusions to draw from Table 4.6 on the other syntactic functions and the morphological cases are summarized in the following statements: (4)

I.

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

The subject is normally nominative. The object is normally accusative. The indirect object is normally dative. The object of a preposition is normally dative. The nominal attribute is normally genitive. The predicative is normally nominative The adverbial phrase is normally accusative.

II.

a. b.

The nominative is most often a subject. The accusative is most often a prepositional phrase or an object. The dative is most often a prepositional phrase. The genitive is most often attributive.

c. d.

These conclusions are in accordance with our expectations and our knowledge of Modern Icelandic. However, some facts are worthy of further comment: It is interesting that dative objects represent 25.3% of object tokens in Icelandic, and also that datives are 56.6% of objects of prepositions. Considering all dative tokens, however, it turns out that complements of prepositions represent 71.2% of all datives. An exotic fact is worth noticing: nominative objects are more common than genitive objects. This is definitely not what we would expect considering the fact that traditional grammar assumes that nominative is the case for subjects and accusative, dative and genitive are the cases for objects. According to these figures, nominative is definitely not a "lesser" object case than genitive is. Before we go on to compare written vs. spoken Icelandic, let us illustrate the results of an inter-genre comparison (see Appendix A for a complete version of Table 4.7): 87

CASE IN ICELANDIC Table 4.7: Morphological case forms divided on subjects and attributes in all genres. Nominative Accusative Dative Genitive 1 Subject 534 5 21 Attrib. 1 41 2 Subject 589 4 30 2 Attrib. 2 35 3 Subject 423 6 21 4 Attrib. 3 113 4 Subject 423 5 16 3 Attrib. 5 168 5 Subject 665 12 23 Attrib. 2 21 6 Subject 1715 17 110 Attrib. 3 39

Table 4.7 reveals what we could already gather in section 4.2.4 above on the differences between our five written genres. Note that the number of subjects is much lower in genres 3 Biographies and memoirs and 4 Nonfiction and is highest in genre 5 Teenage and children's literature. This can have two explanations: Either genres 3 Biographies and memoirs and 4 Non-fiction have more subjectless clauses than the other genres, meaning that subjectless clauses are more common in formal styles, or plainly that genres 3 Biographies and memoirs and 4 Non-fiction have longer sentences than the other genres, thereby also fewer sentences on a 500/word basis, and hence also fewer subjects. Also, the frequency of genitive attributes differs drastically between genres: Genre 3 Biographies and memoirs and 4 Non-fiction contain more genitive attributes than the other genres, and genre 5 Teenage and children's literature contains the fewest. This also corroborates the hypothesis of section 4.2.4 above, that attributes are more typical of formal styles. Let us examine the two following tables, Table 4.8 with total figures for all the written genres and Table 4.9 with the figures for the corpus of spoken Icelandic: Table 4.8: Morphological cases across syntactic functions in the written genres. Nominative Accusative Dative Genitive Subject 2,634 32 111 9 Object 37 809 300 28 Indirect Object 5 49 Attribute 13 378 Prep. phrase 1000 1,612 247 Adverb 1 94 31 34 Predicate 485 15 5 1 As-predicate 40 10 6 3 Extra-sent. phrase 71 3 1 Apposition 93 14 26 14 Sp. object 21 88

CASE IN ICELANDIC Table 4.9: Morphological cases across syntactic functions in the spoken genre. Nominative Accusative Dative Genitive Subject 1,715 17 110 Object 73 459 178 10 Indirect Object 25 Attribute 3 39 Prep. phrase 369 573 59 Adverb 2 64 6 22 Predicate 360 2 As-predicate 12 2 2 Extra-sent. phrase 177 8 10 Apposition 34 7 5 Sp. object 3

Here we contrast the written language with the spoken language. I remind the reader that the written language is 25,000 words while the spoken language is 15,000 words. The main difference between the two corpora is that oblique subjects, especially dative subjects, are more common in the spoken language than in the written genres. This might be due to the fact that the corpus of spoken Icelandic is based on radio programmes where the audience is encouraged to phone in and express opinions on matters on the agenda. Since many verbs which select for dative subjects are verbs expressing opinions, we would expect them to be frequent in such radio programmes. On the other hand, it may also be the fact that the spoken language is more subjective than the written genres, and therefore verbs selecting for oblique subjects rate higher there, while the written genres are more objective, yielding lower rates for verbs expressing feelings and opinions (see p. 185). Let us now examine the percentages of subjects and their morphological case in the different genres (a list of all verbs selecting for accusative, dative or genitive subjects occurring in my corpus are listed in Appendix B): Table 4.10: Percentages of subjects in different case forms. Written Spoken f % f % Nom 2,634 94.5 1,715 93.1 Acc 32 1.2 17 0.9 Dat 111 4.0 110 6.0 Gen 9 0.3 Total 2,786 100 1,842 100

Total f 4,349 49 221 9 4,628

% 93.9 1.2 4.7 0.2 100

It is amazing that the distribution of subjects by case forms is so stable between the written and the spoken language, as Table 4.10 reveals. Nominative subjects are between 93 and 94.5% throughout. Notice that 89

CASE IN ICELANDIC accusative subjects are proportionally more in the written genres, while the dative subjects are proportionally more in the spoken language. This might be due to the fact that accusative subjects, more often than dative subjects, encode non-human subjects, like ána (acc) in ána lagði 'the river froze' and daginn (acc) in daginn lengir 'the day becomes longer', and that they are more common in the written genres than in spoken Icelandic. As stated above, dative subjects are more common in the spoken language, presumably because the spoken language is more subjective. I now proceed to the proportional figures for direct objects: Table 4.11: Percentages of objects in different case forms. 1-5 6 f % f % Nom 37 3.1 73 10.2 Acc 809 68.9 459 63.7 Dat 300 25.6 178 24.7 Gen 28 2.4 10 1.4 Total 1,174 720

Total f 110 1,268 478 38 1,894

% 5.8 67 25.2 2.0

As is evident from Table 4.11 the majority of direct objects, 67%, are in the accusative case, although there is also a considerable amount of dative objects, around 25%. Genitive objects are few, 2%, while the frequency of nominative objects varies. They are more common in the spoken corpora than in the written corpora, and the difference is quite large, 3.1 vs. 10.2%. Since nominative objects only occur together with verbs which have a dative subject, and dative subjects rate lower in the written genres than in the spoken material, we would also expect nominative objects to rate higher in the spoken corpora. It is further interesting, as already stated above, that nominative objects are more common than genitive objects. I now turn to objects of prepositions. Table 4.12: Percentages of prepositional phrases in different case forms. Written Spoken Total f % f % f Acc 1,000 35 369 36.8 1,369 Dat 1,612 56.4 573 57.3 2,185 Gen 247 8.6 59 5.9 306 Total 2,859 1,001 3,860

% 35.4 56.6 8.0

Objects of prepositions are most often marked dative, in 56.6% of the cases, they are in the accusative in 35.4% of all objects of prepositions, while genitives are only 8%. The figures for accusatives and datives are stable throughout this corpus. To sum up so far, this statistical investigation of the frequencies of morphological case across syntactic functions has revealed the following: 90

CASE IN ICELANDIC

(5)

a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i)

An overwhelming majority of subjects are encoded with nominative case. Subjects and predicative complements together are responsible for almost all nominatives. Oblique subjects are low-frequency constructions, with similar frequency in the different genres. A clear majority of indirect object tokens are in the dative case. Two/thirds of object tokens are accusatives and approximately one/quarter are dative. More than half of the prepositional objects are in dative while one third are accusative. Approximately 75% of datives are complements of prepositions. Almost all attributes are genitives, and approximately half of genitives are attributes, while the other large group of genitives is prepositional objects. Most adverbs are accusatives.

This part of our study therefore reveals a rather clear division of labour, in some of the cases above, between the different morphological cases within the field of syntax. The nominative is the case for subjects, dative is the case for indirect objects and genitive is the case for attributes. However, for direct objects, objects of prepositions and adverbials the labour is divided among more than one morphological case, even though one case is most frequent. 4.3.2 Morphological Case and Thematic Roles I now consider the distribution of morphological case across thematic roles. The frequencies for all the roles in the whole corpus are represented in Table 4.13 below: Table 4.13: Distribution of morphological case across thematic roles. Nom Acc Dat Agent 1,406 Cause 35 Theme 232 428 201 Content 265 1,380 561 Station 1,679 8 Experiencer 230 38 134 Cognizer 404 3 27 Perceiver 109 5 Beneficiary 46 33 216 Goal 178 48 91

Gen

4 95

82

CASE IN ICELANDIC Reason Source Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time

3

12 12

10

7 169 118 33 5 290

12 177 49 41 827 41 172 6 150

18 2 54 11 23 13 8

The following facts can be extracted from the statistics in Table 4.13: (6)

I.

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r.

The Agent/Cause is always nominative. The Theme is most frequently accusative. The Content is most frequently accusative. The Station is most frequently nominative. The Experiencer is most frequently nominative. The Cognizer is most frequently nominative. The Perceiver is most frequently nominative. The Beneficiary is most frequently dative. The Goal is most frequently accusative. The Reason/Purpose is most frequently genitive. The Source is most frequently dative. The Instrument is always dative. The Comitative is most frequently dative. The Location is most frequently dative. The Path is most frequently accusative. The Manner is most frequently dative. The Measure is most frequently genitive. The Time is most frequently accusative.

II.

a. b. c. d.

The most frequent nominative is a Station The most frequent accusative is a Content The most frequent dative is a Location. The most frequent genitive is a Content.

There are certain figures which immediately attract one's attention in Table 4.13. First, the Agent and the Cause are always nominative. However, the most frequent nominative is certainly not an Agent but a Station. This means that most subjects are subjects of stative predicates. Furthermore, the Content is the most common role expressed by the accusative, much more common than Themes. Taken together, most Agents, Experiencers, Cognizers and Perceivers are nominative. The reason for this may be that they are more often subjects than for instance objects or prepositional 92

CASE IN ICELANDIC objects. Most Beneficiaries, on the other hand, are dative, perhaps in part because almost all indirect objects are both Beneficiaries and datives, and partly because object Beneficiaries are often datives. Dative is also the most frequent case for Comitatives, Sources, Locations, and Manners, and is the only case for Instruments. Dative for Instruments is thereby the third example of a 100% correlation between a thematic role and a morphological case. Goals, Paths and Times are in the majority of cases accusative. The Reason, however, is most often in the genitive case, presumably as a result of the fact that it is often expressed together with the preposition til 'to' which governs the genitive. These figures clearly show a tendency for certain thematic roles to correlate with certain morphological cases, either absolutely, as is the case with Agents, Cause and Instruments, or highly, as is the case with Stations, Contents, Cognizers, Perceivers, Beneficiaries, Comitatives, Goals, Locations, Paths, Manners and Times. Two thematic roles are distributed relatively evenly between two morphological cases, namely Themes and Experiencers. The relevant question to ask now is whether there is a direct causal connection between morphological case and thematic roles, or whether the correlations observed are consequences of the fact that certain morphological cases correlate with syntactic functions and that certain thematic roles also correlate with synctactic functions. The other possibility is that thematic roles correlate with syntactic functions, and that case correlates with thematic roles, therefore it looks as if morphological case correlates with syntactic functions. I cannot properly answer this question on the basis of the data presented here. I will return to the issue in section 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 below. First, let us briefly examine the figures for morphological case and thematic roles divided between the different genres (see Appendix A for a complete version of Table 4.14): Table 4.14: Distribution of morphological case across thematic roles and genres. Genre 1 Nom Acc Dat Gen Agent 225 Experiencer 28 3 10 Cognizer 34 2 4 Perceiver 12 2 Goal 48 7 10 Genre 2 Agent Experiencer Cognizer Perceiver Goal

Nom 231 45 67 16

Acc

Dat

Gen

2 1

14 5 1 11

9

22

93

CASE IN ICELANDIC Genre 3 Agent Experiencer Cognizer Perceiver Goal

Nom 143 15 22 2

Acc

Dat

Gen

4

8 4 1 3

22

Genre 4 Agent

Nom 71

Acc

Dat 1

Experiencer Cognizer Perceiver Goal

3 17 1

2

2 2

4

2

11

Genre 5 Agent Experiencer Cognizer Perceiver Goal

Nom 277 41 60 33

Acc

Dat

Gen

11

14 4

47

13

16

Genre 6 Agent Experiencer Cognizer Perceiver Goal

Nom 458 98 204 45

Acc

Dat

Gen

16

86 8 1 12

14

13

44

Gen

The main tendencies outlined above for Table 4.13 also hold for the six genres, except for two cases: Goals which in majority of cases are in the accusative, turn out to be in the genitive in the majority of cases in genres 3 Biographies and memoirs and 4 Non-fiction. This might suggest that the use of the preposition til 'to', which typically governs genitive case and assignes the role Goal to its object, is more widespread in the formal styles. The other difference is the distribution of Experiencers and Agents across the genres: It is interesting that the amount of Agents is approximately the same in genres 1 Icelandic fiction and 2 Translated fiction, it is lower in genre 3 Biographies and memoirs, in genre 4 Nonfiction it is even lower, whereas in genre 5 Teenage and children's literature it is higher than in genre 1 Icelandic fiction and 2 Translated fiction. This correlation pattern is the same as was noticed for nominative subjects across genres in Table 4.7 above. However, genre 6 Spoken Icelandic differs here from genre 6 Spoken Icelandic in Table 4.7. There the amount of nominative subjects takes an intermediate position between

94

CASE IN ICELANDIC genre 1 Icelandic fiction and genre 5 Teenage and children's literature, while here the amount of nominative Agents is similar to the amount in genre 3 Biographies and memoirs (on per word basis), i.e. it is the second lowest rate of all genres. This means that even though nominative subjects rate higher in genre 6 Spoken Icelandic than in genres 1 Icelandic fiction and 2 Translated fiction, nominative Agents do not. This mismatch between nominative subjects and nominative Agents across genres means that there is a higher mean correlation between nominative and agency in the written material than in the spoken material. Notice further that Experiencers are most frequently nominatives, and that their frequency is similar in genres 1 Icelandic fiction, 2 Translated fiction and 5 Teenage and children's literature. However, the frequency of Experiencers is much lower in genre 3 Biographies and memoirs, and they hardly occur in genre 4 Non-fiction. This can be explained by the fact that genres 3 Biographies and memoirs and 4 Nonfiction are both non-fictional and thereby presumably the most objective, presupposing that a low rate of Experiencers is typical of objective style. Further, in genre 6 Spoken Icelandic the frequency of nominative and dative Experiencers is very similar, i.e. 98 vs. 86 instances. The frequency of nominative Experiencers is proportionally the same as in the written genres, while the frequency of dative Experiencers is proportionally much higher. This means that dative Experiencers are more frequent in spoken than written Icelandic. This is, of course, what is to be expected considering the fact that dative subjects are proportionally more frequent in the spoken than the written material, as discussed in 4.3.1 above and illustrated in Table 4.10. Combining Experiencers, Cognizers and Perceivers into one class the results are approximately the same. Also, it is interesting to note that nominative Cognizers are always more common than nominative Experiencers in the written genres, while dative Experiencers are more common than dative Cognizers in all the written genres, apart from genre 4 Non-fiction; however, there are so few examples of dative subjects there that no conclusion can be drawn on the basis of these. Moreover, for the spoken material, the proportion of dative subjects is extremely high, compared to the written material. To sum up, there is a clear statistical correlation between morphological case and thematic roles: Agents, Causes, Stations and Perceivers, on the one hand, and Instruments and Sources, on the other, are almost always encoded with the same morphological case, nominative and dative respectively. Beneficiaries, Comitatives, Locations and Manners are in a majority of cases encoded with the dative case, while Contents, Goals, Paths and Times are in a clear majority of cases accusative. However, Themes, Experiencers and Cognizers are more evenly distributed among nominative, accusative and dative. 95

CASE IN ICELANDIC

4.3.3 Syntactic Functions and Thematic Roles I now examine the statistics for syntactic functions and thematic roles, summarized in Table 4.15: Table 4.15: Distribution of thematic roles across syntactic functions. Subject Object IObject PrObject Agent 1,406 Cause 35 Theme 250 489 11 115 Content 188 1,210 4 899 Station 1,687 Exp. 402 Cognizer 433 1 Perceiver 114 Ben. 59 132 62 42 Goal 308 Reason 41 Source 3 189 Instrument 1 18 30 Comitative 50 Location 1 1,024 25 Path 3 153 Manner 216 Measure 4 Time 7 2 276

Adv.

14 12 20 173

The following statements can be formulated on the basis on the statistics above: (7)

I.

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o.

The Agent is always a subject. The Cause is always a subject. The Theme is most frequently an object. The Content is most frequently an object. The Station is always a subject. The Experiencer is always a subject. The Cognizer is (almost) always a subject. The Perceiver is always a subject. The Beneficiary is most frequently an object. The Goal is always a prepositional object. The Reason is always a prepositional object. The Source is (almost) always a prepositional object. The Instrument is most frequently a prepositional object. The Comitative is always a prepositional object. The Location is most frequently a prepositional object. 96

CASE IN ICELANDIC

II.

p. q. k. l.

The Path is most frequently a prepositional object. The Manner is most frequently a prepositional object. The Measure is most frequently an adverbial. The Time is most frequently a prepositional object.

a. b. c. d. e.

The most frequent subject is a Station The most frequent object is a Content The most frequent Indirect object is a Beneficiary The most frequent prepositional object is a Location. The most frequent adverbial is Time.

Several facts are not only noteworthy, they also contradict generally received views on the distribution between syntactic functions and thematic roles: First, agentive subjects are less common than subjects with the thematic role Station. This means that stative predicates are more common in language use than actional or agentive predicates. Secondly, Themes are relatively evenly distributed among the three syntactic functions, subjects, objects and prepositional objects. This is unexpected given that the Theme is usually described as a typical object. Also, the most common object is not in fact a Theme, i.e. an entity affected by the event denoted by the predicate, but rather a Content of some sort. This is presumably a consequence of the fact that most transitive predicates, in language use, are more stative than actional, and by statives I mean verbs that take Stations, Contents, Experiencers, Cognizers and Perceivers. Thirdly, Experiencers are always subjects not objects, meaning that psychverbs which select the Experiencer as the subject (I like this) are much more frequently used than psych-verbs which select the Experiencer as the object (This pleases me). In this investigation only 11 examples were found of the Stimuli-Experiencer construction. One was a dative and was coded as a Cognizer (see Table 4.15 above). The others were in the accusative case and were thereby analysed as Themes. Furthermore, the Beneficiary is most frequently an object and not an indirect object, presumably due to the amount or frequency of verbs like assist, help and support being higher than the amount or frequency of verbs selecting for an indirect object. The indirect object is most often a Beneficiary but there are some examples of indirect objects being Themes or Contents. This is due to the fact that ditransitive verbs are in these cases not benefactive verbs. It is also interesting that the Goal, Comitative, Reason and Source are (almost) always prepositional objects. Instruments are distributed among direct objects and objects of prepositions, Locations among direct objects, objects of prepositions and adverbials. Path, Manner and Measure are distributed among prepositional objects and adverbials, and Time among subjects, direct objects, objects of prepositions and 97

CASE IN ICELANDIC adverbials, though the Time is most often a prepositional object. Further, seen from the opposite angle, the object of a preposition is most often a Location and the non-governed adverbial phrase is most often a Time. However, even though some of our findings contradict the assumptions traditionally made by linguists on the relation between syntactic functions and thematic roles, our results are nevertheless in accordance with previous knowledge: The Agent is always a subject. Agents, Causes, Themes, Contents, Stations, Experiencers, Cognizers, Perceivers and Beneficiaries are thematic roles which are always encoded by core relations of the sentence (direct syntactic functions), while the Goal, Source, Instrument, Location, Path, Manner, Measure and Time are usually encoded by non-core relations of the sentence (indirect syntactic functions)1. This is clear from Table 4.15 where it is shown that the former thematic roles are divided among many more syntactic functions within the upper part of the table, while the latter thematic roles are more or less confined to the rightmost part of the table. The real figures for the different genres are presented in Table 4.16 (see Appendix A for a complete version of this table). As noted for nominative Agents in Table 4.14 above, agentive subjects are few in genre 3 Biographies and memoirs, they are even fewer in genre 4 Non-fiction, they are more frequent in genre 5 Teenage and children's literature, and most frequent in genre 6 Spoken Icelandic. The same holds for Experiencers, Cognizers and Perceivers, apart from the fact that they differ in that they rate proportionally highest in genre 6 Spoken Icelandic. This happens at the cost of the amount of Stations which are frequent in genre 3 Biographies and memoirs, and even more frequent in genre 4 Non-fiction. Beneficiary subjects and objects are more common in genres 3 Biographies and memoirs and 5 Teenage and children's literature and are most common in genre 6 Spoken Icelandic, while they are fairly rare in genres 1 Icelandic Fiction and 3 Biographies and memoirs and almost non-existent in genre 4 Non-fiction. Subjects with the stative thematic roles (Station, Experiencer, Cognizer, Perceiver, Content, Theme) are always, in all genres, more common than agentive subjects. Obviously, this means that low transitive sentences are more common than high transitive sentences. This is most obvious in genre 6 Spoken Icelandic. 1

This is of course partly due to our definitions. They, in turn, are due to our conceptualizations. There are examples of Experiencers being objects of prepositions. It is just that in those cases they are either coded as Locations or Goals since our encoding of thematic roles is based on the LANGUAGE ENCODING LEVEL and not the REAL WORLD LEVEL (see 3.5.5 below). Furthermore, Indirect Causes can be prepositional objects. When they are, they are conceptualized and coded as Reason. Comitatives can be subjects. In those cases they are a part of the subject constitutent, usually conjoined by and, and do not form a constituent of their own. 98

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Table 4.16: Distribution of thematic roles and syntactic functions across genres. Genre 1 Subject Object IObject PrObject Adv. Agent 225 Station 179 Exp. 41 Cognizer 40 Perceiver 14 Ben. 5 7 13 8 Genre 2 Subject Object IObject PrObject Adv. Agent 231 Station 181 Exp. 61 Cognizer 73 Perceiver 17 Ben. 3 9 5 5 Genre 3 Subject Object IObject PrObject Adv. Agent 143 Station 202 Exp. 27 Cognizer 25 1 Perceiver 3 Ben. 8 17 12 5 Genre 4 Subject Object IObject PrObject Adv. Agent 71 Station 254 Exp. 7 Cognizer 19 Perceiver 1 Ben. 3 1 3 3 Genre 5 Subject Object IObject PrObject Adv. Agent 277 Station 167 Exp. 66 Cognizer 64 Perceiver 33 Ben. 8 10 6 5 Genre 6 Subject Object IObject PrObject Adv. Agent 458 Station 703 Exp. 200 Cognizer 212 Perceiver 46 Ben. 32 88 23 16

Yet another difference, illustrated in Table 4.17 is found in the material: Table 4.17: Objects of prepositions across genres on a 5000/word basis. G 1 2 3 4 5 99

6

CASE IN ICELANDIC 574

513

643

609

520

334

The figures in Table 4.17 show clearly that the use of prepositional phrases differs drastically between the written genres and the spoken material; prepositional phrases are proportionally much fewer in the spoken corpus than in the written genres. To conclude, not only Agents (and Cause), but also Experiencers, Cognizers and Perceivers (almost) always link to subjects. Themes, Contents and Beneficiaries, on the other hand, are more evenly distributed across the syntactic functions. I am now in a position to address the question whether the relation between thematic roles and case, noted in section 4.3.2 above, is a consequence of the fact that there is a correlation between thematic roles and syntactic functions, or whether there is a real correlation between the two. As noted above, Agents, Experiencers, Cognizers and Perceivers almost always link to subjects, yet they are not always encoded by the same morphological case. If their morphological encoding were a consequence of the fact that they are always subjects, we would expect them to always be encoded with the same morphological case, both within the category, and with each other. That is not the case. Agents are always encoded as nominatives, while Experiencers and Cognizers are encoded as nominatives, accusatives and datives, and finally Perceivers are encoded as nominatives and datives. These facts yield two alternative conclusions: (8)

a) Agents are case marked as subjects, thereby nominative; some Experiencers are also case-marked as subjects, but others are nonnominative, hence it is not the syntactic function that assigns the morphological case, but rather the thematic role. b) Of the four, Agents always have the same case marking, hence their nominative can be viewed as being thematically assigned, while Experiencers and Cognizers divide between three cases. There is a correlation between Agents and nominative, but not between Experiencers/Cognizers and any one particular case, hence there is no correlation between Experiencers and morphological case.

Both conclusions (a) and (b) are compatible with the data presented here. The non-core thematic roles, which mostly correlate with a single morphological case, as noted in 4.3.2 above, link in some cases only with a prepositional object. That is true for the Goal, the Reason, the Comitative and the Source. The Instrument is linked with direct objects and objects of prepositions, always however with dative case. The Measure is more often 100

CASE IN ICELANDIC linked with an adverbial phrase, while the others are most often linked with a prepositional phrase. It is difficult to know whether their case marking is a consequence of their argument-linking properties or whether there is an inherent relation between the meaning of a preposition and the morphological case it assigns. 4.3.4 Morphological Case, Syntactic Functions and Thematic Roles I now summarize the discussion in 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 above in the following table, where all three variables, morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles, are shown: Table 4.18: Morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles. NOMINATIVE subject Station 1,679 Object Content 109 Agent 1,406 Theme 1 Cogn 404 Theme 231 Adv Time 3 Exp 230 Content 156 Perceiver 109 Ben 46 Cause 35 Time 7 Source 3 ACCUSATIVE Subject Exp 38 Object Content 874 Content 8 Theme 356 Cogn 3 Ben Path Prep. Obj Content 496 Time Goal 178 Loc 169 IObject Content Time 150 Theme 2 Path 101 Ben Theme 70 Manner 33 Adv Time Ben 23 Path Source 12 Measure Reason 12 Comitative 7 Measure 2

DATIVE Subject

Exp Cogn

134 26

Prep. object

101

Loc Content

826 352

9 3 2 2 1 138 14 3

CASE IN ICELANDIC Theme Content Ben Station Perc Inst

19 15 13 8 5 1

Object Content Theme Ben Instr Cogn Loc

192 130 123 18 1 1

IObject

61 9 2

Ben Theme Content

GENITIVE Subject Content Prep. object

Goal Content Loc Reason Manner Path Time Theme Com

9 82 51 29 17 11 11 6 2 2

Source Manner Time Goal Theme Com Path Instr Ben Reason12 Measure

177 172 120 48 43 41 41 30 19

Adv

Time Measure

30 4

Object

Content Theme

35 2

Adv

Loc Measure Manner Time

25 13 12 2

2

The largest group of nominatives is Station subjects, the largest group of accusatives is Content objects, the largest group of datives is PP Locations, and the PP Goal is also the largest group of the genitives. Agents, Cause and Stations are always subjects and (Stations are almost always) nominative. Instruments are always dative, mostly objects of prepositions. Experiencers are always subjects, most often nominatives, followed by datives and seldom accusatives. Cognizers are (almost) always subjects, most often nominatives, in a few cases datives and only in three cases accusatives. Perceivers are always subjects, most often nominative subjects but in five cases dative subjects. Indirect objects are in a majority of cases dative and Beneficiary. Note that the indirect objects that are accusatives are either Themes or Content and only in one case a Beneficiary. Genitive subjects and genitive objects are almost always Content. The conclusions to be derived from these facts are that there is a strong correlation between syntactic functions and morphological case, and between syntactic functions and thematic roles. There is also a correlation between thematic roles and morphological case. 102

CASE IN ICELANDIC The statistics for accusative and dative subjects reveal that for dative subjects, the majority have been assigned the thematic role Experiencer, but the Cognizer, Theme and Content form a substantial group. For accusative subjects, 77.5% of the group are Experiencers and the rest are Contents and Cognizers. Regarding Beneficiaries, an overwhelming majority of them are dative objects, in fact the largest group of Beneficiaries. The majority of dative objects exhibit the thematic role Content. These findings suggest that the dative of core relations can hardly be viewed as a morphological case for Experiencers, Cognizers, Perceivers and Beneficiaries since the dative is also used to encode ordinary Contents as often as it encodes the other groups, and also Experiencers, Cognizers and Perceivers are more often encoded as nominatives. However, it is a fact that the accusative is seldom used to encode Beneficiaries, for which purpose the dative is used. These findings further suggest that nominative is the case for Agents, while oblique case is, not the case for Experiencers and Beneficiaries, but rather the case for non-agents since oblique case is used to encode all other roles than Agents. 4.3.5 Conclusions The findings of this statistical investigation of morphological case in Icelandic give rise to the following conclusions: 1. The frequency of dative subjects, and further Experiencer subjects, shows variation according to registers, in that dative subjects are more common in the spoken language than in the written language, and almost non-existent in the more formal styles of the written language. Nominative objects, on the other hand, only show variation between the written and the spoken material, in that they rate much higher in the spoken material. This suggests that research on oblique subjects, and nominative objects, in the history of the Germanic languages does not necessarily present an accurate picture, since this research is solely based on the written sources. A comparison with diaries and private letters would be desirable. Thus, conclusions on oblique subjects in historical investigations have to take into account the type of genre being investigated. 2. The research presented in this chapter has revealed that theories on the function of morphological case in Icelandic are only right in part. Two earlier papers have discussed the function of the case system in Icelandic, namely Rögnvaldsson (1983b) and Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson (1995). Rögnvaldsson addresses the question of how Dative substitution, i.e. the process where accusative subjects change their case into dative (see further subsection 5.3.4.1.1 below), affects the Icelandic case system. He argues 103

CASE IN ICELANDIC that Dative substitution can actually be seen as a case-preserving change. Accusative subjects change into either nominative or dative, leaving the accusative free as the primary case for objects. The four morphological cases in Icelandic will then have the following functions: the nominative is the case for subjects and predicates, the genitive is the case for nominal attributes, the accusative is the case for the object, and the dative will then be the case for experiencer subjects. However, our investigation has shown that there is much stronger correlation between dative and Beneficiaries than between dative and Experiencers, and also that Experiencer subjects are more often nominatives than datives. Thus, Rögnvaldson's hypothesis is not corroborated. Also, Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson propose three different case assignment processes in Icelandic: semantic case such as the accusative of time and path, and dative of instruments, idiosyncratic case, which is associated with thematic roles, and functional case, which is structural case assignment of nominative to subjects and accusative to objects. However, our research has revealed that dative case on subjects allegedly based on thematic roles, is far from being restricted to Experiencers and Beneficaries, but can include most thematic roles except for Agents. Hence, my data do not corroborate the hypothesis of Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson. 3. My statistical findings also indicate that morphological case correlates with both syntactic and semantic factors. Regarding the syntax, subjects are almost always nominative, the majority of objects are accusative, attributes are almost always genitive and indirect objects are in the majority of cases dative. Regarding semantics, Agents, Causes, Stations are (almost) always nominative, Beneficiaries are in the majority of cases dative, Instruments are always dative, accusative objects are almost always Contents or Themes, and, finally, encoding the subject as accusative, dative or genitive is a way to signal the non-agentivity of the subject. 4. The figures presented above on the frequency of dative direct objects cast some serious doubts on the generative distinction between structural and lexical/idiosyncratic case and the acquisition of these two. Within the generative framework it is assumed that the structural cases are nominative for subjects and accusative for objects. It is further assumed that the case of accusative subjects, dative subjects, dative objects, genitive subjects and genitive objects is lexical or idiosyncratic. Lexical case has also been called thematic case (Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson 1985, Jónsson 199798). That entails that Experiencer and Beneficiary subjects receive dative case on the basis of their thematic roles.

104

CASE IN ICELANDIC The classification of structural vs. lexical case has been justified on the grounds of passive and subject-to-object raising constructions. Consider the following examples of the active and passive voice in Icelandic: (9)

a.

Ég keypti bókina. I.nom bought book-the.acc

b.

Ég stal bókinni. I.nom stole book-the.dat

(10) a. b.

Bókin var keypt. book-the.nom was bought

Active

Passive

Bókinni var stolið. book-the.dat was stolen

The verbs in (9a-b) select for an accusative vs. a dative object respectively. However, in the passives in (10a-b) these objects behave differently; the accusative object of kaupa 'buy' shows up in the nominative, whereas the dative object of stela 'steal' has "maintained" its dative. This is one of the arguments for assuming that morphological case can be divided into structural vs. lexical case. However, within Construction Grammar this would be accounted for by assuming that there is a single passive construction in Icelandic which has several subconstructions (see also Barðdal and Molnár 2000 for independent arguments for such an analysis); a Nominative passive construction and a Dative passive construction. The verbs which normally occur in the Nom-Acc argument-linking construction also occur in the Nominative passive construction, whereas the verbs which normally occur in the Nom-Dat argument-linking construction occur in the Dative passive construction. This would be formalized with a network schema in the Cognitive Linguistics spirit. Thereby, the fact that Nom-Acc verbs show up in the Nom passive construction while Nom-Dat verbs show up in the Dat passive construction can equally well be accounted for within Construction Grammar. Thus, there is no a priori reason to prefer a structural vs. lexical case account. However, consider the following examples of the Adjectival passive: (11) a. b.

Bókin var keypt. book-the.nom was bought Bókin var stolin. 105

Adjectival passive

CASE IN ICELANDIC book-the.nom was stolen In a monostratal theory like Construction Grammar, the ordinary Passive construction and the Adjectival passive construction have similar status in that both are constructions of their own, form-meaning correspondences, partly schematic, with the relevant verbs inserted into them. In the Adjectival passive, however, the dative object of stela 'steal' has not been "maintained" at all. This suggests that the case "maintainance" is an idiosyncratic property of the ordinary Passive construction in Icelandic. The other argument for dividing morphological case into structural and lexical comes from Subject-to-object raising, illustrated in (12) below: (12) a.

b.

Ég lét Svein kaupa bílinn. I.nom let Sveinn.acc buy car-the.acc 'I made Sveinn buy the car.' Ég lét Sveini líða illa. I.nom let Sveinn.dat feel bad 'I made Sveinn feel bad.'

In example (12a) the nominative of kaupa 'buy' has been "raised" to object of the raising verb láta 'let', and thus the nominative of kaupa changes into accusative. The dative of líða 'feel', however, "maintains" its case when it has been "raised" to object of the same raising verb, láta, instead of occurring with the accusative as kaupa does. Thus, the differences in the behaviour of the nominative of kaupa and the dative of líða when occurring in the Subject-to-object raising construction have been used to justify that there is a fundamental difference between nominative and accusative vs. dative and genitive, in that the nominative and accusative are structural whereas the dative and the genitive are lexical. However, there are examples of nominative subjects maintaining their nominative case in the Subject-to-object raising construction. This happens when they are embedded in a subconstruction of the Subject-toobject raising construction, namley, with raising verbs such as sýnast, virðast 'seem, appear' and finnast 'think': (13) a.

b.

Mér sýnist Sveinn ætla að kaupa bílinn. I.dat seems Sveinn.nom intend to buy car-the.acc 'To me it seems as if Sveinn intends to buy the car.' Mér sýnist Svein langa að kaupa bílinn. I.dat seems Sveinn.acc long to buy car-the.acc 106

CASE IN ICELANDIC 'To me it seems as if Sveinn wants to buy the car.' c.

Mér sýnist Sveini líða illa. I.dat seems Sveinn.dat feel bad 'To me it seems as if Sveinn feels bad.'

The examples in (13) above of the Subject-to-object raising verb sýnast 'seem, appear', illustrate that the subject of the lower verb maintains its case in all the three examples. That is, the nominative of kaupa is maintained in (13a), the accusative of langa is maintained in (13b) and the dative of líða is maintained in (13c). The fact that the nominative of kaupa maintains its case in this subconstruction of the Subject-to-object raising construction does not support the analysis of the nominative as a structural case. Instead, it seems that the fact that the nominative of kaupa changes into an accusative with the raising verb láta is an idiosyncratic property of this particular raising verb. These examples, therefore, favour a Construction Grammar analysis where it is specified for each raising construction what kind of complements they select and what the case form of the "raised" element is. Turning back to the data under discussion, the distinction between structural and lexical case entails that accusative objects, which account for 67% of objects, are analysed as structural, i.e. the accusative is assigned on the basis of the position in the sentence, while the dative objects, which make up 25%, are analysed as idiosyncratic, the dative not being assigned on the basis of anything. Since I have now shown that dative subjects are not always assigned to Experiencers, Cognizers, Perceivers or Beneficiaries, but also to ordinary Themes, Contents and Stations it is obvious that the concept of thematic case assignment can hardly be maintained as a general rule. Also, our investigation has shown that dative objects, being 25% of produced objects, reach a respectable fraction of the total figures for direct objects. Twenty-five percent seems very high for a lexical/idiosyncratic, and thus an irregular, phenomenon. What predictions does the distinction between structural and lexical case make about the acquisition of morphological case in Icelandic? Generative theories of language acquisition would assume structural case to be a default rule, meaning that the language learner does not have to learn which verbs select for nominative subjects and accusative objects, while lexical case would have to be learned, for every individual verb or predicate, as an exception to this rule (see Pinker 1999 on such an account for regular vs. irregular verbs). In other words, generative theories on acquisition would have to assume that verbs selecting for nominative subjects and accusative objects are not stored in the lexicon as such or in the memory of speakers, but only verbs 107

CASE IN ICELANDIC selecting for accusative subjects, dative subjects and objects, and genitive subjects and objects. Given the fact that children are exposed to the alleged structural and lexical/idiosyncratic cases in the same way in their language environment, and that they supposedly do not store the verbs selecting for structural case in their memory as such, we would have to assume that they have innate knowledge about the difference between structural and lexical case, and that they have innate knowledge about which verbs select for structural case. It seems highly problematic to me to assume that the language learner has innate knowledge about linguistic conventions, and it seems highly problematic to me to assume that the language learner should either learn or treat verbs selecting for accusative objects any differently than verbs selecting for dative objects. Recent research on the acquisition of morphological case in Icelandic (Sigurðardóttir 2000) has shown that the errors children make vary from 0-8% of all their tokens. Notice that normal morphological errors made by children during acquisition range from zero to 10% (see Ragnarsdóttir, Simonsen and Plunkett 1999 and Cruse and Croft in prep: Ch. 11 and the references cited there). Given a fundamental distinction between structural and lexical case it should be expected that children make errors which support this distinction, for instance, that children overgeneralize structural case at the expense of lexical case. However, such a prediction is not borne out. I have examined all the errors Sigurðardóttir (2000) encounters and reports on, and I found that children exchange structural case with lexical case and lexical case with structural case. Also, within these two groups, i.e. lexical and structural case, children exchange one structural case with another one, and one lexical case with another one. Therefore, there is nothing in the acquisition of morphological case in Icelandic that supports this major distinction between lexical and structural case. On the contrary, children seem to acquire structural and lexical case in the same way. Thus, it seems more reasonable to assume that an Icelandic child has to learn, for each verb or predicate, which case frame it is associated with, or in Construction grammar terminology, the language learner has to learn the conventions of his/her language society, including which construction which verb is normally associated with, i.e. Nom-Acc, Nom-Dat, NomGen, Acc-Acc, Dat-Nom, and so on. The Nom-Acc construction is only one of many case patterns, and each and every one has to be learned by the language learner. The Nom-Acc construction is, however, the most common one, and the one least restricted semantically. Of course, assuming that the language learner stores in memory all knowledge on which construction which verb associates with further entails that the language learner makes maximal use of his/her memory

108

CASE IN ICELANDIC capacity. That is, of course, not a problem since it has not been shown that our memory capacity is finite anyway.

4.4 Summary This chapter reports on a statistical study of a text corpus in Icelandic. The study is motivated by the fact that different theories make different claims about the function of morphological case in natural languages (see the overview and references in section 1.2 above). The text material consists of six genres: five written genres and one spoken genre. Within the written genres, 10 texts, 500 words each, were used. The material is therefore a "well stratified" sample of 40,000 words, 25,000 from the written genres and 15,000 from a corpus of spoken Icelandic. In order to ensure that the material was representative the frequency of different case forms in each genre was compared with a corpus of 500,000 words, compiled in 1991 for a word frequency study of Icelandic. It turned out that my corpus was highly representative, even though it was small. The texts were then tagged in a statistical computer program, for three variables: morphological case, syntactic function and thematic role. The aim of the investigation was to find out whether morphological case correlates with syntactic or semantic factors. Our main conclusions are: (11) a) b) c)

d)

The amount of dative subjects and nominative objects varies according to registers. Historical research will have to bear that in mind. Theories of the function of morphological case in Icelandic have to be revised. Morphological case correlates statistically with both syntactic and semantic factors, and oblique case on subjects is not confined to Experiencers or Beneficiaries, rather it signals the non-agentivity of the referent denoted by the subject. The distinction between structural and lexical case cannot be maintained, because of the predictions it makes about the acquisition of morphological case in Icelandic. On the other hand, Construction Grammar handles the acquisition of all case constructions in a uniform way.

Finally, the figures presented here for Modern Icelandic can be used in a comparison with figures from a similar study of Old Icelandic, and hence

109

CASE IN ICELANDIC show whether and how the function of morphological case has changed in the history of Icelandic. This will be the subject of Chapter 7 below.

110

CASE IN ICELANDIC

5

Productivity of the Cases

5.1 Introduction Hitherto I have only utilized one of the main methods available, discussed in Chapter 1 to investigate case assignment in Icelandic in order to discover what the function of case in the Icelandic language is.1 I now proceed to the other main method of this thesis. In this chapter, new verbs in Icelandic are examined, in particular the morphological case they assign to their arguments. I begin by presenting the Icelandic data which is then divided into groups according to which schematic constructions the novel verbs can occur in (section 5.2). After having put forward general conclusions on the productivity of the cases (section 5.3.1), I discuss the different predictions which follow from the basic assumptions of different grammatical theories on the productivity of the cases (section 5.3.2), mainly comparing Generative Grammar's distinction between structural and lexical case to how Construction Grammar deals with productivity. The results of this comparison show the predictions of Construction Grammar to be more accurate. Furthermore, I will discuss how novel verbs in general acquire case and argument structure (section 5.3.3), and in section 5.3.4 I examine some specific examples of verbs selecting for dative subjects, dative objects, and accusative objects, and give a constructional account of the case assignment of these verbs. Section 5.4 is a summary.

5.2 The Icelandic Data In this section, I first account for the Icelandic data used in the survey of this part of the thesis. In subsection 5.2.1 I give an overview of the principles of word formation in Icelandic, both planned and spontaneous word formation and the difference between them. I also report on the Icelandic data and its sources. In subsection 5.2.1 I define the term new verb as it is used in the remainder of this book. Subsection 5.2.2 lists the constructions in which the verbs in this study occur, exemplified with one verb for each construction. 1

Parts of the empirical investigation which constitutes the main body of this chapter were first published in Barðdal (1999b). However, a huge bulk of data has been added and the discussion has been greatly revised and extended. 109

CASE IN ICELANDIC

5.2.1 A Sample of New Icelandic Verbs Within the Icelandic tradition neologisms are divided into two categories: planned and spontaneous word formation (see Rögnvaldsson 1986:29-30, Barðdal, et al. 1997:148-149). Planned word formation is carried out by scholars who know the rules of grammar, language history and present-day use. They therefore have the possibility of coining new words according to word formation rules, taking into account the behaviour of different prefixes, suffixes and compounding in Icelandic. Spontaneous word formation, on the other hand, is performed by the man in the street. Often such coinages are only temporary in the language, either done for the purpose of the moment ("nonce" words) or used in a small group for a specific period of time. Spontaneous word formation therefore does not always leave permanent traces in the language. There is one crucial difference between spontaneous and planned word formation; the former relies solely on highly productive word formation processes, while the latter can take into application word formation processes which do not lie at the core of productivity: processes which are less productive, processes which perhaps were productive in older Icelandic but can be revived; and so on. The verbs used in this study are taken from various sources. All the verbs are listed in Appendix C. The list contains English glosses2 and those examples of usage which were available in the sources. The verbs, and the subsequent examples of usage, were collected from five different dictionaries. The sixth source is an informal collection of new verbs from radio programmes, friends and other speech environments. These sources are listed below: • • •

Subcorpus 1: A dictionary of slang, informal and forbidden language (Árnason, Sigmundsson and Thorsson 1982). From this corpus I have collected 487 verbs. Subcorpus 2: A dictionary of statistical terms (Orðasafn úr tölfræði, 1990). From this corpus I collected 6 verbs. Subcorpus 3: A dictionary of pedagogical and psychological terms (Orðaskrá úr uppeldis- og sálarfræði, 1994). From this corpus I have collected 59 verbs.

2

The translations of the data in corpora 1 and 6 were done by myself, with the devoted assistance of Ute Bohnacker and Vigfús Geirdal. In doing the translations we have primarily focused on the meaning of the verbs and not on their stylistic value. Some of the English translations are therefore not stylistically equivalent to the translated verbs. The data in corpora 2, 3, 4 and 5 are taken from Icelandic-English dictionaries and therefore did not need to be translated. 110

CASE IN ICELANDIC • • •

Subcorpus 4: A dictionary of terms in aviation (Flugorðasafn, 1993). From this corpus I have selected 72 verbs. Subcorpus 5: A dictionary of computer terms (Tölvuorðasafn, 1998). From this corpus I have selected 285 verbs. Subcorpus 6: A list of 30 verbs collected by myself, including verbs which I have occasionally heard.

A total of 933 verbs was collected from the six sources. After removing the doublets the total for all corpora is 921 verbs. The verbs found in subcorpora 2-5 are presumably primarily the result of planned word formation, whereas the verbs in subcorpora 1 and 6 are the result of spontaneous word formation. Obviously, the total corpus of 921 verbs does not contain all instances of new verbs in Icelandic. It is a convenience sample, containing the new verbs that have been easily available to me since they (with the exception of the verbs in subcorpus 6) have appeared in print. This will presumably not affect my results, since there is no reason to assume that the corpus is biased with respect to the cases these verbs assign to their arguments. I will, however, look at the individual corpora for planned and spontaneous word formation in case there might be some statistical differences between the two. Neologism is here defined broadely. A new verb in this thesis is used of a slang-type verb from Árnason et al. (1982) which may have a morphophonologically foreign verb stem borrowed from another language, as for instance the verb bísa (1) 'steal', which is presumably borrowed from Danish. The term new verb is also used for verbs already existing in Icelandic but which have gained another usage than the existing one, i.e. a new usage, as for instance the verb beina (5) which means 'route'. beina has had the meaning 'route' for a long time, but it is only recently that it has begun to be used in the domain of computers. To sum up, neologisms here are defined as: (1)

a) b)

new verb (stem)s in new or old contexts. old verb (stem)s in new contexts.3

Notice that as the definition is formulated it includes all new metaphorical usages of already existing verbs in Icelandic. It is also my opinion that nonconventionalized metaphorical usages should be regarded as novel, but in this survey I will restrict myself to the corpora available, as described above. 3

See page 134 for two apparent exceptions to the definition, nevertheless included in Appendix C and in this survey. 111

CASE IN ICELANDIC It should also be pointed out that there are many verbs in the corpora like beina 'route' above which have been a part of the Icelandic vocabulary for a long time, which may even be common Germanic stems, and are thus not "new" in the word's most restricted sense. However, many of those are taken from the four dictionaries of planned word formation, and since I want to refrain from having to decide which are "newer" than others, I have chosen to categorically include all those verbs in my corpus. Some Icelandic readers might object to defining all the borrowed verbs in my material as Icelandic, especially if they are not used by the majority of the Icelandic population. Irrespective of the arguments for or against such a view, be they emotional or logical, that does not interfere with how new verbs acquire their case or argument structure in Icelandic and thus it does not affect the results of the investigation presented in this chapter. 5.2.2 Icelandic Schematic Constructions In the following I will account for the syntactic schematic constructions in Icelandic available to the verbs in Appendix C, and exemplify these with one verb for each construction. The constructions are presented in a frequency order, starting with the most frequent one. A complete list of the verbs which may occur in each construction is available as Appendix D. Since my corpus is not fully based on examples of real usages, i.e. since I do not have access to authentic examples of all the constructions each verb might possibly occur in, I will use the authentic examples I have in the corpus and base the remaining classification on my native speaker's intuition. Of course, basing the classification on intuition may lead to some verbs being listed under more constructions than only one, since verbs can occur in more than one construction. Another problem with a classification based on intuition is that it may lead to some verbs not being listed under all possible constructions they might occur in. It would, of course, have been ideal to base all of the classification on real usages but unfortunately such corpora, with exhaustive examples of novel usages, do not exist. The following classification should therefore under no circumstances be considered complete or final. (2)

(3)

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjAcc (402 instances)

b.

Hann afbakar sannleikann 'He distorts the truth'

a.

SubjNom Verb (203 instances)

b.

Hann alhæfir 112

CASE IN ICELANDIC 'He generalizes' (4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

a.

SubjNom Verb PrepAcc (104 instances)

b.

Hann bjallaði í mig he phoned in me 'He phoned me'

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjDat (97 instances)

b.

Þau droppuðu þessu 'They dropped it'

a.

SubjNom Verb Part (88 instances)

b.

Hún bakkaði út 'She backed out'

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjAcc Part (70 instances)

b.

Þau dressuðu sig upp they dressed themselves up 'They dressed up'

a.

SubjNom Verb PrepDat (65 instances)

b.

Hann djókaði í þeim he joked in them 'He made jokes with them'

a.

SubjNom Verb+st (31 instances)

b.

Hann klikkaðist 'He went crazy'

(10) a. b.

(11) a.

SubjNom Verb Adv/Prep (29 instances) Gefðu í botn! give-you in bottom 'Speed up!' SubjNom Verb ObjDat Part (28 instances) 113

CASE IN ICELANDIC

b. (12) a. b.

(13) a. b.

(14) a. b.

(15) a. b.

(16) a. b

(17) a. b.

(18) a.

Hann fokkaði þessu upp 'He fucked this up' SubjNom Verb ObjAcc PrepDat (23 instances) Hann intresserar sig fyrir þessu he interests himself for this 'He shows an interest in this' SubjNom Verb ObjDat PrepAcc (18 instances) Ég skal redda þér um þetta! I will provide you about this 'I'll get this for you!' SubjNom Verb+st Part (17 instances) Hann þynnist upp he thins up 'He gets a hangover' SubjNom Verb ObjDat Adv/Prep (10 instances) Loksins gubbaði hann því út úr sér finally spewed he it out of himself 'Finally, he spit it out' SubjNom Verb ObjAcc PrepAcc (9 instances) Ég ordna þetta fyrir þig I fix this for you 'I'll fix it for you' SubjNom Verb ObjAcc Adj/Adv (8 instances) Ég fíla þetta vel I like this well 'I like this a lot' SubjNom Verb PrepGen (8 instances)

114

CASE IN ICELANDIC b.

(19) a.

Hún fónaði til hans she phoned to him 'She phoned him' SubjNom Verb+st PrepAcc (7 instances)

b.

Hann draugaðist um bæinn he ghosted around town 'He dragged himself (like a ghost) around town'

(20) a.

SubjNom Verb ObjDat PrepDat (7 instances)

b.

(21) a. b.

(22) a. b.

(23) a. b.

(24) a. b.

(25) a.

Hann söng þessu að lögreglunni he sang this at the police 'He give the information to the police' SubjNom Verb ObjAcc PrepGen (6 instances) Ég faxa þetta til þín I fax this to you 'I'll fax it to you' SubjNom Verb ObjDat ObjAcc (5 instances) Ég símsendi þér þetta I fax you this 'I'll fax it to you' SubjNom Verb ObjDat PrepGen (4 instances) Slakaðu þessu til mín hand this to me 'Hand it over to me' SubjDat Verb (3 instances) Honum stendur him stands 'He's got a hard-on' SubjNom Verb ObjAcc ObjDat (3 instances)

115

CASE IN ICELANDIC b.

(26) a. b.

(27) a. b.

(28) a. b.

(29) a. b.

(30) a. b.

(31) a. b.

(32) a.

Hann samsamaði sig hópnum He identified ("samed") himself the group 'He identified himself with the group' SubjDat Verb+st Clause (1 instance) Mér analýseraðist svo að ... me analysed so that 'I came to the analysis that ...' SubjNom Verb Part PrepAcc Hann brann inni með þetta he burned in with this 'It became to late for him to say it' or 'It became to late for him to do anything about it' SubjNom Verb+st PrepDat Hann bömmeraðist yfir því he bummered over that 'He became depressed because of that' SubjNom Verb PrepAcc PrepAcc Hann dílaði við þau um þetta he dealt with them about this 'He made a deal with them about this' SubjDat Verb Part Mér finnur til me finds till/to 'I'm in pain' SubjNom Verb Part ObjDat Þau hnoðuðu saman krakka they kneaded together a kid 'They made a baby' SubjAcc Verb PrepAcc 116

CASE IN ICELANDIC

b.

(33) a. b.

(34) a. b.

(35) a. b. (36) a. b. (37) a. b. (38) a. b.

(39) a. b.

Mig klæjar í fingurna me itches in the fingers 'I'm restless (to begin sth)' SubjNom Verb ObjAcc Adv/Part Hann labbaði sig í bæinn he walked himself in town 'He walked to town' SubjNom Verb ObjGen Hann leitar e-s he searches sth 'He searches for sth' SubjNom Verb+st ObjGen Hann minntist þess 'He recollected that' SubjAcc Verb Adv/Part Vélina rekur um 'The aircraft drifts around' SubjAcc Verb Vélina rekur 'The aircraft drifts' SubjNom Verb ObjDat ObjDat Hann snapaði sér upplýsingunum he scavenged himself the information 'He scavenged the information' SubjDat Verb Adv/Prep Þá byrjaði krökkunum að snjóa inn í sjoppuna then started the kids (dat) to snow in the shop 'then the kids flocked inside the shop' 117

CASE IN ICELANDIC

(40) a. b.

SubjDat Verb Prcp Mér er sveitt me is sweaty 'I feel sweaty'

Note that in the frequency counts in the parentheses above I have not distinguished between reflexive and non-reflexive verbs. Both are listed according to their occurrences in constructions, irrespective of the status of the object as reflexive or non-reflexive. This means that verbs selecting accusative or dative objects are listed separately and the count includes both reflexive and non-reflexive objects.

5.3 The Findings In this section, I first discuss the statistics available when summarizing the results of the counts from the previous section (subsection 5.3.1), and I then measure those results against the predictions on productivity that follow from the main assumptions of the different grammatical theories (section 5.3.2), especially the predictions of Generative Grammar and its distinction between structural and lexical case, on the one hand, and Construction Grammar, on the other. In section 5.3.3. I discuss different ways for new verbs to acquire argument structure, i.e. by Argument Structure Borrowing, Cluster Attraction and Isolate Attraction. In section 5.3.4 I explore how these ways are compatible with the Icelandic dative and accusative data of this study, and give an account of how the selection of different cases, accusative or dative, can correlate with productivity. 5.3.1 General Conclusions The figures for all the morphological cases assigned by the verbs occurring in Appendix C are illustrated in the following table: Table 5.1: The Distribution of cases of the arguments of novel verbs across the three syntactic functions: subjects, objects and indirect objects.4 Subjects Objects IObjects Nominative Accusative Dative

1247 3 7

528 168

4

5

Recall that each verb can occur in more than one syntactic construction, thus the figures in this table are higher than the total amount of 921 verbs. 118

CASE IN ICELANDIC Genitive

2

The list in 5.2.2 above and the figures in Table 5.1 illustrate that nominative is the absolutely dominant subject case of most constructions, and no nominative objects are found in the data. Since nominative objects only occur with dative subjects, the amount of nominative objects is dependent on the amount of new verbs selecting for dative subjects, and those are not very numerous in my material. For a detailed discussion of the productivity of the Dat-Nom constructions, see subsection 5.3.4.1 below. Objects in the dative case are not as frequent as the objects in the accusative case but the amount is, however, substantial. There are only seven dative subjects in the list in 5.3.2 and a closer inspection shows that not all of them are novel (see section 5.3.4.1.1 below). Most direct objects of transitive verbs are in the accusative case (thereby supporting Rögnvaldsson's claim (1983a) that most novel verbs assign accusative to their objects). The three examples of accusative subjects are all selected by verbs which already exist in Icelandic with accusative subjects. (41) klæja í fingurna 'be restless to begin sth.', flatreka 'drive so sharply in a curve that you might lose control', reka 'drift, be adrift'. The first predicate is probably not novel in spite of being listed in Árnason et al. (1982) since a very similar example is listed in Íslensk orðabók (1988) and Jónsson (1998). The usage domain of the two other verbs in (41) has only been expanded. No genitive subjects are found in the data, but since most genitive subjects are found in passive formation and the verbs in my corpus mostly occur in the active form, this does not come as a surprise. Only two verbs select a genitive object and both already exist in Icelandic in another usage domain. (42) leita e-s 'search, find', minnast e-s 'recollect'. Genitive as an object case can therefore not be said to be particularly productive. There are only five ditransitive verbs in my material, including the novel e-meila 'e-mail', and they all show up with the indirect object in the 119

CASE IN ICELANDIC dative case and the direct object in the accusative case. However, e-meila can also occur in the Transfer construction: e-meila e-ð til e-s 'e-mail sth to sby'. To conclude, the nominative is clearly productive as a morphological case form for subjects. Accusative and dative are productive as a morphological case form for objects. The genitive is hardly productive as a case form for objects. Finally, the dative is the only productive case form for the indirect object of ditranstive verbs. 5.3.2 Predictions of Different Theories on Productivity Different linguistic theories make different predictions about the productivity of the morphological cases. I will here discuss "Classical" Generative Grammar and Construction Grammar and the predictions that follow from the basic assumptions of these theories. Generative Grammar divides morphological case into structural and lexical case (see Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson 1985, Holmberg 1986, Falk 1997, Allen 1995, Lightfoot 1999, Jónsson 1997-98. Sigurðsson 1989 and subsequent work) (see also the discussion in 4.3.5 below). Structural case is nominative case for subjects and accusative case for objects, based on the position of the subject and the object in an ordinary transitive clause. Lexical case is, on the other hand, all the exceptions to this general rule that the subject be in the nominative case and the object in the accusative case, i.e. accusative subjects, dative subjects and genitive subjects are lexically case marked, and dative and genitive objects are lexically case marked. Lexical case has been further divided into thematic/semantic case and idiosyncratic case, with thematic case being semantically motivated, such as dative of Experiencers and Beneficiaries, whereas idiosyncratic case is neither structurally nor semantically motivated. An example of that would be dative and genitive of (most) objects (Zaenen Maling and Thráinsson 1985, Jónsson 1997-98). As I understand this, it means that in practice a child acquiring such a language only has to learn and memorize in the lexicon which verbs select for lexical case, while this kind of information does not have to be stored in the child's lexicon for Nom-Acc verbs. Chomsky and Lasnik (1995:19-20) argue that regular behaviour, such as the formation of past tense -ed for verbs like walk, takes place through a rule, either in the computational system, which means that the form walked is generated online when it is processed, or in the lexicon itself. Irrespective of whether we postulate that the form walked is generated in the computational system or in the lexicon the point here is that it is produced with the help of a rule. The distinction between structural and lexical case is the same as the distinction between regular and irregular verbs, as far as I can see, in the sense that structural case is regular and lexical case is irregular. That 120

CASE IN ICELANDIC means, again, that structural nominative and accusative case are generated with a rule and do not have to be stored in the lexicon as Nom-Acc verbs, while Nom-Dat verbs, Nom-Gen verbs, Acc-Acc verbs and Dat-Nom verbs have to be stored in the lexicon as such. This interpretation is confirmed by the following quote from Pinker (1999:135): (43)

In a language such as Kivunju or Turkish every word may come in a half a million to several million forms, and speakers could not possibly have memorized them all in childhood.

Pinker is here discussing regular and irregular verb forms but the distinction between structural and lexical case is exactly parallel to that, with structural case being regular and lexical case being irregular. Moreover, Chomsky and Lasnik (1995:19-20) divide grammar into two components: core grammar and the periphery (cf. Haegeman 1991:16, Josefsson 1997:9-10). The difference between the two is that core grammar is the place where regular behaviour is generated while irregularities and idiosyncrasies belong to the periphery. I quote Chomsky and Lasnik (1995:19-20): (44)

[...] we make a rough and tentative distinction between the core of a language and its periphery, where the core consists of what we tentatively assume to be pure instantiations of UG and the periphery consists of marked exceptions (irregular verbs, etc.). [emph. original]

The implication of this is that structural case belongs to the core, since it is regular, and lexical case belongs to the periphery since it is an irregularity. On such a view of language and grammar, it follows that structural case should be productive, since it belongs to the core of grammar, whereas lexical case, or at least idiosyncratic case, should be unproductive since it belongs to the periphery. A quotation from Pinker confirms this (1999:19): (45)

The theory that regular forms are generated by rule and irregular forms are retrieved by rote is pleasing [...] because it explains the differences in productivity between the two patterns [...]

Here Pinker assumes that productivity is associated with rules, while lack of productivity is associated with memory. To summarize, according to this case distinction made within the framework of "Classical" Generative Grammar we would only expect structural and (possibly) thematic case to be productive, not idiosyncratic case. Such a prediction is not borne out for Icelandic. According to the 121

CASE IN ICELANDIC figures in Table 5.1 above, approximately 75% of the novel transitive verbs assign accusative to their objects while approximately 24% of the verbs assign dative case to their objects. This figure of 24% is certainly unexpected for lexical case, which should not be productive in a language, according to the predictions of "Classical" Generative Grammar that I have just outlined above. Let us now examine the verbs that assign dative to their objects, in order to find out whether we are dealing with thematic case, i.e. dative for Experiencers and Beneficiaries, or idiosyncratic case, i.e. dative for Themes and other roles. Furthermore, let us confine ourselves to spontaneous word formation and leave out planned word formation, as defined in section 5.2.1 above. Thus, I restrict my selection to subcorpora 1 and 6. I do this in order to get to the core of productivity. The verbs are the following: (46)

Dative: applisera 'apply', arisera 'arrange', bakka 'back', bánsa 'bounce', bísa 'steal', býtta 'switch', blaka 'leave', blanda 'cut', bulla 'begin', búmma 'cast nets', bylta 'have sex', dilla 'leave', dingla 'leave', diskriminera 'discriminate', díla 'sell, deal', dripla 'dribble', drita 'shit', droppa 'drop', drulla 'leave', dúmpa 'dump', dúndra 'smash', dæla 'drink', dömpa 'dump', fiffa 'fix', fingra 'steal', fiska 'get', flagga 'show off one's underwear', flassa 'flash', fokka 'fuck up', forvarda 'forward', fókusera 'focus', fríka 'freak out', gubba 'talk', gæda 'guide', installera 'install', krunka 'talk', kúpla 'back out', labba 'go well', lansera 'launch', leka 'leak information', negla 'nail', næla 'get', organisera 'organize', pakka 'pack', parkera 'park', pilla 'leave', planta 'put', poppa 'take poppers', pósta 'post', putta 'pick pockets', pússa 'sell, spread', raða 'recollect', redda 'fix', ríða 'have sex', róta 'move', runka 'masturbate', rúlla 'get down', signalera 'signal', sippa 'leave', skalla 'head a ball', skippa 'skip', skíta 'shit', skrambla 'scramble', skrolla 'scroll', skruna 'scroll', skúbba 'scoop', skúffa 'push', skvísa 'leave', slaka 'hand over', slaufa 'skip', slátra 'win', smassa 'smash', smúlla 'smuggle', snýta 'win', splitta 'split', spólera 'spoil', spreða 'waste', spreia 'spray', starta 'start', stranda 'strand', streða 'work hard', stúta 'kill', troða 'perform', turna 'win sby over by giving him cannabis for the first time', umturna 'change upside down', variéra 'vary', þruma 'kick', þrusa 'kick, leave',

Of the 88 verbs in (46) only one would possibly fulfil the criterion of assigning dative to its arguments on basis of thematic case assignment, namely, the verb runka 'masturbate' where the object can be viewed as an Experiencer. However, runka is not an emotive verb, as emotive verbs were defined in Chapter 3, section 3.3.1 above, thus we would hardly want 122

CASE IN ICELANDIC to say that the object of runka is Experiencer but rather an ordinary affected Theme. The same argument is applicable to the other verbs meaning 'have sex'. It is noteworthy how many of the verbs in (46) are borrowings. This may lead us to conclude that the dative case is a default case form for objects of borrowed verbs. However, casting a glance at the verbs in subcorpora 1 and 6 that assign accusative to their objects reveals that this is not the case: (47)

Accusative: afmeyja 'open a bottle', baka 'win', banka 'hit', barna 'add', bekenna 'admit', betrekkja 'wall cover', beygla 'hit', bíta 'fuck off', blammera 'scoff', blanda 'mix, cut', bleyta 'soften', blikka 'flirt', blokkera 'hinder', blotta 'expose', blúsa 'be down', blöffa 'bluff', bomma 'make pregnant', brennsa 'booze', bræða 'charm', bursta 'win', búmma 'cast nets', búsa 'booze', bústa 'boost', böffa 'sell bad drugs', bögga 'bug', bösta 'bust', dánsa 'drug', dekka 'cover', demonstrera 'demonstrate', deyja 'take an overdose', digga 'like', diskútera 'discuss', dírka 'open a locker without a key', djeila 'imprison', djúsa 'booze', djönka 'be a junkie', dobla 'doublecross', dópa 'dope', drekka 'booze', drepa 'hunt', dressa 'dress', dúmma 'look stupid', dúmpa 'dump', döbba 'dub', e-maila 'e-mail', eiga 'have dope', eitra 'use drugs', endurnýja 'get a younger wife', éta 'use drugs', falsa 'write a check', fatta 'understand', faxa 'fax', feika 'fake', feisa 'face', fiffa 'fix', filma 'film', fingra 'pick pockets', finta 'trick', fiska 'get', fíla 'like', fletja 'hit', flotta 'be showy', fókusera 'focus', fríka 'freak out', frímerkja 'be glued to sby', frústrera 'make frustrated', fúla 'fool', fúlla 'seduce', fæfa 'smoke', fæla 'categorize', garantera 'guarantee', gefa 'be a good lover', gilja 'masturbate', glerja 'booze', gleypa 'accept', greipa masturbate', grilla 'treat badly', gróðursetja 'bury', grófmixa 'mix sound temporarily', grunna 'record basic tunes', græja 'fix', gútera 'accept', gæda 'guide', hilla 'flirt', hita 'prepare for conflict', hlaða 'make pregnant', hljóðblanda 'mix sound/music', hnoða 'have sex', hreinsa 'pick pockets', húkka 'hook', hýða 'play drums', intressera 'be interested in', ísa 'put sth on ice', jesúsa 'call upon God', kitla 'drive', klassa 'mend', klessa 'destroy', klessukeyra 'destroy a car in an accident', knúsa 'hug', koffína 'tune up by caffeine', kómpónera 'compose', kóp(í)era 'copy', krumpa 'speed', kútta 'cut', kyssa 'drink', kýla 'begin', kæsa 'treat sby badly', labba 'go well', láta 'have sex', lempa 'adjust', lepja 'drink alchohol slowly', lesa 'smoke grass', liggja 'have sex', lyfja 'use drugs', mala 'defeat', manúera 'solve a problem', meika 'make', meina 'mean', melda 'report', mixa 'mix', mjólka 'masturbate', mæka 'intensify a sound', möndla 'make an agreement', negla 'nail', nótera 123

CASE IN ICELANDIC 'note', opna 'show one's feelings', ordna 'fix', organisera 'organize', para 'mate', pensla 'have sex', peppa 'pep', pikka 'take, get', plaffa 'shoot', plana 'organize', planera 'organize', plata 'deceive', plokka 'con money off sby', plotta 'plot', pluma 'do well', pressa 'press', pródusera 'produce', prógrammera 'indoctrinate', pumpa 'pump', púffa 'smoke grass', pöffa 'smoke grass', renusa 'get rid of a suit (in cards)', rífa 'argue', rótbursta 'win', rúnna 'round off', ræsa 'start', rövla 'babble', salla 'shoot', servera 'serve', setla 'settle', sénera 'bother', signalera 'signal', sjarmera 'charm', sjá 'see', sjokkera 'shock', sjússa 'drink', sjæna 'make shiny', skalla 'head a ball', skálka 'close with shutters or a sail', skjóta 'shoot', skrifa 'falsify a check', skvera 'square', slá 'get a loan', sleikja 'kiss', smakka 'drink', smika 'smoke cannabis', smóka 'smoke cannabis', sniffa 'sniff drugs', snuða 'deceive', spila 'play', sporta 'have fun', sprauta 'inject', sprengja 'inhale in too large proportions', spæla 'trick sby', stímulera 'stimulate', stóna 'smoke cannabis', stónka 'smoke cannabis', stramma 'sober up', strauja 'crash', stressa 'make nervous', strokka 'masturbate', stropa 'make pregnant', stuða 'bother', stöffa 'use drugs', sverja 'swear', svípa 'sweep', takla 'tackle', teista 'try', tékka 'falsify a check', títa 'have sex', tjúna 'tune', trixa 'trick', umtútta 'change tires', víma 'drug oneself', vökva 'drink', yfirhala 'go over sth and mend it', þenja 'play intensely'. There are many verbs in (47) which are borrowings, in fact approximately half of the verbs in both (46) and (47) have a morpho-phonologically equivalent stem in a closely related language, either Danish or English, and since these verbs are typically slang it seems reasonable to assume that these are borrowings and not inherited common Germanic stems. The fact that novel verbs assigning accusative to their objects are also borrowings shows that we would not expect borrowings to gather around one particular case as a default case for non-typical verb stems (see for instance the discussion in Cruse and Croft (Ch. 12) and the references cited there on certain constructions functioning as default for borrowings in some languages), which we otherwise might conclude if only the data in (46) were available to us. To sum up, the verbs in (46) which assign dative to their Theme arguments are therefore examples of idiosyncratic case assignment being productive, a fact predicted not to be borne out by "Classical" Generative Grammar and its major distinction between structural and lexical case. One of the few novel examples of dative subjects in the material (see section 5.3.4.1.1 for a discussion) is with the verb analýserast:

124

CASE IN ICELANDIC (48) Mér analýseraðist svo að... I.dat analysed-st so that 'I came to the analysis that...' It would be highly controversial to argue that the verb analyse selects for an Experiencer subject, in fact many people would argue that analysing is an agentive event. Therefore, a more natural analysis of this example is to assume that the subject is a Theme of some sort (compare the English glosses above), and that it is assigned by the construction itself. Thus, this can be viewed as a constructional way of deagentivizing the subject in Icelandic. However, on a structural vs. lexical case account a dative is unexpected here, since case assignment to Theme subjects categorizes as being either structural case, if the morphological case is a nominative, or idiosyncratic, if it is a dative. Hence, this is another example of idiosyncratic case being productive, only this time on subjects. Furthermore, it is expected that Experiencer subjects of novel verbs should be dative, since that would be an example of thematic case assignment. There are not many verbs in my corpus with the right semantics to fulfil this criterion; I have only found two: fíla 'like' and digga 'like', both of which receive a nominative subject in my material. As is evident from Table 5.1, approximately 75% of the transitive verbs select for an accusative object while 24% select for a dative object. The interesting question arises whether there are any differences between case assignment of verbs found within the corpus more typical of planned word formation and the corpus more typical of spontaneous word formation. It is a possibility that different cases are favoured within these two different social settings of word formation. Let us look at the figures for accusative and dative assigning verbs in the different subcorpora: Table 5.2: The amount of verbs assigning accusative and/or dative to their objects in different corpora. Accusative Dative Total Corpora 1 and 6 Corpora 2-5

204 (69.9%) 324 (80.2%)

88 (30.1%) 80 (19.8%)

292 (100%) 404 (100%)

Assuming that subcorpora 1 and 6 are better representatives of spontaneous word formation while corpora 2, 3, 4 and 5 are more typical of planned word formation, we find that within planned word formation there are higher proportions of accusative objects at the cost of dative objects. Within spontaneous word formation the proportion of accusative objects is lower, yielding higher proportion of dative objects. It is clear that the

125

CASE IN ICELANDIC accusative is certainly more common as an object case for both sets of subcorpora but it seems that within planned word formation the accusative is favoured, presumably at the expense of the dative. This is a reasonable conclusion if we assume that spontaneous word formation is a better representative of core productivity than planned word formation (compare the definitions of spontaneous vs. planned word formation at the beginning of section 5.1 above). In sum, only some of the predictions that follow from the widely assumed structural vs. lexical case distinction of "Classical" Generative Grammar for morphological case are borne out. These predictions are that nominative should be productive as a case for subjects, that accusative should be productive as a case for objects. The prediction that thematic case of datives might be productive is not borne out, at least not for new verbs (see however section 5.3.4.1.1 below on already existing verbs), and the prediction that idiosyncratic case of datives should be non-productive is not borne out either. It could be argued now that productivity can be understood in at least two ways, (a) as what is regular in a language, (b) as what speakers do when they are being innovative. It can further be argued that the "Classical" Generative Grammar's distinction between structural vs. lexical case is only meant to capture the first one, thus it should be possible to maintain the structural vs. lexical distinction. I certainly believe that speakers, when being innovate and creative, do not conform to the regularities of language. Instead they often break the most obvious rules of language. Such usages, however, do usually not go unnoticed by the immediate environment, and are often regarded as being somewhat "funny" or creative (see Schultink (1961) and Lieber (1992:3), cited here by Josefsson (1997:12)). When it comes to the assignment of dative case to objects of new verbs in Icelandic, there is nothing "funny" about it; even my 81-year-old grandmother uses arisera 'arrange' with a dative object, without anybody lifting an eyebrow. Also, the high amount of new verbs assigning dative to their objects shows that this is not a peculiarity. As will become evident below, the assignment of dative to objects is highly regular and structured. I am not claiming that Generative Grammar cannot account for the productivity of the morphological cases in Icelandic, once the relevant facts are known. However, I believe that this productivity can only be satisfactorily accounted for at the cost of the distinction between structural and lexical case, or the distinction between the core and the periphery, or both. A Construction Grammar based approach to morphological case assumes that morphological case is constructional, in the sense that morphological case is a property of arguments, and as such it participates in argument structure constructions (see Barðdal 1999b). By that I mean 126

CASE IN ICELANDIC that case structure is a part of a verb's argument structure. The Usagebased model predicts that all morphological cases should be productive if the constructions they occur in are coherent enough and reach a sufficiently high level of type frequency. Within Construction Grammar, therefore, there is no fundamental difference between structural and lexical case; nominative, accusative, dative and genitive are the four morphological cases of Icelandic and each and every one is a part of the form of argument structure constructions of verbs, or of other constructions such as prepositional constructions together with their objects. Thus, if a certain argument structure construction is productive then the morphological cases associated with it are also productive. Construction Grammar also makes explicit the assumption that thematic roles are derived from the meaning of the main verb or the construction (see Goldberg 1995), as a result of the fact that the relative order of thematic roles in a clause is not random but also relies on the meaning of the main verb or the construction (see Croft 1998). Bybee, in her work on morphology (1985, 1995), and following her, Goldberg, in her work on the partial productivity of the English ditransitive construction (1995: Ch. 5), argue that productivity is a function of a construction's (formal and/or functional) coherence and its high type frequency, i.e. the more coherent a construction is, and the more types, rather than tokens, that associate with it, the more likely it is that this construction attracts new items or already existing items in the language. It is undeniable for Icelandic that the transitive Nom-Acc construction is both the most open construction semantically, and also the most common one. Hence, on a constructional account we would expect nominatives to be productive as subject case and accusative to be productive as object case. Within Construction Grammar/Usage based model, productivity is regarded as a gradient phenomenon: low-frequency constructions exhibit a low degree of productivity, high frequency constructions show the highest productivity and constructions at intermediate levels of frequency also show productivity at an intermediate level (Bybee and Slobin 1982, Bybee and Moder 1983, Ragnarsdóttir, Simonsen and Plunkett 1999). This has been confirmed in research on the productivity of the different classes of weak and strong verbs in Icelandic and Norwegian, which differ from English in that these languages do not have one large class of weak verbs and a few classes of strong verbs; instead Icelandic and Norwegian have two classes of weak verbs of different sizes. Ragnarsdóttir et al.'s results were that not only is productivity a gradient phenomena but also that there was a correlation between productivity, the size of the verb class and the age of the children participating in the experiment. This means that only the oldest children used the smallest class in a productive way, while all the children 127

CASE IN ICELANDIC generalized from the largest class. Ragnarsdóttir et al. concluded that this was a clear sign of productivity not only correlating with the size of the classes, but also that the participants' inclination to generalize from a class was dependent on the amount of input found in their environment. In other words, since the older children had been exposed to more language than the younger children, they had also been exposed to more types of the lowfrequency classes. This effect of age has also been documented in an experiment on the case assignment of nonce verbs in Icelandic (see Barðdal 2000c). Ragnarsdóttir et al. thus conclude on the basis of this that productivity cannot be a function of an innate rule. Turning back to my investigation, on the assumption that productivity is a function of a construction's coherence and its type frequency, it is expected that the lexical item under consideration will be assigned formal properties based on overall similarity, i.e. the more similar an item is to an already existing item, the more likely that the item under consideration will pick up the formal properties of the existing item. Given this we would expect that a novel verb would be associated, in the mind of speakers, with an already existing verb with the same or similar meaning. Experimental research on nonce verbs, done by Braine and his colleagues, shows that unknown verbs are assigned argument structure on the basis of their meaning. Let us review this research. Braine (1988:241-250) and Braine, Brody, Fish, Weisberger and Blum (1990) argue that if we use a novel verb without having been exposed to its argument structure we assign an argument structure to this verb from a canonical sentence schema. Braine et al. (1990) experiment with action verbs, which have two canonical sentence schemas available to them: the causative, transitive construction with an agent subject and a patient object or the intransitive construction with a patient subject. Some action verbs in English are transitive like drop, some are intransitive like fall and some verbs can be both transitive and intransitive like roll. The results of the experiment show clearly that novel verbs presented to the participants (both adults and children) in an environment which is neutral regarding argument structure are treated as optionally transitive verbs in English, while other novel verbs presented either as transitives or intransitives are treated as the fixed transitive and intransitive English verbs (Braine et al. 1990:331-333). The fact that the novel verbs which were presented in an environment neutral to argument structure were treated as the optionally transitive verbs in English has led Braine et al. to conclude that the participants assigned argument structure to these verbs by default. Default argument structure assignment is assignment from canonical sentence schemas. Braine (1988:247-250) argues that when learning a new verb we first of all notice the most salient features of the verb, i.e. the meaning of the 128

CASE IN ICELANDIC verb. At that point in acquisition we can assign argument structure by default since we know that certain semantic classes of verbs are associated with certain argument structures. Braine et al. (1990:314) give the example tavver, which hypothetically means 'to convey information telepathically'. Immediately we know that we can both say John tried to tavver George the answers to the language quiz and John tried to tavver the answers to the language quiz to George. Goldberg, in her work on the Ditransitive construction in English (1995: Ch. 5), also elaborates on similarity clusters as one motivation for the partial productivity of the Ditransitive construction. She assumes that verbs fall into similarity clusters on the basis of their meaning (and possibly morpho-phonological properties) and that only those instances which form a similarity cluster yield the construction as high enough in type frequency to be used productively, while those instances which are so few that they do not form a similarity cluster should not be productive. However, as will become evident below, if a novel verb is synonymous to an existing verb which is not a part of a similarity cluster, its argument structure construction may still be productive on the basis of similarity alone. In Barðdal (1999b and 1999c) I found that the predictions of Construction Grammar and the Usage-based model of the productivity of argument structure constructions are borne out; both high type frequency and similarity seem to be crucial factors. Novel verbs either associate with the argument structure constructions that are very frequent in a language, i.e. are high in type frequency, or they pattern with verbs with a similar meaning; either they fall right into a similarity cluster that already exists in the language, or they pick up the argument structure construction of a synonymous verb. In addition to these mechanisms, a novel verb that has been borrowed into a language can also be borrowed together with its source language's argument structure construction. An experimental study on the argument structure and case of nonce verbs in Icelandic (Barðdal 2000c), where the participants were presented with a nonce verb and given its meaning in the form of a synonymous verb, the participants used the argument structure of the synonymous verb in 44% of the cases, while in the remaining 56% of the cases they used an argument structure which is higher in type frequency than that traditionally associated with the synonymous verb (these figures are only based on the examples where the argument structure of the synonymous verb was not the same as the argument structure that has the highest type frequency in the language). Furthermore, it is argued that constructions at different levels of schematicity can be activated when novel/nonce verbs acquire case and argument structure. Different levels of schematicity can be

129

CASE IN ICELANDIC illustrated in the following way for the English Ditransitive construction (following Croft 2000):

Figure 5.1: The Ditransitive construction at different levels of schematicity. When constructions which are high in type frequency are productively used, the most abstract schematic construction at the topmost level of the hierarchy has been activated. When constructions which do not exhibit particularly high type frequency are used productively, it can be assumed that a construction at an intermediate level has been activated (verb-classspecific construction), due to the novel verb fitting into a well-defined similarity cluster. Furthermore, when a novel verb acquires its argument structure on the basis of a similarity with only one verb and not necessarily a whole cluster, it may be assumed that a construction low in schematicity, i.e. a concrete or a substantive construction (verb-specific construction) has been activated in the mind of speakers. I will consider some examples of the activation of constructions at different levels of schematicity in section 5.3.3 below. Assuming that different argument structure constructions, at different levels of schematicity, can be activated either on the basis of high type frequency or on the basis of similarity alone, and thereby be used productively actually predicts that all the morphological cases of a language can be productive. However, it is expected that this productivity be gradient, i.e. reflecting the type frequency of the construction. Thus, it is expected that both the Nom-Acc and Nom-Dat transitive constructions are productive, as illustrated above in (43) and (44), and it is also expected that other case constructions have the potential of being productively used providing that the semantics of the new verb is of the right type. I now proceed to examine the syntactic behaviour of verbs from my material where constructions at different levels of schematicity can be assumed to have been activated within the mind of speakers. Furthermore, the Icelandic data reveal that borrowed verbs either pattern with verbs which have a similar meaning, or they seem to be borrowed complete from the contact language to Icelandic, together with its contact language's argument structure construction. After having discussed the origin of the 130

CASE IN ICELANDIC argument structures of the verbs in my material, I will discuss both some dative assigning verbs and some accusative assigning verbs, and how they can be accounted for within this model (section 5.3.4). 5.3.3 The Argument Structure of Novel Verbs In my material I have found some verbs which fall right into a similarity cluster, and seem to get their argument structure from a verb-class-specific construction. Some new verbs, however, do not seem to pattern with a similarity cluster since they seem to get their argument structure from only one predicate with the same meaning and not from a whole cluster, i.e. they seem to get their argument structure from a verb-specific construction. These two alternatives I label Cluster attraction and Isolate attraction, respectively. The third option, that a verb is borrowed with its verb-specific construction, I call Argument structure borrowing. These will now be discussed in turn. 5.3.3.1 Cluster Attraction The list in Appendix C provides us with plenty examples of new verbs which are obviously attracted by a cluster of verbs with the same or similar meaning and the same argument structure construction. Such examples are netast á 'write to each other on the Internet', bullast á 'talk nonsense to each other', meilast á 'e-mail to each other' and boltast um 'move around heavily'. These verbs behave like a number of other verbs, already existing in the language, with a similar meaning and a similar syntactic form: (49) a. netast á bullast á meilast á

skrifast á 'write to each other' drekkast á 'drink to each other' kallast á 'shout to each other' kankast á 'tease each other' hringjast á 'phone to each other' kveðast á 'take turns in reciting poetry'...

boltast um

ganga um 'walk around' labba um 'walk around' ráfa um 'wander around' reika um 'wander around' veltast um 'roll around' ...

b.

In (49a) the construction [V+st á] means 'to V to each other'. The construction has its own meaning and the verb provides the lexical content of the simple sentence, 'write', 'drink', 'shout', 'tease' and so on. The same 131

CASE IN ICELANDIC holds for (49b). The construction [Vmotion um] means 'to V around' and the verb decides further what the lexical content is, 'walk', 'wander', 'roll' and so on. In fact, the verbs in Appendix C with the particle um all mean 'movement around in a particular way', with one exception skipta um 'replace, overlay'. These verbs are the following: (50) krúsa um rápa um rása um rúnta um synda um voka um draugast um bunkast um bömmerast um hlunkast um lesbast um lyfjast um

'drive around' 'navigate around' 'swing around' 'drive around' 'move/be around drunk' 'hover around' 'move/be around like a ghost' 'plop around' 'move/be around in a depressed mood' 'move around heavily' 'move/be around and behave like a lesbian' 'move/be around drugged'

Notice that verbs occurring in this construction are both "ordinary" verbs and st-verbs.5 The fact that both ordinary and st-verbs are found in the umconstruction is in accordance with the findings of Anderson (1990) that stverbs behave syntactically like ordinary verbs, that they do not form a unitary group of verbs with the same syntactic behaviour. The following examples illustrate more instances of Cluster attraction: (51) New verbs trekkja að ' attract' 6 matsa við 'match' fitta við 'fit'

Existing verbs laða að, draga að, hæna að, passa við, eiga við, passa við, eiga við,

Without having exhausted the verbs in Appendix C, I have found that Cluster attraction certainly is one way for novel verbs to acquire their argument structure, in accordance with the predictions of Construction Grammar and the Usage-based model. These examples would therefore be 5

st-verbs are called so because they all have an -st suffix, originally a cliticized reflexive/reciprocal pronoun sik, which then grammaticalized to a derivational/ inflectional ending and finally to a suffix (see Anderson 1990 and Ottósson 1992). 6 The verbs in the right column are synonyms to the verbs in the left column. 132

CASE IN ICELANDIC examples of a verb-class-specific construction being activated when a novel verb is assigned argument structure. 5.3.3.2 Isolate Attraction Some new verbs don't seem to be attracted by a whole cluster of verbs with the same or similar meaning. Instead they seem to be formed analogically to only one existing verb in Icelandic with the same or a similar meaning. Consider the following examples: (52) New verbs bjalla/fóna í e-n fóna/netsíma til e-s dona uppi koffína/tjúna sig upp digga/dudda/dúlla við e-n

Existing verbs hringja í e-n hringja til e-s daga uppi æsa sig upp reyna við e-n

díla við e-n um e-ð

semja við e-n um e-ð

syngja/krunka e-u að e-m

lauma e-u að e-m

sjarmera/spóla/trixa e-n upp úr skónum

plata e-n upp úr skónum

'phone sby' 'phone/fax sby' 'be forgotten' 'tune up' 'make a pass at sby' 'negotiate with sby about sth' 'give sby information' 'deceive sby'

The already existing verbs in Icelandic which form the basis for the behaviour of the novel verbs do not seem to be a part of a cluster, but rather single, lexical items. This is definitely true for hringja í e-n 'phone sby', hringja til e-s 'phone sby', and daga uppi 'be forgotten'. This is presumably true also for æsa sig upp 'get upset', reyna við e-n, 'make a pass at sby' and semja við e-n um e-ð 'negotiate with sby about sth'. The remaining verbs in (52), lauma e-u að e-m 'give sby information' and plata e-n upp úr skónum 'deceive sby', also seem to be single items and not a cluster. In fact, both daga uppi and plata e-n upp úr skónum are idiomatic expressions more or less lexically filled. Yet these verbs are used as models when novel verbs, with the same meaning, are assigned argument structure, by default. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the novel verbs in (52) above are assigned argument structure on the basis of semantic similarity alone, since these verbs seem to be synonymous to only one existing verb and do not necessarily share properties with a whole cluster of verbs. Thus, these examples show that high type frequency is not necessarily the only prerequisite for productivity. The examples in (52) would therefore be examples of a verb-specific construction being activated when a novel verb is assigned argument structure. 133

CASE IN ICELANDIC 5.3.3.3 Argument Structure Borrowing The third mechanism of argument structure assignment found in the Icelandic data is what I have labelled Argument structure borrowing (see also Barðdal 1999c for equivalent examples from earlier periods of Icelandic).7 There are many borrowed verbs in my material where it seems that the argument structure of a verb in a foreign language was important for the borrowing of this verb into Icelandic. Consider the following examples: (53) New verbs tékka inn brenna út brotna niður fríka út pissa út koxa út 'fall asleep', 'give up' fíla digga

English (or foreign) equivalent check in burn out break down freak out piss out kokse ud (Danish) feel dig

The verbs in (53) are all borrowed from a foreign language and not only has the verb stem and the meaning been borrowed in many cases but also the argument structure, or the complex predicate structure, of the verb in the source language. It is of course possible to argue that, for instance, tékka inn has its argument structure from an Icelandic verb with a similar meaning, as skrá inn which means register, but not from the English verb check in. It is hard to imagine evidence in favour of one or the other analysis, and even if such evidence existed, the other examples in (53) are clear-cut. The verb brenna út with the meaning 'burn out, become exhausted' is a fairly new concept in Icelandic and is associated with an increased awareness of psychological strain at workplaces, mostly at workplaces within the domain of public health and psychology. Furthermore, verbs like fíla and digga have as their closest synonym in Icelandic the verb líka 'like' which selects for a dative subject in Icelandic. In these cases, therefore, the syntactic usage associated with these verbs in the source language may have been an influential factor for the assignment of argument structure to these verbs in Icelandic. Support for such an analysis comes from the fact that language learners are 7

I suspect that what I call Argument structure borrowing may perhaps resemble, or be the same as, what has traditionally been called Lexical transfer. It is not clear to me, however, whether Lexical transfer implies identical syntactic usage of the transferred item in both languages or not, as is the case with Argument structure borrowing. 134

CASE IN ICELANDIC conservative in their language use (see Braine 1990, Gropen, Pinker, Hollander, Goldberg and Wilson 1989, Pinker 1989, Goldberg 1995, 133 ff). This means that language learners tend to use lexical items in the same way as they hear them used. Given that fact, it should not come as a complete surprise that this is valid across language boundaries, especially when the languages in question are structurally similar (see Barðdal 2000c). It should of course be noted that by Argument structure borrowing I am not suggesting that new structures have been borrowed and introduced into Icelandic, but rather that a verb has been borrowed into Icelandic together with its verb-specific construction. Argument structure borrowing would therefore be an example of a transfer of a lexical verb and that verb's verb-specific construction into Icelandic. 5.3.4 Case In this section I will discuss some novel verbs in the material which select for different case patterns, in particular dative as subject and object case, and accusative as object case. Furthermore I will discuss how my findings are compatible with Construction Grammar and the Usage-based model. 5.3.4.1 The Novel Usage of the Dative Case 5.3.4.1.1 Dative Subjects The predicates that select for dative subjects in the Icelandic material are the following: (54) a.

Krökkunum snjóaði inn í sjoppuna kids-the.dat snowed in to shop-the.acc 'The kids flocked inside the shop'

b.

Honum geigar. he.dat yaws

c.

Honum stendur. he.dat stands 'He has an erection.'

d.i

Honum finnur til. he.dat feels to/till He's hurting.'

d.ii

Honum er sveitt. he.dat is sweaty 'He feels sweaty.'

135

CASE IN ICELANDIC e.

Honum analýserast svo að... he.dat analysed so that... 'He came to the analysis that ...'

I do not consider example (54a) as novel since similar examples are found in Íslensk orðabók (1988) and Jónsson (1998). The example in (54b) is an example of usage domain expansion. The verb in (54c) has been under a taboo but is nevertheless recorded in Íslensk orðabók (1988). The only real examples of novel dative subjects are therefore those in (54d-e). The predicates finna til and vera sveitt are not novel in the sense used in this work, defined in (1) above, since both already exist in Icelandic, since they have the same meaning and have not acquired a new one, and since their usage domain has not been expanded. They are nevertheless included in Appendix C and D for one reason: in Icelandic they usually select a nominative subject and not a dative one. So even though they are not novel in our sense they should still be treated here because of this novel case usage, and because they illustrate the productivity of the Dative subject construction. Dative substitution in Icelandic, a process where Accusative experiencer subjects change their case into dative, has received abundant attention in the literature (see Svavarsdóttir 1982, Halldórsson 1982, Rögnvaldsson 1983b, Svavarsdóttir et al. 1984, Smith 1994, Eythórsson 2000). A couple of examples have also been noted where verbs which select a nominative subject according to prescriptive grammar occur instead with accusative or dative subjects. Well-known examples are with the verbs hlakka til 'look forward' and kvíða fyrir 'be anxious'. Most verbs which undergo Dative substitution select Accusative subjects according to prescriptivists. These accusatives tend to change into datives, or, in a minority of cases, into nominatives. The only documented verbs undergoing Dative substitution, which prescriptively select nominative subjects, are therefore hlakka til and kvíða fyrir. They differ from finna til and vera sveitt in one respect: the nominative subject of hlakka til and kvíða fyrir has also been found in the accusative case and not only as a Dative subject, but finna til and vera sveitt in the Icelandic material presented here only occur with a Dative subject. Psych-predicates with the copula verb vera 'be' and an adjective occur in two syntactic constructions in Icelandic, with a nominative subject and an adjective agreeing with the subject, and a dative subject and an adjective in the default 3p.sg.:

136

CASE IN ICELANDIC (55) [SubjNom V Adj+agr]

[SubjDat V Adj-agr]

Ég er reiður Ég er illur Ég er glaður Ég er hamingjusamur Ég er áttaviltur Ég er sveittur

'I am angry' 'I am angry' 'I am glad' 'I am happy' 'I am lost' 'I am sweaty'

Mér er illt Mér er kalt Mér er bumbult Mér er óglatt Mér er heitt

'I feel sick' 'I am cold' 'I am nauseated' 'I am nauseated' 'I am warm'

The original predicate vera sveittur can obviously now occur in both of these copula constructions and not only in the personal type. Goldberg (1995: Ch. 5) discusses the partial productivity of the Ditransitive construction in English, but according to her, new and hypothetical forms can be added to the list of verbs occurring in the construction, while already existing verbs which otherwise fulfil the criteria of being used ditransitively do not change their syntactic behaviour. In this context it is interesting to note that my data suggest partial productivity of the Dative subject construction but unlike the Ditransitive construction in English the Dative subject construction has been spreading to already existing items but does not attract novel verbs (see the discussion in 5.3.2 above). That may, of course, be due to the fact that there are not many verbs in my material with the right semantics for the Dative subject construction, and those that are found seem to have been borrowed into Icelandic together with the source language's verb-specific argument structure construction. Experimental evidence has also testified to the mild productivity of the construction, since nonce verbs selecting for dative subjects could be elicited in a nonce-probe task (Barðdal 2000c). The fact that Accusative subjects are giving way to Dative subjects can easily be explained by Construction Grammar and the Usage-based model: It is expected that the construction which is higher in type frequency be more productive (see the discussion in Chapter 2, section 2.5), and thereby that the Accusative subject construction should be lower in type frequency than the Dative subject construction. This prediction is borne out. In a list of predicates selecting for Oblique subjects in Icelandic (Jónsson 1998) the amount of dative subject selecting verbs was as high as 301. When different senses of the lexical entries were added, the amount went up to 484, and when the adjectives that select for dative subjects were

137

CASE IN ICELANDIC added the number increased to 687. However, the amount of verbs selecting for Accusative subjects was only 171, and when the different senses of the lexical entries were added the number rose to 206 (there are, however, no adjectives that select for an accusative subject in Icelandic). Furthermore, a count of the type frequency of the Accusative and Dative subject construction in language use, i.e. in a corpus of written and spoken Icelandic (see Chapter 4), has revealed that the type frequency of the Accusative subject construction was 14 while it was 71 for the Dative subject construction. That means that the 49 examples of Accusative subjects were instantiated by only 14 verbs, whereas the 221 examples of Dative subject verbs were instantiated by 71 verbs. Thereby, it is clear that the Dative subject construction is instantiated by significantly more verbs than the Accusative subject construction, hence we would expect the Dative subject construction to be more productive than the Accusative one. To go back to my material, example (54e) e-m analýserast svo, is an example of a Dative subject together with a st-verb selecting a clausal complement. As stated in section 5.3.3.1, st-verbs in Icelandic are not a unitary group of verbs, neither syntactically nor semantically. A closer inspection of the st-verbs in Icelandic reveals that this borrowed verb analýsera falls right into a subgroup of st-verbs, i.e. a similarity cluster where all the verbs express some sort of a mental 'thinking' activity, all selecting Dative subjects and a clausal complement: (56) Mér reiknaðist það til að ... Mér taldist það til að ... Mér hugsaðist það svo að ... Mér hugkvæmdist það að ... Mér skipulagðist þetta þannig að ... Mér skrifaðist þetta þannig að ...

'I estimated it so ...' 'I estimated it so that .... 'I thought about it such that ...' I got the idea that ...' 'I organized this such that ...' 'I wrote this such that ...'

The two last examples are not documented in Íslensk orðabók (1988) or in Jónsson (1998), but they are perfectly fine according to my native speaker's intuition. It might even be better to gloss the two examples as 'I managed to organize this so ...', and 'I managed to write this so ...', which suggests that Icelandic has a constructional way of "deagentivizing" the subject. Let us compare the following minimal pair: (57) a.

Ég analýseraði þetta þannig að ... 'I.nom analysed this such that ...'

138

CASE IN ICELANDIC b.

Mér analýseraðist þetta þannig að ... I.dat analysed-st this such that ... 'I came to the analysis that ...'

The meaning of the lexical verb analyse is the same in both constructions; it entails a mental activity of analysing data. The difference between the examples in this pair is that in the latter the event is constructed as if the subject is not in control of the analysing event while this implication is missing in the former example. The fact that the borrowed verb analyse is found in this construction suggests a low degree of productivity of the construction. 5.3.4.1.2 Dative Objects The verbs selecting for dative objects in Icelandic also pattern up in certain constructions, just like the verbs that select for dative subjects. I now consider some of these, as presented by the Icelandic material. Three new verbs with the meaning steal are found in Appendix C: (58) bísa, fingra, putta. They all select a dative object, just like the already existing stela, hnupla and ræna, with the same meaning. More examples of new dative object verbs, together with their already existing synonymous verbs, are listed below: (59) New Verbs bísa e-u, fingra e-u, putta e-u, dræfa e-m, bítta e-u,

Existing Verbs stela e-u, hnupla e-u, ræna e-u, keyra e-m, skipta e-u, víxla e-u, deila e-u, slaufa e-u, skippa e-u, sleppa e-u, hætta e-u dúmpa/dömpa e-u/e-m, kasta e-u, henda e-u, droppa e-u/e-m, sleppa e-u/e-m, hætta e-u diskriminera e-m, mismuna e-m, splitta e-u, skipta e-u, deila e-u varíera e-u, breyta e-u arisera e-u, raða e-u, haga e-u organisera e-u, stjórna e-u, stýra e-u, fókusera e-u, beina e-u, parkera bílnum leggja bílnum, gæda e-m leiðbeina e-m, sýna e-m, 139

'steal, rob' 'drive' '(ex)change' 'skip' 'throw' 'drop, stop' 'discriminate' 'split' 'vary, change' 'arrange' 'organize' 'focus, route' 'park' 'guide'

CASE IN ICELANDIC redda e-u spreða peningum

bjarga e-u, eyða peningum

'safe' 'spend'

Surprisingly, some verbs in the material, all roughly meaning sell, i.e. díla and pússa select datives, as in the following examples: (60) a. b.

díla stuði sell/deal in drugs.dat pússa stuði sell/push drugs.dat

This is surprising considering the fact that the simple verb meaning sell in Icelandic, i.e. selja, selects an accusative object and not a dative one. But a closer survey of these examples reveals that deal and push can both mean 'spread' and the equivalent of 'spread' in Icelandic, dreifa, selects a dative object. Another striking example is the dative reflexive object of a number of verbs of motion, all meaning get lost: (61) blaka sér, dilla sér, dingla sér, drulla sér, labba sér, pilla sér, slaka sér, troða sér, This construction seems to be a general construction in Icelandic for verbs of movement, all denoting moving oneself, since more such examples are found in the material (though not necessarily with the meaning 'get lost'): (62) demba sér, koma sér, sippa sér, skutla sér, skvísa sér, slaka sér, smúlla sér, Furthermore, all verbs in Icelandic with the meaning kick or smash select a dative object (not all the examples are novel though): (63) negla e-u smassa e-u dúndra e-u þrusa e-u þrykkja e-u þruma e-u

'nail, throw sth intensely' 'smash sth intensely' 'kick, throw sth intensely' 'throw, kick, thrust sth intensely' 'thrust sth intensely' 'kick, throw sth. intensely'

140

CASE IN ICELANDIC A tendency towards dative object verbs denoting movement being generalized in Modern Icelandic was first noted by Barðdal (1993) and further discussed by Maling (1995 and 1999). Consider the following examples: (64) installera e-u forvarda e-u lansera e-u pósta e-u signalera e-u skrambla e-u skrolla e-u stranda e-u

install sth forward sth lounce sth post sth signal sth scramble (move) sth scroll sth strand (move) sth

The verbs in (64) do not seem to have picked up the case of their Icelandic synonyms because they would all assign an accusative to their direct object. These are verbs like setja inn 'put in', senda áfram 'send forward', kynna 'introduce', setja í póst 'post', sýna 'show', færa 'move' and flytja 'transport'. The dative case therefore does not originate in the argument structure construction of a synonymous verb. Given the fact that verbs of movement very often assign dative to their objects in Icelandic, it seems reasonable to assume that these examples are instances of Cluster Attraction and not examples of Isolate Attraction, i.e. a verb-specific construction has not been activated, but rather a verb-class-specific construction has been activated (see also subsection 6.6 in Chapter 6 below for a discussion of the dative with the Caused-motion construction). 5.3.4.2 The Novel Usage of the Accusative Case There are plenty of examples of new and borrowed verbs in my material which select the accusative as an object case and not the dative. In (65) some example are presented together with their Icelandic synonyms, which also select accusative objects. (65) New Verbs blokkera blotta blöffa/dobla bústa/bösta bögga dekka demonstrera

Old Verbs hindra sýna plata handtaka trufla þekja sýna 141

'block' 'reveal' 'bluff' 'bust' 'bug' 'cover' 'demonstrate'

CASE IN ICELANDIC diskútera ræða djeila fangelsa dressa klæða e-maila senda faxa senda feika leika fingra/svípa tæma garantera ábyrgjast græja/fixa/mixa/ laga mæka/ordna/sjæna kop(í)era afrita kútta skera plana/planera skipuleggja servera bera fram stímulera örva teista reyna, prufa

'discuss' 'imprison' 'dress' 'e-mail (sth)' 'fax (sth)' 'fake' 'empty, sweep' 'guarantee' 'fix' 'copy' 'cut' 'plan, organize' 'serve (sth)' 'stimulate' 'taste'

Given the fact that there are more verbs in the material that select for accusative than for dative as an object case, and given the fact that there are probably more verbs in Icelandic in general that assign accusative to their objects than dative, it is certainly expected that some of my novel verbs would have an Icelandic synonym which also assigns accusative to its object, without that necessarily having to mean that the accusative originates in the argument structure construction of the native synonym. That is of course true, but since we have to assume that novel verbs selecting for dative objects do that on the basis of similarity to already existing verbs with a similar meaning, then there is no reason not to assume that for accusative object selecting verbs as well. Within Construction Grammar and the Usage-based model there is no fundamental difference between argument structure constructions containing accusatives or datives. In fact, the Usage-based model predicts that the productivity of the argument structures containing accusative vs. dative as object case should be in accordance with the type frequency of these argument structure constructions, meaning that we would actually expect accusative object selecting verbs to be instantiated by more verbs in my material than the dative object selecting verbs because they are more frequent in Icelandic in general. That prediction is borne out. 5.3.4.3 A Choice of Accusative or Dative The observant reader may have noticed that some novel verbs are actually listed as both accusative object selecting verbs and as dative object selecting verbs.

142

CASE IN ICELANDIC Firstly, these can be verbs that select different case for different kinds of objects. One such example would be fingra 'steal': (66) a.

b.

Hann fingraði peningunum. he.nom stole money-the.dat 'He stole the money.' Hann fingraði vasana. he.nom stole the pockets-the.acc 'He emptied the pockets', or 'He stole from the pockets'.

In (66a) the direct object of steal is assigned dative case, as is generally true for all verbs with the meaning 'steal' in Icelandic, apart from the idiom taka e-ð ófrjálsri hendi, which literally means 'to take something with an unfree hand'. In (66b) the object is a locatum or an incremental theme and therefore it is accusative (see further Chapter 6, subsection 6.6 below). There are also examples of verbs with very similar lexical meaning selecting for different case, accusative or dative: (67) a. b.

Hann fixar/ordnar/græjar þetta. he.nom fixes this.acc Hann reddar þessu. he.nom fixes this.dat

Verbs with the meaning 'fix' are numerous in Icelandic with an accusative object. It therefore seems that fixa, ordna and græja may have acquired its case from a verb-class-specific construction, while redda has presumably been associated with the verb bjarga 'save' on basis of overall similarity, and activated a verb-specific argument structure construction. These facts are in accordance with general facts of Icelandic. Verb-classes with similar meaning do not uniformly associate with only one argument structure construction, as has often been pointed out for Icelandic (see for instance Garðarsdóttir 1990, Maling 1999). Therefore we would expect different novel verbs, similar in meaning, to associate with either the accusative object case construction or the dative object case construction. Furthermore, it is even expected that the same verb be associated with different constructions for different speakers. The following authentic conversation was overheard by me, where two Icelandic speakers abroad were arguing about the morphological case of the borrowed verb applisera 'apply':

143

CASE IN ICELANDIC (68) A: Ef þú ætlar að applisera þessari greiningu á efnið þá ... if you.nom intend to apply this analysis.dat on material-the then ... B: Þú meinar applisera þessa greiningu. you.nom mean apply this analysis.acc A: Nei, applisera e-u eins og beita e-u. No, apply sth.dat like "apply" sth.dat B: Nei, applisera e-ð eins og nota e-ð. No, apply sth.acc. like "use" sth.acc Speaker B corrects speaker A when s/he uses applisera with dative, and makes the claim that it should be used with an accusative. Speaker A then explicitly argues that applisera should have dative case like its synonymous Icelandic counterpart beita, while speaker B associates applisera with the more general verb nota which means 'use' and selects for an accusative object. Therefore, on a combined Construction Grammar/ Usage-based account, we would actually expect verbs in Icelandic not to show a uniform behaviour in the selection of morphological case of their arguments, since Icelandic itself does not always show a uniform behaviour in the case marking of arguments of verbs with similar meaning.

5.4 Summary This chapter has presented a survey of novel verbs in Icelandic and the morphological case these novel verbs assign to their arguments. The study has revealed that nominative is productive as a case of subjects, accusative is productive as a case of direct objects, and finally that the dative is productive as a case of indirect objects and direct objects. A mild degree of productivity has also been encountered for dative subjects. A comparison of the predictions that follow from the basic assumptions of different grammatical theories, mainly comparing Construction Grammar to the hypothesis of "Classical" Generative Grammar that case can be divided into structural and lexical case, has further revealed that only some of the predictions that follow from the generative distinction between lexical/thematic and structural case are borne out. According to the generative view of case, only structural and thematic case should be productive while idiosyncratic case should be nonproductive. This prediction is not borne out since there are numerous examples of novel verbs selecting for idiosyncratic case in Icelandic. The basic assumptions of Construction Grammar, on the other hand, make different predictions about the productivity of case, which are more in accordance with the results of this empirical investigation of new verbs 144

CASE IN ICELANDIC in Icelandic. Construction Grammar treats morphological case as a part of argument structure constructions and if an argument structure construction is high in type frequency then it should be productive together with its morphological case. Furthermore, an argument structure construction can also be productive on the basis of high similarity. Thus, I have found that constructions at different levels of schematicity seem to be activated when novel verbs are assigned argument structure: more abstract schematic constructions can be activated, verb-class-specific constructions can be activated, and finally verb-specific constructions can be activated in the mind of speakers when they are confronted with novel verbs and have to assign argument structure constructions to these. This is also confirmed by experimental evidence. Hence, no fundamental distinction is made between structural and lexical/idiosyncratic case, but rather all the cases are treated in a uniform way and assumed to be productive, either if the type frequency of the construction is high enough or on the basis of high similarity to an already existing item. Furthermore, on a Usage-based model account we expect constructions to show degrees of productivity in accordance with the type frequency of the construction in the language, thus it is expected that the Nom-Acc transitive construction is more productive than the NomDat transitive construction since the Nom-Acc construction has higher type frequency than the Nom-Dat construction. Therefore it is expected that more novel transitive verbs assign accusative to their objects than dative. The findings of this study confirm the predictions of Construction Grammar and the Usage-based model. This study of novel verbs in Icelandic, i.e. this study of the productivity of the different morphological cases, has revealed that case in Icelandic is constructional in the sense that it is a part of a syntactic pattern or a construction, which again can form an opposition with another construction with another case pattern. Furthermore, verbs often come in similarity clusters and are associated with certain argument structure constructions, thus it appears that groups of verbs with similar meaning assign the same morphological case to their arguments. Finally, this research on productivity has shown that verbs do not assign morphological case independently to each obligatory argument in a clause but rather are novel verbs assigned argument structure constructions, together with their case morphology.

145

CASE IN ICELANDIC

6 Other Functions of Case Morphology 6.1 Introduction So far in this dissertation I have found that morphological case can be seen as having a syntactic side, a semantic side and a constructional side. In Chapter 4 I found that there is a statistical correlation between some syntactic functions and morphological case, in that the nominative is the most frequent subject case, accusative is the most frequent object case, the dative is the most frequent indirect object case, and the genitive is the most frequent attributive case of nominals. I also found that there is a statistical correlation between certain semantic roles and morphological case in that the Agent is always nominative, object Themes and Contents are often accusative, Beneficiaries are in the majority of cases encoded with the dative case and the Instrumental is always encoded with the dative case. Furthermore, in Chapter 5 I have found that morphological case is assigned to new verbs in Icelandic on the basis of similarity, i.e. new verbs get the same morphological case as native verbs with a similar meaning, thus, morphological case is an indistinguishable part of the verbs' argument structure construction, and as such it is constructional. This is in accordance with my working hypothesis from Chapter 1, repeated here for the sake of convenience: (1)

Case is a multifunctional category.

On the basis of the data presented in Chapters 4 and 5 I can conclude that my working hypothesis has been corroborated. In this chapter I will discuss other functions of case morphology in Icelandic in order to further sustain my hypothesis. I begin by discussing examples of verbs in Icelandic which assign different morphological cases to their objects, and on the basis of these case differences it is possible to retrieve the meaning of these verbs (section 6.2). There are also verbs or predicates in Icelandic which assign accusative case to non-human objects and dative case to human objects. Regarding subject case assignment, some predicates in Icelandic assign nominative case to their non-human subjects, while these same predicates assign dative case to their human subjects. These predicates are discussed in section 6.3. Certain verbs together with the preposition með 'with' show 145

CASE IN ICELANDIC a variation in their case assignment to their complements, assigning accusative case to those of their objects that refer to people/animals that are not equal to the speaker, while assigning dative case to those objects that refer to people regarded as equals (section 6.4). There is another group of verbs, namely, motion verbs together with certain prepositions, which vary in their case assignment to their complements depending on whether they denote directed motion, i.e. motion on a path, or undirected motion, i.e. motion at a certain location (section 6.5). Some verbs of movement/transfer also show variation in their case assigning to objects depending on whether the object is a locatum or whether it has been caused to move somewhere. I will argue that the accusative contrasts with the dative in that the accusative is an object of the ordinary Transitive construction while the dative is an object of the Caused-motion construction. An argument in favour of this analysis is that ordinary intransitive verbs and novel verbs, when used as transitive movement/transfer verbs, occurring in the Caused-motion construction always select for a dative object. This is the topic of section 6.6. The Icelandic passive and the Icelandic ergative constructions show a difference in case assignment to subjects, assigning either nominative or dative to their subjects. This contrast is motivated by aspectual factors, and will be discussed in sections 6.7 and 6.8. Finally, in section 6.9 I investigate the semantics of the so-called syntactic cases, namely, the nominative and the accusative.

6.2 Case as Lexical Device There are some verbs in Icelandic which select for either accusative or dative case, such as klóra 'scratch'. However, klóra does not have the same lexical meaning when used with an accusative as it does when used with a dative: (2)

a.

Hann klóraði mig. he.nom scratched I.acc

b.

Hann klóraði mér. he.nom scratched I.dat

In (2a) the speaker has unwillingly been scratched, while in (2b) the speaker has been scratched by somebody because he is itching (see also Barðdal 1993, Maling 1999). The difference lies in the voluntariness of the speaker (or the object), and is signalled only by the difference in case marking of the object. Compare the following examples:

146

CASE IN ICELANDIC (3)

a.

Nennirðu að klóra mér? bother-you.nom to scratch I.dat 'Could you scratch me?'

b.

#Nennirðu að klóra mig? bother-you.nom to scratch I.acc

(3b) sounds as if the speaker is asking somebody to attack him and thereby scratch him, and since we usually do not ask people to do something like that (3b) is infelicitous in Icelandic. Irrespective of whether we want to say that there are two verbs klóra in Icelandic, or whether we want to analyse klóra as having two different senses, it is obvious that here morphological case has the function of being a lexical device, i.e. it is used to differentiate between the two (meanings of) klóra. Another example can be found with the verb stinga 'sting' which assigns either accusative or dative to its object depending on its meaning: (4)

a.

Ég stakk mig. I.nom stung I.acc 'I pricked myself (in the finger with a needle).'

b.

Ég stakk mér. I.nom stung I.dat 'I dived (into the swimming pool).'

Differences in morphological case and argument structure are, of course, the device we use in general to distinguish between meanings. Compare the following examples of the verb skilja 'distinguish, understand, divorce' in Icelandic: (5)

a.

Ég skil það. I.nom understand that.acc 'I understand that'.

b.

Ég skil á milli þeirra. I.nom distinguish on between they.gen 'I distinguish between them'.

c.

Ég skil við hann. I.nom divorce with he.acc 'I divorce him'.

147

CASE IN ICELANDIC It is by examining differences in case and argument structure that we distinguish between the different meanings of homonymous verbs (see also Croft 2001). The examples in (5) differ from each other in that one is a Nom-Acc verb, the second selects for a prepositional phrase milli 'between', while the third one selects for a different prepositional phrase við 'with'. Similar examples exist in which only the case of the subject, and thus agreement properties, differ: (6)

(7)

a.

Hann er illur. he.nom is bad.3p.masc.nom 'He is angry.' or 'He is mean.'

b.

Honum er illt. he.dat is bad.3p.neutr. 'He's sick.'

a.

Hann er kaldur. he.nom is cold.3p.masc.nom 'He is cold (on the outside).' or 'He is heartless.'

b.

Honum er kalt. he.dat. is cold.3p.neutr. 'He is freezing.'

6.3 Human vs. Non-human There is a group of verbs in Icelandic which can assign either accusative or dative to their objects. They differ, however, from the group discussed in the preceding section in that the dative is assigned to animate objects and the accusative is assigned to non-animate objects (see also Barðdal 1993 and Maling 1999): (8)

(9)

a.

Hann greiddi barninu. he.nom combed child-the.dat

b.

Hann greiddi hárið. he.nom combed hair-the.acc

a.

Hann strauk konunni. he.nom patted woman-the.dat

148

CASE IN ICELANDIC b. (10) a. b. (11) a. b.

Hann strauk handlegginn. he.nom patted arm-the.acc Hann þvoði barninu. he.nom washed baby-the.dat Hann þvoði handklæðið. he washed towel-the.acc Hann þurrkaði barninu. he.nom dried baby-the.dat Hann þurrkaði handklæðið. he.nom dried towel-the.acc

In these examples, therefore, the dative denotes animacy while the accusative denotes non-animacy. A similar observation can be made for subjects where dative case is used to denote human subjects while nominative is used to denote nonhuman subjects. This is true for the following pairs of verbs: (12) a. b. (13) a.

b.

(14) a.

a.

Mér versnaði. I.dat got-worse Veðrið versnaði. weather-the.nom got-worse Mér gekk vel. I.dat went well 'It went well for me.' Þetta gekk vel. it.nom went well Honum heppnaðist þetta. he.dat succeeded this.nom 'He succeeded with this.' Þetta heppnaðist hjá honum. this.nom succeeded at him.dat It was a success for him.'

149

CASE IN ICELANDIC It is clear that in such pairs as in (8-11) and (12-14) above, the dative signals that the referent is human while the nominative vs. accusative signals that the referent is non-human.

6.4 Equality vs. Non-Equality In some cases the preposition með 'with' together with motion verbs like fara 'go, leave' assigns either accusative or dative to its object, with a subsequent difference in meaning. The following examples are taken from Barðdal (1993): (15) a.

b.

Hann fór út að ganga með hundinn. he.nom went out to walk with dog-the.acc 'He walked the dog.' Hann fór út að ganga með konunni. he.nom went out to walk with woman-the.dat 'He took a walk with the woman.'

When the object of the preposition með is not capable of independent volitional action, it is case-marked with the accusative case, while when it is at an equal level with the subject, it is case-marked with the dative case. Thus, the case marking cannot be reversed without differences in meaning: (16) a.

b.

#Hann fór út að ganga með hundinum. he.nom went out to walk with dog-the.dat 'He took a walk together with the dog.' #Hann fór út að ganga með konuna. he.nom went out to walk with woman-the.acc 'He walked the woman'.

(16a) can only be understood in such a way that the man and the dog were equals, they took a walk together, discussed the meaning of life, etc., while (16b) implies that the man had the woman on a leash, and that he walked her back and forth. A similar difference is found in the following example: (17) a.

Ég fór með hann í bíó. I.nom went with him.acc. to cinema.acc 'I took him to the cinema.'

150

CASE IN ICELANDIC b.

Ég fór með honum í bíó. I.nom went with him.dat to cinema.acc 'I went together with him to the cinema'.

In (17a) the object of fara með is either a child, a handicapped or an old person incapable of going to the cinema on his own, while in (17b) the two referents are equals (as evident from the English glosses). In such cases, therefore, the difference between accusative and dative implies differences in the equality of the two referents.

6.5 Directed vs. Undirected Motion Some prepositions, together with motion verbs, assign either accusative or dative case to their object. This is illustrated in (18-19) below: (18) a.

Hann synti undir brúna. he.nom swam under bridge-the.acc

b.

Hann synti undir brúnni. he.nom swam under bridge-the.dat

(19) a.

Músin hljóp undir rúmið. mouse-the.nom ran under bed-the.acc

b.

Músin hljóp undir rúminu. mouse-the.nom ran under bed-the.dat

The (a) examples are examples of movement along a path, thus directed motion, while in the (b) examples all the movement denoted by the verb occurs at a certain location, thus undirected motion. That is, the swimming takes place from here and to the bridge vs. all the swimming takes place under the bridge. These two examples represent two different constructions, namely, a Directed-motion construction and an Undirectedmotion construction, hence the difference in meaning and the difference in morphological case.

6.6 Dative of Movement/Transfer It has been noted for some movement verbs in Icelandic that they often assign dative to their objects, and that this dative case is being extended to 151

CASE IN ICELANDIC movement verbs selecting for accusative objects. This was first noticed by Barðdal (1993), and also discussed by Maling (1995, 1999, 2001). Some examples of movement verbs in Icelandic selecting for dative objects are shown in (20) below: (20)

henda boltanum 'throw the ball (dat)', kasta boltanum 'throw the ball (dat)', velta boltanum 'roll the ball (dat)', bylta hlutunum 'overturn things (dat)', varpa e-u frá sér 'throw sth (dat) off oneself', dreifa bréfunum 'spread/distribute the letters (dat)', skvetta vatninu 'slosh the water (dat)', þoka e-u áfram 'move sth (dat) slowly forward', vefja treflinum um hálsinn 'wind the scarf (dat) around the neck', þjappa e-u saman 'compress sth (dat) together', þrýsta e-u saman 'thrush sth (dat) together'.

However, not all verbs of movement assign dative to their objects. Some examples of accusative assigning verbs are given in (21): (21)

a)

færa bókina 'move the book (acc)', flytja bókina 'transport the book (acc)', senda bókina 'send the book (acc)'.

b)

setja bókina á borðið 'put the book (acc) on the table', leggja bókina á borðið 'lay the book (acc) on the table'.

A characteristic of the verbs in (20) and (21) is that they always assign dative (20) or accusative (21) respectively to their objects. It thus seems necessary to distinguish between two main constructions here: the Causedmotion construction, with a dative object, and the Transfer construction, with an accusative object (cf. Croft, Barðdal, Hollmann, Nielsen, Satorova and Taoka in prep). These constructions have been independently established for English (see Goldberg 1995: Ch. 3, 7, Croft in prep) The Caused-motion construction with the dative object seems to have much higher type frequency than the accusative one, i.e. more verbs seem to instantiate it. Two salient verb groups occurring in this construction are verbs of ballistic motion and verbs of pushing. The verbs in (21b), like setja 'put' and leggja 'lay, put', have in the literature been called verbs of putting (Levin 1993, Croft in prep), thus their semantics is different from verbs of movement in that they do not profile the movement itself but rather the final stretch of the transferring event. Therefore, given a thorough verbal semantic analysis, verbs of putting are strictly speaking not verbs of movement/transfer, they only presuppose movement. In Icelandic verbs of putting select for accusative objects. There is, however, a fourth group of verbs which shows an alternation between accusative and dative case assignment in Icelandic. 152

CASE IN ICELANDIC These are verbs which are not necessarily movement verbs, but when used to denote movement they select for a dative object (see Barðdal 1993, Maling 1999): (22) a. b. (23) a. b. (24) a. b. (25) a. b. (26) a. b.

Hann sópar gólfið. he.nom sweeps floor-the.acc Hann sópar ruslinu saman. he.nom sweeps garbage-the.dat together Hann smyr brauð. he.nom smears bread.acc Hann smyr smjörinu á brauðið. he.nom smears butter-the.dat on bread-the.acc Hann hleður vegginn. he.nom piles wall-the.acc Hann hleður múrsteinunum upp. he.nom piles bricks-the.dat up Hann mokar sand. he.nom shovels sand.acc Hann mokar sandinum burt. he.nom shovels sand-the.dat away Hann barði hundinn. he.nom hit dog-the.acc Hann barði hrömmunum á hurðina. he.nom hit big-hands-the.dat on door-the.acc

Some of the accusative objects in the (a) examples have been called locatum or incremental theme. Others are ordinary affected objects. Note, however, that the dative objects in the (b) examples have all undergone a movement from one location to another. Thus, the (a) examples are all examples of the ordinary Transitive construction while the (b) examples are examples of the Caused-motion construction, where the subject has caused the object to move somewhere. An argument in favour of this analysis is that when the locative phrase is missing all the (b) examples in (22-26) are somewhat ill-formed, while the same does not hold for the corresponding (a) examples: 153

CASE IN ICELANDIC

(27) a.

?Hann sópar ruslinu. he.nom sweeps garbage-the.dat

b.

?Hann smyr smjörinu. he.nom smears butter-the.dat

c.

?Hann hleður múrsteinunum. he.nom piles bricks-the.dat

d.

?Hann mokar sandi. he.nom shovels sand.dat

e.

?Hann barði hrömmunum. he.nom hit big-hands-the.dat

One explanation offered in the literature (Barðdal 1993) is that they are illformed because they are incomplete; the locative phrase is missing. All the examples of the dative of the Caused-motion construction I have given so far are with verbs which are traditionally called transitive verbs, illustrating that when used as transitive verbs they occur in the NomAcc Transitive construction, while when occurring in the Caused-motion construction they occur in the Nom-Dat case construction. Moreover, there are also some intransitive verbs in Icelandic which can be used to denote movement of an object, i.e. in the Caused-motion construction, and when used in this way they also occur in the Nom-Dat construction (the fact that intransitive verbs select dative objects when used in the Caused-motion construction has also been observed by Holland (1993) for Old Icelandic/Norwegian): (28) a b.

(29) a.

b

Hann kemur. he.nom comes Hann kemur dótinu til þín. he.nom comes things-the.dat to you.gen 'He'll get the things over to you.' Hann ruslaði út. he.nom rubbished out 'He makes it look untidy.' Hann ruslaði þessu saman. he.nom rubbished this.dat together 154

CASE IN ICELANDIC 'He got it together (in an untidy manner).' (30) a. b.

(31) a. b.

Barnið slefar. child-the.nom drools Hann slefaði þessu út úr sér. he.nom drooled this.dat out of himself.dat 'He dragged it out of himself.' or 'He managed to say it'. Barnið sullar í vatninu child-the.nom splashes in water-the.dat Hann sullaði matnum út fyrir diskinn. he.nom splashes food-the.dat out of plate-the.acc

All these examples are conventionalized expressions in Icelandic. However, there are also examples of either borrowed verbs (32a-b) or nonconventionalized authentic expressions (32c) and (33) similar to these: (32) a b.

Hann faxaði samningnum til mín. he.nom faxed contract-the.dat to me Ég peista honom bara á aftur. I.nom paste it.dat back on again

(Maling 1999) (Maling 1999)

c.

Ég er alltaf að reyna að pressa þessu inn í prógrammið I.nom am always to try to press this.dat into programmethe.acc 'I am always trying to squeeze this into my programme.'

d.

Ég SMS-a þessu til þín. I.nom SMS this.dat to you.gen 'I'll send it to you as an SMS.'

(33) Hún sussaði þeim í burtu. she.nom hushed they.dat away 'She hushed them away' or 'She made them go away by hushing'. It also seems that verbs which generally occur in the Transfer construction in Icelandic (as in (21a) above), have begun to occur in the Caused-motion construction, and thus with a dative object. In fact, my impression is that this is becoming more common, as I have made a note of the following examples when encountering them:

155

CASE IN ICELANDIC (34) a.

Þú slærð þessu inn í tölvuna. you.nom hit this.dat into computer-the.acc 'You type/log/put it into the computer.'

b.

Hann bretti upp ermunum. he.nom rolled up sleeves.dat

c.

Ég reytti af mér bröndurunum I.nom ripped off me.dat jokes-the.dat 'I ripped off the jokes.'

The verbs slá 'hit', bretta 'roll' and reyta 'rip' all traditionally select for accusatives and not datives. However, the examples in (34) are all authentic examples. Moreover, I have noticed that new verbs of sending in Icelandic seem to be able to occur either in the Caused-motion construction or the Transfer construction. The following examples are all authentic: (35) a.

Hann faxaði samninginn til þín. he.nom faxed contract-the.acc to I.gen

b.

Hann faxaði samningnum til þín. he.nom faxed contract-the.dat to I.gen

(36) a.

Ég SMS-a þetta til þín. I.nom SMS this.acc to you.gen 'I'll send it to you as an SMS.'

b.

Ég SMS-a þessu til þín. I.nom SMS this.dat to you.gen 'I'll send it to you as an SMS.'

The fact that speakers have a choice between the Caused-motion construction and the Transfer constructions is probably due to the similarity in the semantics of these two constructions. Furthermore, these data show that the Transfer construction is productive with novel verbs of sending. In summary, my analysis of the data presented in this section is that the dative object should be regarded as an object of the Caused-motion construction. New verbs, intransitive verbs and accusative-assigning transitive verbs can occur in the Caused-motion construction in Icelandic, in which case they occur together with a dative object. It therefore seems that the Caused-motion construction in Icelandic is highly productive.

156

CASE IN ICELANDIC

6.7 The Nominative vs. the Dative Passive Icelandic has many passive constructions, of which two are only distinguishable in terms of case and agreement differences (as pointed out by Barðdal and Molnár 2000): (37) a.

b.

Honum var boðið í veisluna. he.dat was invited.3p.neutr in party-the.acc 'He was invited to the party.'

Passive

Hann var boðinn í veisluna Adjectival Passive he.nom was invited.3.pers.masc in party-the.acc 'He was invited to the party.'

In (37a) the subject is in the dative case and the participle boðið is in the (non-agreeing) default form. In (37b) the subject is in the nominative case and the participle boðinn agrees with the subject in person, number and gender. The difference between the examples in (37a-b) is that (37a) is processual, it denotes an event, while (37b) is stative, denoting the state of affairs after the completion of the event. These examples clearly show that Icelandic utilizes differences in morphological case, together with differences in agreement, to represent semantic differences between whole constructions, in this case the Nominative vs. the Dative Passive Construction and their stative vs. processual meaning.

6.8 The Nominative vs. the Dative Ergative Icelandic also has ergative pairs of the following kind (see for instance Sigurðsson 1989, Ottósson 1986, Jónsson 1999, and others): (38) a b. (39) a. b

Kaupmaðurinn opnaði búðina. shopkeeper-the.nom opened store-the.acc Búðin opnaði. store-the.nom opened Kaupmaðurinn lokaði búðinni. shopkeeper-the.nom closed store-the.dat Búðinni lokaði. store-the.dat closed 157

CASE IN ICELANDIC

In these examples the accusative object of the transitive verb opna 'open' is in the nominative case when opna is used ergatively as in (38b), while the dative object of the transitive loka 'close' "maintains" its dative case when loka is used ergatively as in (39b). However, examples of dative objects of transitive verbs occurring as nominative subjects when these verbs are used ergatively are very common in Icelandic: (40) Búðin lokar. shop-the.nom closes This can be taken as an indication that oblique subjects are in general changing into nominative subjects, but I want to suggest an analysis based on aspect (following Barðdal and Molnár 2000:131, fn. 4) and frequency. The Nominative subject construction of such pairs has a processual reading in the active diathesis and since verbs like opna and loka are inherently processual it is only natural for verbs like loka to occur in the Nominative subject construction. Also, the type frequency of the Nominative subject construction is higher than the Dative subject construction. It is therefore because of the semantics and the higher type frequency of the Nominative subject construction that it attracts originally dative assigning verbs.

6.9 The Semantics of the Syntactic Cases As already discussed in section 5.3.4.1.1 above, the dative in the Dative subject construction has a meaning of its own, namely, that the subject is not in full control of the event or state denoted by the predicate. Consider the following examples with skilja 'understand' and analýsera, respectively: (41) a

b.

(42) a.

Mér skildist það. I.dat understood-st that.acc 'I came to understand that.' or 'I gather that.' Ég skildi það. I.nom understood that.acc 'I understood that.' Mér analýseraðist þetta þannig að ... I.dat analysed-st this.acc such that 'I came to the analysis that ...'

158

CASE IN ICELANDIC b

Ég analýseraði þetta þannig að ... I.nom analysed this.acc such that 'I analysed this such that ...'

Jónsson (1997-98) discusses examples like tala and talast 'speak', which also conform to this pattern: (43) a.

b.

Honum talaðist vel. he.dat spoke-st well 'He managed to give a good speech.' Hann talaði vel. he.nom spoke well 'He gave a good speech.'

Jónsson argues that the dative subject in (43a) is an Experiencer while the nominative subject in (43b) is an Agent. I disagree with Jónsson on his analysis of these examples. In my view, it is a question of construing reality in different ways (as already argued in 3.3.1 above). The subject in (43a) does not necessarily have to have an opinion on whether his performance was good or not. However, it is the speaker of the utterance that chooses to evaluate the situation such that the subject did well, irrespective of what the referent denoted by the subject thinks. Consider the following examples: (44) a. b.

*Honum talaðist. he.dat. spoke-st Hann talaði. he.nom spoke 'He talked.'

This minimal pair shows that tala may occur without a modifying adverbial, such as well, while talast cannot. Thus, talast can only be used to denote speaker affectedness, whereas tala can be used with or without such implications of judgement. In contrast to the dative as a subject case, the nominative also has a meaning associated with it. A subject referent encoded with nominative case appears to be more in control of the situation denoted by the verb (cf. Croft 1993). Consider the following examples: (45) a.

Hann syrgir. he.nom grieves 159

CASE IN ICELANDIC b. (46) a. b.

Hann fyrirgefur. he.nom forgives Honum leiðist. he.dat is-bored Honum sárnaði. he.dat became-hurt

In Icelandic, a grieving state/process and a forgiveness process are construed as more agentive or controllable than the state of being bored, hence the nominative subject. Or perhaps, because of the nominative subject grieving and forgiving can be interpreted as more "agentive" than is possible in the case of being bored. This can be illustrated with the resistance of the dative subject verbs to occur together with the adverbial fúslega 'willingly', in contrast to the nominative subject verbs: (47) a. b.

(48) a. b.

Hann syrgir fúslega. he.nom grieves willingly Hann fyrirgefur fúslega. he.nom forgives willingly ?Honum leiðist fúslega. he.dat is-bored willingly ?Honum sárnar fúslega. he.dat feels/becomes-hurt willingly

Accusative objects also have a very clear meaning associated with them in Icelandic, as opposed to dative objects. Consider the examples in (49) (49) a. b.

Hundurinn hræðir mig. dog-the.nom scares I.acc Maðurinn truflar mig man-the.nom bothers I.acc

The verbs hræða 'scare' and trufla 'bother' are causative verbs which lead to a change of emotion in the object referent. It has therefore been argued that their objects are Experiencers. However, Icelandic does not encode these objects as Experiencers but rather as affected Themes, hence the

160

CASE IN ICELANDIC accusative. Experiencer objects are otherwise encoded with the dative case in Icelandic: (50) a.

b.

Það hefði verið mér til mikils ama og leiðinda. it had been I.dat to much annoyance and boredom.gen 'It would have caused me much annoyance.' Það hefði fallið mér mjög vel. it had pleased I.dat very well 'It would have been very pleasant for me.'

Therefore, the fact that the objects in (49) are encoded with the accusative rather than the dative signals to the Icelandic speaker that these are affected Themes or affected objects rather than Experiencers. It seems rather obvious that even though a given case form is first and foremost syntactic, it does not exclude the same morphological case form from having a meaning. In this section I have argued that the nominative on subjects and the accusative on objects do have a meaning of their own, namely 'be in control' and 'be affected' respectively.

6.10 Summary The basic question posed in this work is the following: "What is the function of morphological case in Icelandic?" As a working hypothesis I have assumed that case is a multifunctional category. The research presented in Chapters 4 and 5 has shown that morphological case is syntactic, semantic and constructional. In this chapter, my hypothesis has been further corroborated by different kinds of case data illustrating that morphological case can be assumed to have various functions in Icelandic. Case functions as a help device to distinguish between the different lexical meanings of verbs. In some constructions dative subjects and objects signal the humanness of the referent. In other constructions the dative is used to denote the referent's status as being equal to the subject (or the speaker). Also, different morphological cases are used to denote different kinds of motion, directed along a path or undirected at a location. Furthermore, the dative can be argued to belong specifically to the Causedmotion construction since objects undergoing movement are very often case-marked as dative case. I also argue in this chapter that the cases are utilized together with agreement marking to distinguish between different subconstructions of both the passive and the ergative constructions. Finally, I have argued that the syntactic cases, the nominative and the accusative, have a meaning of their own, in spite of their main function being 161

CASE IN ICELANDIC syntactic. Nominative case on subjects implies greater control of the event while accusative case on objects indicates affectedness. Finally, the overview in this chapter is not meant to be an exhaustive description of the various functions of morphological case in Icelandic. The research presented in this chapter, together with the research reported in chapters 4 and 5, shows beyond a doubt that morphological case in a language can be a multifunctional category: morphological case in Icelandic is both a syntactic and a semantic phenomenon. The semantic side of morphological case in Icelandic is quite varied, with many semantic distinctions between two cases, at different levels. There is no one major semantic distinction between the cases that cuts through the whole system, instead there are many minor semantic distinctions expressed with the help of morphological case in Icelandic. This chapter is the last chapter of the synchronic part of this thesis, on the function of the morphological cases in Modern Icelandic. I now proceed to investigate morphological case in Old Icelandic.

162

CASE IN ICELANDIC

PART II 7 Case in Old Icelandic and the Development of Case in the Germanic Languages 7.1 Introduction In this chapter I consider morphological case from both a historical and a comparative point of view. I begin by comparing statistics on case for two periods in the history of Icelandic, namely, Old and Modern Icelandic. For that purpose I will carry out an investigation of Old Icelandic texts, identical to the one described in Chapter 4 above on Modern Icelandic (section 7.2). I discuss the established correlations between morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles in our material (section 7.3), and examine the differences in frequencies between Old and Modern Icelandic. I also consider the frequency differences which are due to stylistic factors. In section 7.4 I introduce theories on the development of morphological case and evaluate them against my material. Finally, I explore the predictions of a combined Construction Grammar and Usagebased model analysis on the development of morphological case, and give a unified account of the development of case in the Germanic languages during their recorded periods.

7.2 The Investigation In this section I report on the procedure of the investigation of the Old Icelandic texts. The literary genres of classical Old Icelandic are described in section 7.2.1, and an account is given of which texts were used and how they were chosen. Then, a short description follows on how the texts were tagged, focusing on differences in pronoun usage and orthographic differences between Old and Modern Icelandic (section 7.2.2). Section 7.2.3 discusses the differences and similarities between the Old and Modern Icelandic vocabulary, and section 7.2.4 gives an account of the morphological differences and similarities between the two language stages. Finally, in section 7.2.5, I discuss two different theories of syntactic 163

CASE IN ICELANDIC relations that have been put forward for Old Icelandic. The first one claims that Old Icelandic was non-configurational and did not exhibit the syntactic categories subject and object, in the same way as the modern language does, hence it assumes radical differences between Modern and Old Icelandic. The other theory claims that the differences between the two language stages are minimal, which is supported by the finding that the evidence for configurationality in Modern Icelandic is present in Old Icelandic as well. For the purpose of my study, the differences between the two theories have bearing only upon the question of oblique subjects and whether they existed in Old Icelandic as they do in Modern Icelandic. Section 7.2.5 thus gives an overview of the relevant constructions in Old and Modern Icelandic, and it is concluded that the alleged differences between Old and Modern Icelandic, assumed by the proponents of the nonconfigurationality theory, cannot be justified by the data. Furthermore, the category of Dat-Nom verbs which can select either argument as the subject and either argument as the object is discussed and an outline is given of how they are treated in this investigation. 7.2.1 The Text Material The genres used as text material for the corpus of Modern Icelandic were the following: (1)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Icelandic fiction Translated fiction Biographies and memoirs Non-fiction Teenage and children's literature

Of these five written genres only four can possibly be matched for Old Icelandic, since it is impossible to find texts which match the genre Teenage and children's literature. Also, no records exist of spoken Old Icelandic, unless we consider the conversations in the sagas as evidence for spoken Icelandic, which I do not, since they are preserved as written texts and not as spoken material. The corpus I have compiled for Old Icelandic thus contains texts representative of the first four genres in (1) above. My comparison between Old and Modern Icelandic will thus mostly be restricted to these four genres (section 7.3 below). However, it is not self-evident that the preserved texts can be divided into the genres I am working with. In fact, written genres and their development in Icelandic have not been the subject of much research (see however Hauksson and Óskarsson 1994, and Guðmundsson, Ibsen and

164

CASE IN ICELANDIC Nordal 1996). The Icelandic medieval prose literature can be crudely divided into the following genres (Tómasson and Thorsson 1987:viii-ix): (2)

Family Sagas Tales of Icelanders Sagas of Kings Mythical Sagas Romances Legends/Religious Narrative Contemporary Sagas Sagas of Bishops Sturlunga Non-fiction History Annals Law

This traditional division into genres in Old Icelandic is first and foremost based on the content and literary structure of these texts, and not on any grammatical phenomena. The same holds for the Modern Icelandic genres. However, for the sake of my investigation I will use Old Icelandic texts that show the closest match to my genre definitions for Modern Icelandic. Hence, for the first genre, Icelandic fiction, I will use texts from the Family Sagas (Íslendingasögur) and Tales of Icelanders (Íslendingaþættir), since these are assumed to have been written in Iceland by Icelanders. The Tales are assumed to be either purely fictional or written in connection with the Sagas of Kings (Konungasögur) as they are often preserved together with those. The Family Sagas are either stories of an Icelandic hero and his/her fate, a specific family, or the inhabitants of a particular area. The events described are supposed to have taken place in the period beginning around the settlement of Iceland and ending in the middle of the 11th century. Most texts in these genres are preserved in manuscripts from the 14th century, but are assumed to stem from the 12th and the 13th century. The sample of volumes used is a convenience sample, chosen according to availability at the John Ryland University Library of Manchester, my own home library and the home libraries of my fellow Icelanders in Manchester. However, within each volume, my extracts were randomly chosen. Five texts are Family Sagas (Egi, Gis, Gre, Hra and Njá) and five are Tales (Bra, Ill, Ing, Ótt and Ögm). For Translated Fiction I have used texts from the genre Romantic Sagas (Riddarasögur). These are translations from Latin, German or French, with romantic motifs from contemporary Europe. The Romantic Sagas were either translated in Norway or in Iceland, presumably during 165

CASE IN ICELANDIC the period of the late 12th century to the early 14th century. Norway and Iceland constituted a single language area during this period. The older sagas are preserved in Old Norwegian manuscripts and the younger ones in Icelandic manuscripts. The sagas I have used here are the following: Art, Cla, Elí, Íve, Kar, Möt, Par, Tri, Tró and Þið. The texts used here as parallels to the genre Biographies and memoirs are basically from four medieval genres: Sagas of Bishops (Bis, Guð, Lau, Pál), Vitae activae (Þor), Biographies of secular chieftains (Hra) and other contemporary historical texts/biographies (origo gentis) that are presented in Sturlunga (Dýr, Kak, Ska, Stu). Notice that the extract from Guð used here was taken from Guðmundar saga A which is a conglomeration containing texts from a variety of written sources, such as Íslendingasaga, Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar, Annals and Prestsaga Guðmundar Arasonar (see the prologue in Guð). I have deliberately selected an extract which stems from Prestsaga Guðmundar Arasonar. The sagas in Sturlunga were written during the 13th century, the others in the 13th and 14th century. The non-fictional texts I have used are the following: Bló, Gam, Gyl, Jón, Kon, Lei, Nam, Psy, Stj and Ver. Bló is a text on the human anatomy. Gam is a physiognomic text. Gyl is a mythological text, written by Snorri Sturluson, and included in his textbook/handbook Edda, written for aspiring poets on the arts and skills of poetry. Jón is a law text from 1281. Kon is a philosophical text on ethics. Kon is not an Old Icelandic text but Old Norwegian. However, Kon is preserved in a number of Icelandic manuscripts and was presumably very popular in Iceland. It was most probably written at the beginning of the 13th century when Iceland and Norway still constituted a single language area. Lei is a travel document (Fararbók) written by Nikulás Bergsson in the late 12th century. Nam is an anthropological text written by Ari fróði Þorgilsson, on the settlement of Iceland. Phy is a zoological text from approximately 1200, translated from the Latin Physiologus. Stj is an astronomical text translated from Latin. Ver is a historical text. Since non-fictional texts from the Middle Ages were very seldom orginal works, I have been forced to include translated nonfictional texts in my corpus. To sum up, the four genres I use for the Old Icelandic corpus are the following: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Family Sagas and Tales of Icelanders Romantic Sagas Contemporary Sagas Non-fiction

166

CASE IN ICELANDIC When compiling the corpus I have generally used the same criteria as with the corpus of Modern Icelandic (section 3.4.1 above). However, since it is not generally known who the authors of the Old Icelandic texts are, I may not have been able to follow the criterion that the forty texts should represent forty authors. When the author of a text is known, as for instance in the case of Gyl which was written by Snorri Sturluson, I have not used other texts known to be written by him. All the texts were taken from either critical or diplomatic editions, and will be reproduced here with Modern Icelandic orthography. 7.2.2 The Tagging of the Texts There are certain differences between the Modern Icelandic and the Old Icelandic text materials. For instance, the construction in which prononuns precede proper names (see (3) below) is very common in the Old Icelandic material while this construction is much less used in contemporary written Icelandic. (3)

Þeir Guðmundur fóru út. they Guðmundur.nom went out 'Guðmundur and the others went out.'

I have consistently analysed the pronoun in this construction as a determiner and not as a personal pronoun. It is therefore excluded from the statistics on pronouns in section 7.3.1 below. One graphic difference that exists between Old and Modern Icelandic is that compound words are sometimes written as two words in the diplomatic editions. This is problematic in the texts where the genitive attribute precedes the head noun since it thereby becomes impossible to distinguish between a head noun with a genitive attribute and a compound, since compounds often have the first stem in the genitive case in Icelandic. In these cases I have consistently used Modern Icelandic as a model; words that are compounds in Modern Icelandic have been analysed as compound words and words that would have the opposite word order in Modern Icelandic, i.e. with the genitive attribute following the head noun, have not been analysed as compounds. 7.2.3 The Vocabulary There are, of course, some differences between the vocabulary of classical Old Icelandic and the Modern Icelandic vocabulary. The differerence, however, is mostly cultural, in that phenomena which belonged to the society of the Middle Ages do not necessarily exist today, and hence the words used to denote them are not high-frequency words in Modern Icelandic. Conversely, words used to denote modern phenomena which did 167

CASE IN ICELANDIC not exist in the Middle Ages are, of course, either new in the Icelandic language, or have gained a new meaning. However, according to both Kvaran (1996) and Rögnvaldson (1997), most of the vocabulary assumed to exist in classical Icelandic is still widely used in Modern Icelandic. My examination of this text material has further corroborated this. The differences I detected in the vocabulary were minimal.1 7.2.4 The Morphological Analysis Because of the continuity in the history of the Icelandic vocabulary, it has not been very problematic to tag the Old Icelandic texts. The Old Icelandic case system with four morphological cases has not undergone any changes from classical to modern times. There is evidence of some verbs having changed their case frames but these examples are extremely few compared to the amount of verbs in the material, and many of these will be discussed in section 7.4 below. Also, some nouns have changed their declension class, yielding different endings for different cases. All this has been taken into consideration when tagging the texts. Syntactic arguments were tagged for morphological case according to their case forms. When a case form was identical to another case form, as for instance nom/acc of the neuter declension, verbs and predicates were assumed to assign the same morphological cases to their arguments as they do in Modern Icelandic. 7.2.5 The Syntactic Analysis It has been a matter of debate whether the syntactic categories subjects and objects existed in Old Icelandic to the same extent as they exist in Modern Icelandic. Two main views are discernable in this debate: I

The structurally defined categories of subjects and objects seem to have existed in Old Icelandic, as they do in Modern Icelandic, irrespective of whether the behavioural properties of subjects vs. objects are the same in Old and in Modern Icelandic. That is, some of the properties typical of subjects in the modern language may not have been typical of subjects in Old Icelandic, but subjects and objects can still be distinguished from each other on structural grounds and on the basis of comparison with Modern Icelandic (Rögnvaldsson 1991, 1995, 1996a, Barðdal 1997, 1998, 2000, Maling 1998, Haugan 1998, Barðdal and Eythórsson 2001).

1

It is interesting in this context that my 11-year-old son has recently read Gylfaginning from Snorri's Edda without problems. It should be mentioned, however, that he is very interested in mythology and the subject is therefore not new to him. 168

CASE IN ICELANDIC II

It is impossible to postulate that the categories subject and object existed in Old Icelandic/Norwegian on the basis of the data we have on this language stage. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that these categories did not exist as we know them today. Hence, the subject is defined on morphological and not structural grounds as the argument in the nominative case, and the object is defined as the accusative, dative or genitive argument (Faarlund 1990, 1999, Kristoffersen 1991, 1994, Mørck 1992, Askedal 1999).

A consequence of this latter view is that the object is not independently defined, but defined a priori as non-nominative and hence case-marked as accusative, dative or genitive. Thus, the object is treated as a waste-paper basket category (see Barðdal 2000b:100). In this work, I assume that subjects and objects are structurally distinct from each other, and I refer the reader to my discussion in 3.2 above on Modern Icelandic. As has repeatedly been shown in the literature (Rögnvaldsson 1996a, Barðdal 1997, Barðdal and Eythórsson 2001), the first argument of an ordinary argument structure construction in Old Icelandic behaves very much in the same way as it does in Modern Icelandic. Many of the constructions that exist in Modern Icelandic were also found in Old Icelandic, and all of those listed in 3.2 above exist in Old Icelandic. Most of the verbs that exist in Old Icelandic, together with their verb-specific constructions, still exist in Modern Icelandic. The major difference between these language stages, of relevance to us, is that the inventory of word order constructions in Old Icelandic was larger than in Modern Icelandic. Old Icelandic could have OV word order within the VP. The OV construction differs from the VO construction in that the object precedes the main verb instead of following it (cf. Rögnvaldsson 1996b, Hróarsdóttir 1996) However, this does not pose a problem for the analysis of Old Icelandic since the OV construction is easily recognizable as such. In this work I therefore assume that Old Icelandic has a subject category and an object category, and that these two are structurally different from each other, in roughly the same way as they are structurally different from each other in Modern Icelandic. This brings us, however, to the analysis of the Dative experiencer first construction in Old Icelandic: (4)

Mér er kalt. I.dat is cold 'I'm cold.'

169

CASE IN ICELANDIC In Modern Icelandic the dative experiencer is the first argument of an ordinary argument linking construction and it behaves accordingly. We find the dative experiencer in all the four subject positions listed in 3.2 above for Modern Icelandic, in the relevant constructions. Consequently, the dative experiencer does not behave like an object, or like a second argument of an ordinary argument-linking construction. In this work I assume that the dative experiencer in the Dative experiencer first construction is a subject in Old Icelandic on the following grounds: First, it has repeatedly been shown that the dative experiencer behaves like the first argument of an argument structure construction: since it precedes the verb in an ordinary argument structure construction; since it immediately follows it in the Inversion construction; since it occurs in first position in the Subject-to-subject raising construction; since it occurs between the verbs, and maintains its dative, in the Subject-to-object raising construction; and since it is the unexpressed argument in the Control construction. Examples illustrating this have been published in various papers by Rögnvaldson (1991, 1995, 1996), Barðdal (1997, 1998, 2000a), Maling (1998), Haugan (1998) and Barðdal and Eythórsson (2001); some of these examples will be repeated here for the sake of the argument (a complete list of the verbs selecting for accusative, dative and genitive subjects are listed in Appendix B). I begin with the Subject-to-object raising construction: (5)

a.

Ég lét Svein kaupa bílinn. I.nom let Sveinn.acc buy car-the.acc 'I made Sveinn buy the car.'

b.

Ég lét Sveini líða illa. I.nom let Sveinn.dat feel bad 'I made Sveinn feel bad.'

Modern Icelandic

In (5a) above, the nominative subject of kaupa 'buy' occurs in the position between the raising verb and the finite verb, and it is, thus, case-marked as accusative. However, dative subjects in Modern Icelandic are not casemarked as accusative when they occur in the Subject-to-object raising construction. Thus, in (5b) the dative subject of líða illa 'feel bad' has dative case. The same holds for Old Icelandic; verbs selecting for nominative subjects occur in the Subject-to-object raising construction, as in (5a), whereas verbs selecting for datives as a first argument behave as in (5b) above. For instance, the predicate vera nær skapi 'be in the mood' selects for a dative as a first argument, and thus we get the same pattern as in (5b):

170

CASE IN ICELANDIC (6)

Gunnar sagði sér það vera nær skapi. Old Icelandic Gunnar.nom said himself.dat it be near mood.dat 'Gunnar said that this was what he wanted.' (Rögnvaldsson 1991:373)

Also, in Subject-to-subject raising constructions in Modern Icelandic the nominative subject occurs as the subject of the raising verb. For verbs selecting for dative subjects, the dative subject also occurs as the subject of the raising verb: (7)

a.

Sveinn virðist vera að kaupa bíl. Sveinn.nom seems be to buy car.acc 'Sveinn seems to be buying a car.'

b.

Sveini virðist líða illa. Sveinn.dat seems feel bad 'Sveinn seems to be feeling bad.'

Modern Icelandic

In Old Icelandic the dative first selecting verbs display the same pattern: (8)

En henni lést agasamlegt þykja og kvað eigi kvinna vist but she.dat acted badly feel and said not women.gen place.nom þar vera there be Old Icelandic 'But she acted as though she felt that it was bad and said that this was no place for women.' (Rögnvaldsson 1996a:62-63)

In (8) the dative of the lower verb þykja 'feel' occurs in the position preceding the raising verb, as in (7b) in Modern Icelandic. Regarding the Control construction, in Modern Icelandic the subject of the controlled infinitive is the argument which has been left unexpressed, as in (9) below: (9)

a.

Sveinn gerir ráð fyrir að kaupa bílinn. Modern Icelandic Sveinn.nom makes assumption for to _____ buy car-the.acc 'Sveinn assumes that he will buy the car.'

b.

Sveinn gerir ráð fyrir að líða illa Sveinn.dat makes assumption for to ______ feel bad 'Sveinn assumes that he will feel bad.'

Similar examples have been documented for Old Icelandic: 171

CASE IN ICELANDIC

(10) a.

b.

Hrafn kvaðst sýnast að haldinn væri. Old Icelandic Hrafn.nom said _____ feel that held be 'Hrafn said that he felt that guard should be kept.' Auðunn settist niður [...] og kvaðst þyrsta. Auðunn.nom sat down and said ______ be-thirsty 'Auðunn sat down [...] and said that he was thirsty.' (Rögnvaldsson 1995:17)

The examples in (10) show clearly that the dative in the Dative experiencer first construction in Old Icelandic behaves syntactically like a subject and not like an object since objects can never be left unexpressed in Control constructions (see examples 9-10 in section 3.2.1 above). These examples show beyond doubt that the evidence for dative subjects is no less in Old Icelandic than in Modern Icelandic. Moreover, analysing the dative experiencer as a subject or an object makes certain predictions. Analysing them as objects predicts that they are not the first argument of an argument structure construction, but rather the second argument. Secondly it predicts that they should occur in the canonical object position which is the position following the verb in the VO construction. These predictions are not borne out. The dative experiencer is not the second argument of an ordinary argument construction, neither in the cases of monotransitive verbs (11a) nor of transitive verbs (12a). Secondly, the dative experiencer never immediately follows the non-finite verb (11b and 12b): (11) a. b. (12) a. b.

*Þá var kalt mér. then was cold me *Þá hafði verið (mér) kalt (mér). then had been cold me *Þá bókin leiddist mér. then the-book bored me *Þá hafði bókin leiðst mér. then had the-book bored me

Examples like these, construed by me, are unattested in Old Icelandic (Rögnvaldsson p.c). It seems strange if an object does not behave like an object. Thus, there is a reason not to analyse dative experiencers as objects: it yields incorrect predictions about their syntactic behaviour. Analysing 172

CASE IN ICELANDIC them as subjects, however, makes predictions about their behaviour which are borne out. That behaviour is well attested in the language of the classical Old Icelandic period (see examples (6), (8) and (10) above). It is therefore not a concern whether Old Icelandic has subjects or not, or whether the dative experiencer is a subject or not. The interesting problem is how to analyse the syntactic functions of alternating verbs. Alternating verbs are a group of verbs which select for a human argument in the dative case and a nominative stimulus. These verbs were first discussed by Bernódusson (1982) but the first detailed analysis of those is found in Barðdal (1999a, 2001a). They behave in such a way that either argument can be the subject and either can be the object, but not at the same time: (13) a.

b.

Konunni hafði borist hundur. woman-the.dat had gotten dog.nom 'The woman had received a dog.' Hundur hafði borist konunni. dog.nom had gotten woman-the.dat 'A dog had been received by the woman.'

The same pattern has been noticed for passives of Nom-Dat-Acc ditransitive verbs (Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson 1985): (14) a.

Konunni var gefinn hundur. woman-the.dat was given dog.nom 'The woman was given a dog.'

b.

Hundur var gefinn konunni. dog.nom was given woman-the.dat 'A dog was given to the woman.'

The following Modern Icelandic examples show that either argument can be left unexpressed in Control constructions: (15) a.

b.

Það er ágætt að berast hundur. it is good to ____ get dog.nom 'It is good to receive a dog.' Það er ágætt að berast konunni. it is good to ____ get woman-the.dat 'It is good to be received by the woman.'

173

CASE IN ICELANDIC (16) a.

b.

Það er ágætt að vera gefinn hundur. it is good to ____ be given dog.nom 'It is good to be given a dog.' Það er ágætt að vera gefinn konunni. it is good to ____ be given woman-the.dat 'It is good to be given to the woman.'

Thus, an examination of the behaviour of these verbs in Modern Icelandic shows that the leftmost argument is the argument that behaves like a subject in any given instance, i.e. when the dative argument is the leftmost argument it passes all the subjecthood tests, whereas when the nominative argument is the leftmost argument it likewise passes all the subjecthood tests (see an examination and examples in Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson 1985 for passives and Barðdal 1999a, 2001a for alternating verbs). Such alternating verbs also exist in Faroese (see Barnes 1996), and it has been argued that they also existed in the earlier stages of the Germanic languages (see Barðdal 1998 on Old Scandinavian, and Allen 1995, 1996 for Old English). For Old Icelandic, consider the following word order constructions: (17) a. b. c. d. e. f.

X X Dat Nom X X

Aux Aux Aux Aux Aux Aux

Nom Dat Dat Nom

Dat Nom

V V V V V V

Nom Dat Nom Dat

The word order patterns in (17) do not pose a problem since either both arguments occur between the finite and the non-finite verb, with the subject to the left and the object to the right, or one of the arguments is always in the rightmost position of the sentence, immediately following the finite verb, hence that argument behaves like the canonical object. However, there are more word order constructions available to Dat-Nom/Nom-Dat verbs in Old Icelandic : (18) a. b. c. d.

Nom Dat Dat Nom

V V Aux Aux

Dat Nom Nom Dat

V V

It is only in constructions like in (18) that it is impossible to know whether these are instances of the ordinary argument-linking construction or of the 174

CASE IN ICELANDIC topicalization construction. I have therefore, for these cases, categorically analysed the leftmost argument as the subject and the rightmost argument as the object. These examples are, however, not very frequent in our material. The instances of possible Dat-Nom/Nom-Dat verbs total 16. Out of 16 tokens 6 have some of the unambigous orders in (17), while 10 are ambigious. Of those 10, six have the Dat-Nom order (18b,c) and four have the Nom-Dat order (18a,d). Therefore, irrespective of which choice I would have made regarding the argument structure of these 10 verbs, our statistical results will not be affected to any great degree because the examples are so few. Dat-Nom/Nom-Dat verbs should therefore not constitute a major source of skewing.

7.3 Frequencies In this section I present the frequencies that result from my investigation. I begin by examining the amount of nominatives, accusatives, datives and genitives across word category in the different genres and compare it to the corresponding figures for Modern Icelandic (7.3.1). Secondly, I will investigate the distribution of case across syntactic functions (7.3.2). Thirdly, I will examine the distribution of morphological case across thematic roles in subsection 7.3.3. Fourthly, in subsection 7.3.4, I will investigate the distribution of thematic roles across syntactic functions. Finally, in subsection 7.3.5, I will illustrate the co-occurrences of the three variables. Each section contains a comparison between Old and Modern Icelandic. 7.3.1 Morphological Case and Word Category In Chapter 4 above, section 4.2.4, the frequencies of the different case forms across word category are discussed and compared between my corpus and a similar corpus, from 1991, of 500,000 words. This is done to establish that the distribution of case in my small corpus of 25,000 words is the same as the distribution in the larger corpus. The results of that comparison showed that my corpus is indeed very representative of Modern written Icelandic. In the following, I present frequency figures for the different cases across the three word categories, nouns, personal pronouns and adjectives in my Old Icelandic corpus, comparing these with the corresponding figures for the Modern Icelandic sample. Since the two corpora are equal in size it is possible to compare the absolute figures; however, Table 7.1 also includes percentages for each morphological case:

175

CASE IN ICELANDIC Table 7.1: Morphological case of nouns across genres in Old and Modern Icelandic. Genre Case MIce OIce f % f % 1 Nom 326 28.5 418 38.2 Family Acc 411 35.9 303 27.7 Sagas Dat 327 28.5 244 22.3 vs. Gen 81 7.1 129 11.8 Icelandic fiction 1,145 1,094 2 Romantic Sagas vs. Translated fiction

Nom Acc Dat Gen

3 Contemporary Sagas vs. Biographies and memoirs

Nom Acc Dat Gen

4 Non-fiction

330 311 303 74

32.4 30.5 29.8 7.3

1,018 381 394 467 209

26.2 27.2 32.2 14.4

477 306 476 261

Nom Acc Dat Gen

31.4 20.1 31.3 17.2

1,514 1,422 1,573 625 5,134

482 344 265 177

38.0 27.1 20.9 14.0

1,268

1,520 Total

33.5 30.6 24.95 10.95

1,050

1,451 Nom Acc Dat Gen

352 321 262 115

513 308 363 172

37.8 22.7 26,8 12.7

1,356 29.5 27.7 30.6 12.2

1,765 1,276 1,134 593

37.0 26.8 23.8 12.4

4,768

The distribution of nominatives, accusatives and datives is relatively even across genres in Modern Icelandic, around 30%. In genre 3 Biographies and memoirs, and more so in genre 4 Non-fiction, the frequency of accusatives is lower, whereas datives are higher in frequency. This is also found in the Old Icelandic material; the rate of accusatives is lower than the rate of datives, but only in genre 4 Non-fiction. The main difference between Old and Modern Icelandic is, however, that the distribution of nominatives, accusatives and datives is not even across genres. Nominatives always rate higher in the Old Icelandic texts than in the Modern Icelandic texts, followed by accusatives, and datives rate lowest, 176

CASE IN ICELANDIC apart from in genre 4 Non-fiction, where we find the same pattern as in the Modern Icelandic texts, i.e. datives rate higher than accusatives. Regarding the frequency of genitives, it seems that the clear-cut three-part division for Modern Icelandic into Fiction, Biographies and Non-fiction (see 4.2.4 above) does not apply for Old Icelandic. Genitives divide relatively evenly on all genres. Thus it seems that there are fewer differences between genres in Old Icelandic than in Modern Icelandic. To sum up, a clear pattern is visible in the texts in both stages of Icelandic, in that in genres 1-3 Icelandic fiction, Translated fiction and Biographies and memoirs, the distribution of nominatives, accusatives and datives in Modern Icelandic is relatively even. For Old Icelandic, however, the nominative rates highest, followed by the accusative, with the dative rating lowest of the three. For genre 4 Non-fiction, however, both stages of Icelandic have accusatives rating much lower than datives. I will return to this below. Let us consider the figures for adjectives in all four genres: Table 7.2: Morphological case of adjectives in Old and Modern Icelandic. Genre Case MIce OIce f % f Total Nom 578 51.0 560 Acc 181 15.9 191 Dat 297 26.2 150 Gen 79 6.9 34 1,135

% 59.8 20.4 16.2 3.6

935

The internal rating between case forms of nouns is also found for adjectives in Modern Icelandic; nominatives rate highest, followed by datives, with accusative adjectives rating lowest of the three. However, in Old Icelandic, the figures for the accusative and dative are reversed, with accusatives following nominatives, and datives rating lowest of the three. Let us now consider personal pronouns: Table 7.3: Morphological case of pronouns in Old and Modern Icelandic. Case MIce OIce f % f Total Nom 873 58.2 1,059 Acc 212 14.1 256 Dat 327 21.9 445 Gen 88 5.8 51 1,500

% 58.5 14.1 24.6 2.8

1,811

The proportional amount of pronouns and the internal ranking between them is the same for Modern and Old Icelandic, however with datives 177

CASE IN ICELANDIC rating 3% higher in Old Icelandic than in Modern Icelandic, at the expense of genitives which rate 3% lower in Old Icelandic. Let us combine pronouns and nouns into one group and compare the two stages of Icelandic: Table 7.4: Morphological case of nouns and pronouns in Old and Modern Icelandic. Case MIce OIce f % f % Total Nom 2,387 36.0 2,824 42.9 Acc 1,634 24.6 1,531 23.3 Dat 1,900 28.7 1,579 24.0 Gen 713 10.7 644 9.8 6,634

6,579

It is interesting that accusatives and genitives rate very similarly in the two periods, while nominatives rate much higher in Old Icelandic and datives rate much lower. I will discuss the differences in the proportion of case forms, between Old and Modern Icelandic in the following subsections. However, first I will consider the results of Table 7.3, which shows that datives rate higher than accusatives, for personal pronouns. Let us examine the distribution of pronouns across syntactic functions in order to try to explain this. Consider Table 7.5: Table 7.5: Nouns/pronouns across syntactic functions in Old and Modern Icelandic. Case Acc Dat MIce OIce MIce OIce MIce OIce MIce OIce N N P P N N P P Sub Obj IObj Prep

7 475 5 682

8 561 2 499

11 131 0 64

8 177 2 64

32 136 8 1181

29 154 34 763

51 89 33 137

111 88 69 152

When comparing the real figures for our material, Table 7.5 reveals that the distribution of accusative subjects is relatively even across word category, i.e. 7 instances were nouns and 11 instances were pronouns in Modern Icelandic, while of 16 instances in Old Icelandic 8 were nouns and pronouns. The distribution, however, is not as even for dative subjects, they more often occur as pronouns than as nouns in both Old and Modern Icelandic. This most likely reflects the fact that a higher portion of dative subjects than accusative subjects is human. It is interesting, however, that dative subjects are proportionally more often pronouns in Old Icelandic

178

CASE IN ICELANDIC than in Modern Icelandic (compare 111 instances vs. 51). This may in part be due to the fact that the distribution between nouns and pronouns in Old and Modern Icelandic is not even. A higher proportion of arguments in the Old Icelandic texts are pronouns while the proportion of noun arguments is lower. For Modern Icelandic the proportions are different, as is evident from Table 7.6. Table 7.6: Nouns and pronouns in Old and Modern Icelandic. MIce f % f

OIce %

Pronouns Nouns

1,500 5,134

22.6 77.4

1,811 4,768

27.5 72.5

Total

6,634

100

6,579

100

Let us return now to Table 7.5. Approximately 22-24% of accusative objects are pronouns, while 36-40% of dative objects occur as pronouns, perhaps because dative objects are more often human than accusative objects (compare verbs like hjálpa 'help' and others which select for a dative object). However, since the real figures for dative objects are lower than the real figures for accusative objects this does not affect the internal ranking of ratings in favour of datives. Regarding Indirect objects, they are almost always datives and pronouns. Finally, the amount of prepositional phrases in dative case occurring as pronouns is higher than the corresponding figures for accusatives. The percentages are not very different, 9-11% for accusatives and 11-16% for datives, but since dative prepositional phrases are more frequent than accusatives, this yields higher real figures. This examination has shown that the higher amount of dative pronouns over accusative pronouns is due to dative subjects being more frequent than accusative subjects, dative indirect objects being more frequent than accusative indirect objects, and finally because dative prepositional phrases are more frequent as pronouns than accusative prepositional phrases. This is true for both Old and Modern Icelandic. Further, the higher frequency of dative pronouns in Old Icelandic than in Modern Icelandic is thus due to the fact that dative subjects and indirect objects are more frequent in Old than Modern Icelandic. As already stated above, an interesting feature of Table 7.5 is that dative subjects are proportionally more often pronouns in Old Icelandic than in Modern Icelandic. A more detailed investigation of the distribution of pronouns across syntactic functions, verb classes and genres is needed to properly account for this.

179

CASE IN ICELANDIC 7.3.2 Morphological Case and Syntactic Functions I now consider the distribution of morphological case across syntactic categories for my four Old Icelandic genres. Due to limitations of space I will not reproduce long tables of statistics for Modern Icelandic but refer the reader to the corresponding tables in Chapter 4 above and in Appendix A: Table 7.7: Morphological case forms across syntactic functions in the four Old Icelandic genres. Nominative Accusative Dative Genitive 1 Family Sagas

2 Romantic Sagas

3 Cont. Sagas

4 Non-fiction

Subject Object IObject Prep. Attrib. Adv. Pred.

613 28

Subject Object IObject Prep. Attrib. Adv Pred.

566 14

Subject Object IObject Prep. Attrib. Adv Pred.

556 20

Subject Object IObject Prep. Attrib. Adv Pred.

568 9

5 185 152

108

78

90

165

23 4

1 237 2 141 15 5 6 160 1 179 20 9

5 193 1 112 8 19

64 66 36 205 11 7 2

1 28

29 65 47 222 11 3 1

1 13

31 51 13 231 7 5

6 9

19 70 10 286 7 5

2 6

68 32 5

51 53 3 2

73 73 2 1

58 97 2

It is interesting to note that the figures for subject and object in Old Icelandic seem to have the closest correspondence in Modern Icelandic in

180

CASE IN ICELANDIC the figures of genre 6 Spoken Icelandic. In general, genre 6 in Modern Icelandic has the highest amount of subjects compared to the other genres, a high rate of dative subjects compared to the other genres, and a high rate of nominative objects compared to the other genres. These are distinguishing properties of the spoken Icelandic material. This is also a characteristic of the Old Icelandic material. Therefore, the Old Icelandic material, as a whole, shows greatest resemblance to genre 6 Spoken Icelandic of all the genres in Modern Icelandic. This may indicate that the sentences in the Old Icelandic texts are shorter than in the corresponding Modern Icelandic texts. Let us compare the distribution of morphological case across syntactic functions for Old and Modern Icelandic. I begin with the subject: Table 7.8: Subjects in different case forms in genres 1-4. MIce f % Nom 1,969 94.4 Acc 20 1.0 Dat 88 4.2 Gen 9 0.4 Total 2,086 100

OIce f 2,305 93.1 18 143 10 2,477

% 0.7 5.8 0.4 100

The difference between Old and Modern Icelandic regarding the case of the subject is that dative subjects are comparatively more frequent in Old Icelandic than in Modern Icelandic, at the expense of nominative subjects. However, the figures for Old Icelandic are very similar to the figures for spoken Modern Icelandic (93.1% nominative subjects and 6% dative subjects, see Table 4.10 above). The relative frequency of accusative subjects has been stable, and so has the relative frequency of genitive subjects. The type frequency of accusative subjects in our material is 13 for Old Icelandic and 14 for Modern Icelandic. These figures clearly do not support any claims that accusative subjects are disappearing in Icelandic (see Jónsson 1997-98). Also, the dative subjects in Modern Icelandic are represented by 48 types, while the corresponding figure for Old Icelandic is 72. This is therefore a real difference in our statistics, which might suggest a real difference between the two stages of Icelandic. Finally, it is amazing that genitive subjects have remained so stable, considering how rare they are. The 10 vs. 9 examples from both Old and Modern Icelandic are represented by only 7 types. To sum up, if we consider the relative percentages in Old and Modern Icelandic in Table 7.8 and compare these with the percentages for different genres of Modern Icelandic in Table 4.10 we see that genre 6, the spoken material, gives the closest match to the Old Icelandic material. Let us now consider the statistics for objects:

181

CASE IN ICELANDIC Table 7.9: Percentages of objects in different case forms in Old and Modern Icelandic. MIce (1-6) MIce (1-4) OIce f % f % f % Nom 110 5.8 28 3 71 6.2 Acc 1,268 67 660 69.4 776 67.2 Dat 478 25.3 238 25 252 21.8 Gen 38 2 25 2.6 56 4.8 Total 1,894 951 1,155

A clear difference between the two corpora of genres 1-4 we are comparing in Table 7.9 is that nominative objects and genitive objects are more common in Old Icelandic, whereas both accusative and dative objects are less common in Old Icelandic. However, comparing the object statistics with the total figures for all genres (not only 1-4) in Modern Icelandic (the first column), we see that the only difference between Old and Modern Icelandic is that dative objects have been on the increase and genitive objects on the decrease. Let us now compare the amount of prepositional phrases in the two stages of Icelandic: Table 7.10: Percentages of prepositional phrases in different case forms. MIce OIce f % f Acc 772 33 584 Dat 1,357 58 944 Gen 210 9 250 Total 2,339 100 1,778

% 32.8 53.1 14.1 100

The proportional rate for accusative prepositional phrases has remained stable while dative prepositional phrases have increased at the expense of genitives. However, if we compare with the total figures for Modern Icelandic and not only genres 1-4 (see Table 3.14 above) it seems that both accusative and dative prepositional phrases have become proportionally more frequent (35,4% acc, and 56,6% dat) at the expense of genitive prepositional phrases (8%). Considering the frequency of subjects, objects and prepositional phrases in general, the following figures emerge:

182

CASE IN ICELANDIC Table 7.11: Subjects, objects and prepositional phrases across genres (1-6) and language stages. Subj Obj Prep MI OI MI OI MI OI 1 560 683 260 307 574 456 2 625 597 280 329 513 425 3 454 599 245 240 643 414 4 447 594 166 278 609 483 5 700 223 520 6 1,715/572 720/240 1,001/334

The general tendency seems to be that objects are more frequent on a per word basis in Old Icelandic than in Modern Icelandic (except in genre 3 Biographies and memoirs vs. Contemporary Sagas), and that prepositional phrases are fewer in Old Icelandic than in Modern Icelandic, on a per word basis. However, there is a simple explanation for the tendencies just reported: they are presumably due to stylistic factors. Consider Diagram 7.1. The square line in the diagram shows the frequencies from genres 3-4, i.e. the non-fiction Modern Icelandic genres. The diamond line shows all other Modern Icelandic genres, while the triangle line shows the Old Icelandic material. 700

MIce/Fict

600

MIce/Nonfict

500

OIce

400 300 200 100 0 Subj

Obj

Prep

Diagram 7.1: The relation between real frequencies of subjects, objects and prepositional phrases in different genres. The diagram clearly shows that there is a relation between the amount of subjects, objects and prepositional phrases, in that the higher the amount of subjects and objects, the lower the amount of prepositional phrases. Conversely, the fewer subjects, the more prepositional phrases we find in the text. Obviously, in a text with many subjects, there are also going to be many verbs and predicates, and therefore many sentences/clauses. In contrast, in a text with fewer subjects, we might expect fewer predicates, 183

CASE IN ICELANDIC and hence longer and more complicated sentences, since the amount of words is the same in both texts. Therefore it is expected that texts with fewer subjects display more prepositional phrases than a text containing more subjects. Such a text will, again, have fewer prepositional phrases. Therefore, the low amount of prepositional phrases in the Old Icelandic material is presumably due to shorter sentences than in the Modern Icelandic material. This difference is therefore stylistic and does not reflect a real difference between different stages of Icelandic. The real differences that seem to exist between Old and Modern Icelandic are the following: Dative indirect objects are used less often in Modern Icelandic (42 tokens) than in Old Icelandic (106 tokens), which again may show that the ditransitive construction has become less productive in Icelandic. Also, dative objects and dative prepositional phrases have increased at the expense of genitive objects (Table 7.9 above) and genitive prepositional phrases (Table 7.10). Further, dative attributes are less used in Modern Icelandic (11 instances) than in Old Icelandic (36 instances). These seem to be the differences between my two corpora that either cut through all our genres or cannot be explained by stylistic factors, and thus seem to genuinely reflect differences in the use of case between Old and Modern Icelandic. The other differences that exist between the two corpora seem to be stylistically motivated; these are the high real figures for subjects in general, the high frequency of dative subjects, the high frequency of nominative objects on a per word basis in Old Icelandic compared to Modern Icelandic, and finally the high frequency of direct objects in Old Icelandic, at the expense of prepositional phrases. I now proceed to explore the correlation between morphological case and thematic roles in Old Icelandic. 7.3.3 Morphological Case and Thematic Roles The statistical correlation between morphological case and thematic roles is shown in Table 7.12 below for the Old Icelandic material. A division into genres is found in 7.12 in Appendix A. For an overview of the thematic roles used in this survey I refer the reader to Chapter 3 above:

184

CASE IN ICELANDIC Table 7.12: Morphological case across thematic roles and genres in Old Icelandic. Nom Acc Dat Gen Agent 1,052 Cause 19 Theme 147 361 103 18 Content 122 570 210 84 Station 772 1 5 6 Experiencer 105 5 67 Cognizer 66 2 14 Perceiver 51 2 Beneficiary 28 7 204 4 Goal 104 41 106 Reason 2 6 9 Source 6 1 163 1 Instrument 39 Comitative 22 50 Location 78 295 19 Path 66 12 4 Manner 12 88 Measure 2 4 3 Time 6 143 55 9

The general tendencies outlined in section 4.3.1 above on Modern Icelandic are by large also valid for old Icelandic. That is, there is a strong tendency for Agents, Causes, Stations and Perceivers to be encoded as nominatives, and Instruments and Sources to be encoded as datives. Furthermore, in the majority of cases Beneficiaries, Comitatives, Locations and Manners are encoded as datives, and Contents, Paths and Times are in a clear majority of cases in accusative case. However, Themes, Experiencers and Cognizers are more evenly distributed among the morphological cases. One difference between Old and Modern Icelandic, detectable in our material, is that Goals are in the majority of cases encoded as accusatives in Modern Icelandic while in Old Icelandic they are more evenly distributed amongst accusative and genitive case. This observation might explain the findings in the preceding sections that genitives are more commonly used in Old Icelandic than in Modern Icelandic. Another difference between Old and Modern Icelandic is that a higher proportion of nominatives are Agents in the Old Icelandic material at the expense of the amount of Stations. Station subjects are more common than Agent subjects in Modern Icelandic. It therefore seems to be the case that the Old Icelandic genres are more "actional" than the corresponding Modern Icelandic genres. It is also clear from Tables 4.14 and 7.12 in Appendix A that Experiencers, Cognizers and Perceivers rate higher in the fictional material of both Old and Modern Icelandic and the spoken material of Modern Icelandic, and lower in the non-fiction material.

185

CASE IN ICELANDIC Finally, there are generally fewer Locatives in the Old Icelandic material than in the Modern Icelandic material. 7.3.4 Syntactic Functions and Thematic Roles I now proceed to investigate the correlation between syntactic functions and thematic roles in Old Icelandic and the possible differences between Old and Modern Icelandic. Consider Table 7.13: Table 7.13: Thematic roles and syntactic functions in Old Icelandic. Genre 1 Subject Object IObject PrObject Agent 1,052 Cause 18 1 Theme 180 350 6 93 Content 65 690 231 Station 784 Exp. 177 Cognizer 82 Perceiver 53 Ben. 52 69 104 18 Goal 251 Reason 77 Source 6 165 Instrument 13 26 Comitative 72 Location 10 378 Path 70 Manner 100 Measure 2 Time 6 26

Adv.

4 12 7 22

Generally speaking, the distribution of thematic roles across syntactic functions is similar for Old and Modern Icelandic. However, there are some differences to comment on. Beginning with the similarities, Agents, Causes, Stations, Experiencers, Cognizers and Perceivers are always subjects (the very few examples of the Agent expressed as a prepositional phrase in the passive voice are here encoded as Source). Reasons, Goals, Comitatives, Sources, Locatives, Manners and Paths are most often prepositional phrases. The role Content divides into subjects, objects and prepositional phrases. The Themes and Beneficiaries divide into subjects, objects, indirect objects and prepositional phrases. Instruments are distributed on objects and prepositional phrases. Times, Measures and Paths are distributed on prepositional objects and adverbs. Turning now to the differences between the Old and Modern Icelandic material, the Beneficiary is most frequently an indirect object in Old Icelandic while it is most frequently a direct object in Modern Icelandic (see Table 4.16 in Chapter 4). As noted in 7.3.2 above, indirect 186

CASE IN ICELANDIC objects are in general more common in Old Icelandic than in Modern Icelandic, and since indirect objects are most often Beneficiaries, it is to be expected that Beneficiaries most often link to indirect objects in Old Icelandic. Another difference, noticeable in my material, is that Agents are more common in Old Icelandic than in Modern Icelandic (see Tables 4.16 and 7.13 in Appendix A; compare the figures in Table 7.14, where E/C/P stands for Experiencers/Cognizers/ Perceivers). Table 7.14: The amount of subjects across thematic roles and genres in Old and Modern Icelandic. Role Agents Stations E/C/P Others MIce G f % f % f % f Total 1 225 40.3 179 32.1 95 17 59 558 2 231 37 181 29 151 24.2 62 625 3 143 31.5 202 44.5 55 12.1 54 454 4 71 15.9 254 57 27 6 94 446 5 277 39.6 167 23.9 163 23.3 93 700 6 458 25.4 703 39 458 25.4 181 1,800 OIce f % f % f % f Total 1 322 47 175 25.6 109 15 78 684 2 317 53.1 125 20.9 89 14.9 66 597 3 280 46.7 166 27.7 67 11.2 87 600 4 133 22.4 318 53.5 47 8 96 594

Comparing the frequencies of Agent subjects vs. Station subjects for the two periods of Icelandic, we find that Agents rate higher than Stations in the Old Icelandic material, while Stations rate higher than Agents in the Modern Icelandic material, except for in genre 4 Non-fiction, where the frequencies are reversed. For the Modern Icelandic material Agents rate higher than Stations in the fictional and spoken genres. I conclude that Agent subjects generally rate high in fictional texts, and low in non-fiction. In this respect, therefore, genre 3 Contemporary Sagas in Old Icelandic resembles the fictional genres more than the non-fictional genres. Also, comparing the frequencies of Experiencers/Cognizers/Perceivers in the different genres in Old and Modern Icelandic, we find that they generally rate higher in Modern Icelandic than in Old Icelandic. They rate lowest in genre 3 and 4, which are the non-fictional genres. Similar tendencies are observable for the Old Icelandic genres in that Experiencers/Cognizers/ Perceivers rate highest in genres 1 Family Sagas and 2 Romantic Sagas, lower in genre 3 Contemporary Sagas and lowest in genre 4 Non-fiction. These figures show clearly that there are certain contentual similarities between the genres in Old and Modern Icelandic, even though the figures for the distribution of the morphological cases across word category, in 187

CASE IN ICELANDIC section 7.3.1, were not identical to the corresponding figures for Modern Icelandic. 7.3.5 Morphological Case, Syntactic Functions and Thematic Roles I now summarize my results for all the three variables, morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles, in the four genres of the Old Icelandic material. Consider Table 7.15 (comparable to Table 4.18 in Chapter 4). Most of our conclusions for Modern Icelandic also hold for Old Icelandic. In short, there is a correlation between syntactic functions and morphological case, in that most subjects are nominative, most objects are accusative, most prepositional phrases are dative and most attributes are genitive. Also, there exists a correlation between syntactic functions and thematic roles in that Agents, Causes, Stations, Experiencers, Cognizers and Perceivers are almost always subjects. Goals, Sources, Comitatives, Reasons, Times, Locations and Paths are almost always prepositional phrases. The Instrument is evenly distributed among objects and prepositional phrases. However, Themes, Contents and Beneficiaries are more evenly distributed among syntactic functions. They can be subjects, objects, prepositional phrases, and indirect objects. Finally, there is a correlation between thematic roles and morphological case. Agents, Causes, Stations are mostly nominatives, presumably a consequence of the fact that they are always subjects. Instruments are always dative, and Beneficiaries are almost always dative. Both of these last two correlations exist across syntactic functions. Locations are dative in the majority of cases. There are, however, certain differences between the Old and Modern Icelandic material: the most frequent nominative is an Agent in the Old Icelandic material and not a Station as in Modern Icelandic. Dative indirect objects are also more frequent in the Old Icelandic material, and genitive objects are generally fewer. Finally, the groups of accusative subjects and genitive subjects are more heterogeneous in Old Icelandic than in Modern Icelandic, in that they are distributed among more thematic roles in Old Icelandic. Table 7.15 reveals that accusative subjects are distributed amongst five thematic roles in Old Icelandic while they represent only three roles in Modern Icelandic (Table 4.18 in Chapter 4). Similarly, genitive subjects are distributed amongst three roles in Old Icelandic, whereas they are only found with one role in Modern Icelandic. Thus, it seems that these two groups have become semantically more uniform.

188

CASE IN ICELANDIC Table 7.15: Morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles. NOMINATIVE subject Agent 1,052 Object Content Station 772 Theme 1 Theme 145 Cause Exp 105 Cogn 66 Content 54 Perceiver 51 Ben 28 Cause 18 Time 6 Source 6 ACCUSATIVE Subject Theme 7 Prep. Obj Goal Exp 5 Content Content 3 Time Cogn 2 Loc Station 1 Theme 59 Path Object Content 473 Comitative Theme 291 Manner Ben 3 Reason10 Ben Adv Time 54 Source 1 Path 10 Measure Mesure 1 IObject Theme 4 DATIVE Subject Exp 67 Prep. object Loc Theme 27 Source Ben 24 Content Cogn 14 Manner Content 5 Com Station 5 Time Perc 2 Goal Reason Object Content 101 Instr Ben 66 Theme Theme 52 Path Instr 13 Ben Loc 10 Measure IObject

Ben Theme

104 2

Adv

189

Time Measure Loc

68 1

104 94 89 78 56 22 12 4 1

283 163 104 88 50 45 41 29 26 22 12 10 1 10 3 2

CASE IN ICELANDIC

GENITIVE Subject Station Content Theme Adv

Measure Loc Path Time

6 3 1

Object

Content Theme 5

47

Prep. object

Goal Reason Content Loc Theme Time Ben Path Source

106 38 33 17 12 8 4 2 1

3 2 2 1

7.3.6 Conclusions The major differences between case in Old and Modern Icelandic are the following: Modern Icelandic has fewer genitive objects, fewer genitive prepositional phrases, fewer dative indirect objects, fewer dative attributes, more dative prepositional phrases, and dative objects have also increased in frequency. The material also shows that dative subjects are less frequent in Modern Icelandic. Whether this is due to stylistic factors or whether it reflects a real change from Old to Modern Icelandic is not clear from this statistical investigation. There is, thus, a clear tendency in the material for some of the morphological cases to become functionally more uniform; genitives are used less as objects and prepositional objects and more as nominal attributes; datives are used less as nominal attributes and more as direct objects and prepositional objects. Datives are also less used as indirect objects and more as direct objects and objects of prepositions.

7.4 Theories on the Development of Case In this section I will discuss the different theories on the diachronic development of morphological case, and I will measure them against my material. I begin by examining the traditional theory that the Germanic languages have developed from being synthetic to becoming analytic, and that this has ultimately caused the case system to break down (subsection 7.4.1). I will investigate whether there may be a relation between rigidity of word order and morphological case (subsection 7.4.2). I discuss a hypothesis concerning the relation between morphological case and the emergence of the definite article in Scandinavian (subsection 7.4.3). Then, I will investigate whether a change from lexical case to structural case is

190

CASE IN ICELANDIC detectable in our Icelandic material (subsection 7.4.4). Finally, I will explore the predictions of Construction Grammar and the Usage-based model and give a unified account of the development of case in the Germanic languages (subsection 7.4.5), together with a Usage-based account of the "blended" construction (subsection 7.4.6). In subsection 7.5 I summarize my conclusions. 7.4.1 Synthetic to Analytic A change from a synthetic stage of a language to an analytic stage entails that morphological or synthetic structures are replaced by periphrastic structures. For case and argument structure this change should, for instance, imply that the dative indirect object is replaced by a prepositional phrase, and that direct objects are replaced by prepositional objects. More generally it is assumed that morphological case is a synthetic property and the lack of it is an analytic property. Such a change, from synthetic to analytic, is assumed to have taken place in the Scandinavian languages (see Jahr 1994, 1995, Faarlund 1999, Askedal 1999), with the subsequent loss of morphological case in Mainland Scandinavian. This analysis makes certain predictions about changes in case and argument structure from Old Icelandic to Modern Icelandic, or more generally from Old Scandinavian to Modern Scandinavian. These are listed below: (19) • Morphological case should be lost. • Ditransitive constructions should have decreased in frequency. • Objects should have been replaced by prepositional objects. These predictions are not uniformly borne out for the Scandinavian languages. Morphological case has not been lost in either Icelandic or Faroese. It has, however, been lost in the other languages in the Scandinavian language family. The Ditransitive construction has, indeed, decreased in frequency in Icelandic, and has in many cases been replaced by the prepositional variant (i.e. the Transfer construction): (20) a.

b.

[...] ef þú skyldir skera Vésteini bróður mínum skyrtuna. if you.nom should cut Vesteinn.dat brother my shirt-the.acc '[...] if you were to make a shirt for my brother Vésteinn.' (Gís 1987: 859-860) Ef þú ættir að skera skyrtu handa Vésteini bróður mínum. if you.nom should to cut shirt.acc for Vésteinn.dat brother my.dat 'If you were to make a shirt for my brother Vésteinn.' 191

CASE IN ICELANDIC

The Modern Icelandic corresponding sentence to (20a) would be (20b) with a prepositional variant instead of an indirect object. Also, the frequencies in Table 7.14 and 4.18 above show clearly that indirect objects have decreased drastically in frequency from Old to Modern Icelandic. However, that is not true for the other Germanic languages. Swedish seems to have more verbs occurring in the ditransitive construction than Icelandic has, and English also seems to have a much more productive ditransitive construction than Icelandic: (21) a. b. (22) a.

b

(23) a. b.

I just made you some food.

English

I'll throw you the ball. Och jag som har precis lagad dig lite mat! and I that have just made you some food 'And I just made you some food.'

Swedish

*Jag kastar dig bollen. I throw you boll-the 'I'll throw you the ball.' *Ég eldaði þér smá mat. I.nom cooked you.dat some food.acc

Icelandic

*Ég henti þér boltann/boltanum. I.nom threw you.dat ball-the.acc/ball-the.dat

Given that the development from synthetic to analytic entails loss of morphological case and the replacement of the ditransitive with a prepositional variant, it is predicted that Icelandic should have a more productive ditransitive construction than both Swedish and English. It is also predicted that Swedish and English should behave in the same way, in this respect, since both languages have lost their morphological case. These predictions are not borne out. The examples above show clearly that morphological case and analytic/synthetic structures must not be in complementary distribution in languages or language stages. There are, however, examples of verbs occurring with direct objects in Old Icelandic but with prepositional objects in Modern Icelandic: (24) a.

[...] því að engu hefur hún bergt þann dag. ... because nothing.dat has she.nom tasted that day.acc. 192

CASE IN ICELANDIC '[...] because she had not tasted anything that day.' (Cla 1951:45-47) b.

Hún hefur ekki bergt á neinu. she.nom has not tasted on anything 'She has not tasted anything.'

Modern Icelandic

In Old Icelandic, the verb bergja 'taste' was constructed either with a direct object or with a prepositional object, but in Modern Icelandic only the prepositional variant exists. Things are, however, not so simple, as state of affairs can be the reverse in the history of Icelandic, such that verbs which could occur with a prepositional phrase in Old Icelandic only select a direct object in Modern Icelandic. One such verb is heilsa 'greet': (25) a.

Hann heilsaði á konung. he.nom greeted on king-the.acc 'He greeted the king.'

b.

Hann heilsaði konungi. he.nom greeted king-the.dat 'He greeted the king.'

c.

*Hann heilsaði á konung. he.nom greeted on king.acc

(Ótt 1987:2205-2206) Modern Icelandic

Finally, as was pointed out in section 7.3.2, there are no differences in frequency between Modern and Old Icelandic regarding the amount of prepositional phrases and direct objects that cannot be shown to be related to stylistic factors. That is, prepositional phrases do not seem to have been less common in Old Icelandic than in Modern Icelandic. These facts seriously undermine any claims that Icelandic has undergone a change from synthetic to analytic. If Modern Icelandic is of the analytic type it must also have been of the analytic type during the Middle Ages. Further, since some languages, like Swedish and English, have lost their morphological case but retained the Ditransitive construction to a higher degree than Icelandic, the loss of morphological case in these languages cannot be attributed to a change from synthetic to analytic either. Moreover, convincing evidence has been put forth against a diachronic relation between synthetic and analytic language stages. Schwegler (1990) shows that in the Romance languages both types of changes can be found, from more synthetic to periphrastic and from periphrastic to synthetic. Such evidence further sustains my claim that a

193

CASE IN ICELANDIC development from synthetic to analytic cannot be assumed for the Scandinavian languages. 7.4.2 Case and Word Order It is a widely assumed hypothesis, ever since, at least, Falk and Torp (1900), that there is an inherent causal relation between the rigidity of a word order in a language, and whether the language has a morphological case system or not (Sapir 1921, Venneman 1974, Kemenade 1987, Lehmann 1985). That is, the more morphological cases the freer the word order, and the fewer (or no) morphological case distinctions the more rigid the word order in the language: (26) • The word order becomes more rigid. • Morphological case is lost. Many researchers have suggested that the loss of case marking in Scandinavian is related to the word order becoming more rigid in these languages (Faarlund 1987, 1990, 1999, Askedal 1999, Anward and Swedenmark 1997). There are, however, two languages within the Germanic language family that pose serious problems for such an account, and these are Icelandic and Dutch. Icelandic has certainly undergone a change from Old to Modern Icelandic, similar to the other Scandinavian languages, in that the word order has become more rigid, despite the fact that Icelandic has not lost its case system. This change is most clearly manifested in lack of OV in Modern Icelandic. Moreover, Dutch has a much freer word order than Icelandic, it has for instance retained the OV word order, and various scrambling possibilities, which are non-existent in Modern Icelandic, but Dutch has nevertheless lost its case system. My conclusions are, therefore, that while there may very well be a typological tendency for case languages to have freer word order than caseless languages, that cannot, however, be regarded as a direct causal relation. Hence, the development into more rigid word order in Scandinavian causing the loss of the case system does not seem like a feasible explanation for the break-down of the morphological case system in Scandinavian and West-Germanic. 7.4.3 Case and the Definite Article It has also been proposed that the loss of morphological case in Scandinavian is related to the emergence of the definite article (Holmberg 1994, Anward and Swedenmark 1997): (27) • A definite article emerges. • Morphological case is lost. 194

CASE IN ICELANDIC

This hypothesis is partly based on the typological fact that many case languages do not exhibit a definite article, such as the Finno-Ugric languages, and it is in part based on the fact that the emergence of the definite article in Scandinavian seems to have taken place at the same time as the case marking disappears. There are, however, two languages within the North Germanic language family that pose a serious problem for this analysis, and these are Icelandic and Faroese. Icelandic and Faroese have both acquired a definite article, presumably at roughly the same time as the definite article was acquired in Mainland Scandinavian. Hence, the emergence of the definite article seems to be a common Scandinavian innovation. However, neither Icelandic nor Faroese has lost its case system, thus it cannot be assumed that there is a direct causal relation between the emergence of the definite article and the break-down of the case system in Mainland Scandinavian, despite the fact that these changes seem to occur at roughly the same time. It certainly seems that language changes take place in bundles, in that many changes have been shown to take place simultaneously (Delsing 1995, Falk 1997, Platzack 1987). To me it seems a reasonable assumption that language changes occur gradually but that they are documented as more abrupt changes because of the reluctance of the writing system to immediately reflect innovations and/or changes. It is a plausible scenario that conservative features of the written language can be maintained by scribes to certain extents, but that at some point, the residues found in writing are going to be too remote in time for a new generation of scribes to carry the tradition on. At that point, the conservative tradition will be broken and the writing system will reflect a more synchronic system (cf Allen 1995:212). This hypothesis is, in my view, worth some further research. 7.4.4. Structural vs. Lexical Case Many scholars have argued that the break-down of the case system in Germanic is a manifestation of structural case replacing lexical case (see Askedal 1999 for Scandinavian, Falk 1997 for Swedish, Delsing 1991 for Swedish, Allen 1995 and Lightfoot 1999 for English, Eythórsson 2000 for case changes in Icelandic). Such an analysis can have the following manifestations in the modern languages: (28) • Loss of morphological case. • Structural case forms replace lexical case forms: Acc/Dat/Gen Subj > Nom Subj Dat/Gen Obj > Acc Obj • PPs replace morphological case 195

CASE IN ICELANDIC

The replacement of lexical case by structural case can involve a complete break-down of the morphological case system, with case distinctions, at best, only present in pronouns (English, Dutch, Mainland Scandinavian). It can also entail nominative becoming the subject case, accusative becoming the object case, dative becoming the case for indirect objects and genitive the case for nominal attributes (German). It is also predicted that direct objects should be replaced by prepositional phrases. These predictions are not borne out for Icelandic, nor for Faroese (see Malmsten 2001 for Faroese). There are plenty of examples in the history of Icelandic of accusative subjects changing into dative subjects (Dative substitution), there are also examples of nominative subjects changing into dative subjects (see 5.3.4.1.1 above for examples). Furthermore, verbs which could occur together with either accusative or dative objects in Old Icelandic can only occur with dative objects in Modern Icelandic, and verbs which could occur with either accusative or dative objects can only occur with accusative objects in Modern Icelandic: (29) a.

[...] en fyrir því að [...], glataði hann höfuð sitt, but for it that ... lost he.nom head his.acc '[...] but because of that [...] he lost his head,' (Phy 1991:46-48)

b.

Hann hafði glatað höfði sínu. he.nom had lost head his.dat

c.

*Hann hafði glatað höfuð sitt. he.nom had lost head his.acc

(30) a.

[...] er ég hefi gjörla athugt þeirra siðum. which I.nom have thoroughly examined their habits.dat '[...] whose habits I have thoroughly examined.' (Kon [no year]:75-76)

b.

Ég hef athugað þessa siði. I.nom have examined these habits.acc

c.

*Ég hef athugað þessum siðum. I.nom have examined these habits.dat

(31) a.

Modern Icelandic

Modern Icelandic

[...] að enginn riddari stenst honum. that no knight.nom withstands he.dat (Íve 1979:95-99) '[...] that no knight is his equal.' 196

CASE IN ICELANDIC b.

Enginn riddari stenst hann. no knight.nom withstands he.acc

c.

*Enginn riddari stenst honum. no knight.nom withstands he.dat

Modern Icelandic

(29) is an example of alleged structural accusative being replaced by alleged lexical dative with the verb glata 'lose', in Icelandic. With the verbs athuga 'examine' and standast 'withstand' in (30-31) it is the opposite. Moreover, on the structural vs. lexical case account genitive objects are expected to be replaced by accusative objects because genitive on objects is lexical whereas accusative on objects is structural. Such examples exist. Examples as in (32) are well known from the history of Icelandic. (32) a. b.

Ég þarf þess. I.nom need it.gen

Old/Modern Icelandic

Ég þarf þetta. I.nom need this.acc

Modern Icelandic

However, it is not expected that genitive objects change into nominative objects. Such a change is also found from Old to Modern Icelandic (examples 32a and 33a are constructed by me): (33) a.

b.

Henni batnaði veikinnar. she.dat got-better illness-the.gen 'She recovered from the illness.'

Old Icelandic

Henni batnaði veikin. she.dat got-better illness-the.nom 'She recovered from the illness.'

Modern Icelandic

On a structural vs. lexical case account it is expected that this lexical genitive would change into a structural accusative (cf. Falk 1997:77-78), but that is not the case in the history of Icelandic. Hence, the predictions of the structural vs. lexical case account are clearly not borne out in Icelandic. It should be pointed out here that ways have been developed within Generative Grammar to account for the fact that objects can be casemarked as nominative (see Yip, Maling and Jackendoff 1987, Sigurðsson 1989 and subsequent work, Jónsson 1996). Such an explanation is needed as it is predicted that nominative objects do not exist, since allegedly nominative is the structural case for subjects and accusative is the structural 197

CASE IN ICELANDIC case for objects. These accounts rely on the idea that structural case has been assigned to the first argument in the clause which is not lexically case-marked. Thus, in order to be able to account for the existence of nominative objects, the concept of structural case as being divided into nominative on subjects and accusative on objects has been abandoned. Yip, Maling and Jackendoff (1987:224) make a note of this themselves. The problem with their account is that it predicts that constructions with lexically case-marked subjects should not receive structural accusative case on their objects. As we shall see in 7.4.6 below, this prediction is not borne out in the history of the Germanic languages. Finally, since Icelandic has retained its case system, while Modern Scandinavian and English have not, it is predicted that Icelandic should have direct objects to a higher degree than Scandinavian and English, which again should have a higher degree of prepositional objects. However, there are plenty of examples of the opposite: (33) a.

b.

(34) a.

b.

Ég hringi í þig. I.nom ring in you.acc 'I'll phone you.'

Icelandic

Ég horfði á sjónvarpið. I.nom watched on television-the.acc 'I watched television.' Jag ringer dig I ring you 'I'll phone you.'

Swedish

I watched television

English

Thus, the prediction that morphological case will be replaced by prepositional objects does not seem to be borne out for Icelandic, Swedish and English. 7.4.5 The Predictions of Construction Grammar and the Usage-based Model On a Construction Grammar account syntactic constructions are assumed to have a meaning of their own. According to the Usage-based model it is expected that syntactic schematic constructions, higher in type frequency, will attract new and already existing verbs, resulting in high type frequency constructions increasing in frequency. The reason is that the syntactic constructions highest in type frequency are also the constructions that are most open semantically. Thus, verbs occurring in low-frequency schematic 198

CASE IN ICELANDIC constructions may be attracted by high-frequency schematic constructions, resulting in low-frequency constructions decreasing in frequency. Low type frequency constructions are semantically more restricted and should therefore either exist as verb-class-specific constructions or as verb-specific constructions, but not as semantically open, syntactically schematic constructions. Low-frequency verb-class constructions may gradually disappear unless they are high in token frequency. If they are they might be preserved as verb-specific constructions, and if they attract new items this should be on the basis of similarity. Therefore, if two lowfrequency constructions exchange items between themselves, it is to be expected that the construction lower in type frequency will lose items to the construction higher in type frequency, and again this is expected to happen on the basis of similarity. Case structure is a part of a syntactic form (SYN-part) of a schematic construction. Syntactic schematic constructions are, for instance, NomAcc, Nom-Dat, Nom-Gen, Acc-Acc, Dat-Nom etc. in Icelandic. Thus, in a language with many alternative case constructions, if a verb is attracted by a construction which has higher type frequency it is expected that this verb does not necessarily replace one morphological case with another, but rather that the verb exchanges the whole syntactic case frame for another case frame. It has been noted by various scholars that morphological case seems to have been lost at the same time as massive lexical borrowing is found, due to contact situations. This is discussed for Old English by Allen (1995), for Old Swedish by Wessén (1929, 1992), and for Scandinavian in general by Jahr (1994, 1995). Wessén argues that the case system was lost because the loan-words could not easily adjust to the inflectional system. However, Norde (1994) shows that the morphophonemic structure of the loan-words cannot have constituted a problem for the noun inflection. It is a fact, however, that the break-down of the case system in both English and Scandinavian coincides in time with massive lexical borrowings and, thus, that the correlation between the loss of morphological case and the contact situation has not been satisfactorily accounted for in the literature. On a Construction Grammar/Usage-based model approach, it is predicted that a rapid change in the vocabulary may speed up the development, precisely because the bulk of new verbs will be attracted by the high type frequency constructions, thereby lowering the type frequency of the low-frequency constructions, increasing the chances of them becoming extinct. To sum up, the predictions of Construction Grammar and the Usagebased model for the development of case in Icelandic are the following:

199

CASE IN ICELANDIC (35) • The high type frequency constructions will attract new verbs. • The high type frequency constructions will attract verbs from the low frequency constructions. • Rapid changes in the vocabulary will speed up the development. • In the course of time, the low-frequency constructions will decrease in their proportional type frequency because they will not attract new verbs, precisely because of their low type frequency and their restricted semantics. • If a low type frequency construction attracts new items, it will be on the basis of similarity alone. • If a construction disappears from the language, it will be the construction lowest in type frequency. • The Dat-Gen construction will disappear first from Icelandic, because it is lowest in type frequency. I will now consider the predictions of Construction Grammar and the Usage-based model in the light of the development of case in the Germanic languages. I will begin with Icelandic (7.4.5.1), then account for the development in Swedish (7.4.5.2), next English (7.4.5.3) and finally in German (7.4.5.4). 7.4.5.1 Icelandic The construction lowest in type frequency in Old Icelandic must be the Dat-Gen construction, as I only know of two verbs that occurred in it in Old Icelandic; these are the verbs batna 'get better' and létta 'abate (of illness)'. This construction is also the only case construction that has disappeared. Not surprisingly, batna and létta were subsumed by the more common Dat-Nom construction, which had much higher type frequency. This has presumably happened because of these two case constructions being similar in both form and meaning. The Dat-Gen construction can be regarded as a subconstruction of the more general Dative subject construction:

Figure 7.2: The Dative subject construction and its subconstructions. 200

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Examples of the verb-specific construction in Figure 7.2 are shown in (35) below: (35) a.

Mér líkar þessi matur. I.dat like this food.nom 'I like this food.'

b.

Honum batnaði veikinnar. he.dat got-better illness-the.gen 'He got better from the illness.'

c.

Mér geðjast að Guðmundi. I.dat like at Guðmundur.dat 'I like Guðmundur.'

d.

Mér virðist [Guðmundur líta vel út]. I.dat seems Guðmundur.nom look well out 'To me it seems that Guðmundur looks fine.'

In contemporary Icelandic, the Dat-Gen construction does not exist, therefore a corresponding figure for Modern Icelandic would not contain the Dat-Gen construction. It is also a fact that verbs which occur in one of these subconstructions readily occur in some of the other sub-constructions. The verb líka 'like' is one example; it can both occur in the Dat-Nom construction and in the Dat-PP construction: (36) a.

b.

Mér líkar Guðmundur. I.dat like Guðmundur.nom 'I like Guðmundur.' Mér líkar við Guðmund. I.dat like with Guðmundur.acc 'I like Guðmundur.'

More generally, examining changes in object case from Old to Modern Icelandic (extracted from Tables 4.18 and 7.14), it turns out that the Genitive object construction is the least common object construction in Old Icelandic, and it is also the one that that has shrunk in frequency from Old to Modern Icelandic.2 The same is true for the Genitive prepositional 2

In this section, my discussion of frequency is mostly based on the token frequency figures in Tables 4.18 and 7.14 above. However, I have studied the instances of the low 201

CASE IN ICELANDIC construction. When considering the subject constructions. the constructions lowest in frequency, i.e. the Genitive subject construction and the Accusative subject construction have remained stable from Old to Modern Icelandic. However, an examination of the verbs occurring in these constructions reveals that both of these constructions have become semantically more uniform, in that the verbs that occur in them, in Modern Icelandic, form a semantically more coherent group than in Old Icelandic (again compare Tables 4.18 and 7.14). These groups may have decreased in type frequency over the centuries, but since the material used here is so small it is difficult to detect changes in the type frequency of these constructions. However, a glance at the verbs that occur in the Genitive subject construction in Old Icelandic reveals that at least three of the seven types have fallen into disuse. This might suggest that this construction has lower type frequency in Modern Icelandic than in Old Icelandic. Furthermore, the Accusative object construction has remained stable in Icelandic while the Dative object construction has increased in frequency. According to a count reported by Maling (1999), there are approximately 750 verbs that select for dative objects in Modern Icelandic. This has to be viewed in the light of the fact that the single-language Icelandic dictionary, Íslensk orðabók (1988), contains approximately 8,500 verb entries (Kristín Bjarnadóttir, p.c.). Given that the type frequency of the Dative object construction is relatively high in Icelandic, we might expect it to show some degree of productivity (see also Chapter 5 above). It may seem strange that the Accusative object construction has remained stable while the Dative object construction shows an increase in frequency. However, for a group as large as dative objects (30-35%) we may expect some degree of productivity (see Ragnarsdóttir, Simonsen and Plunkett 1999 on the differences in the productivity of the different past form constructions of verbs in Icelandic and Norwegian correlating with their type frequency). It has been noticed that verbs conventionally occurring together with the Accusative subject construction have started occurring in the Dative subject construction (usually called either Dative Sickness or Dative Substitution), see subsection 5.3.4.1.1 above. This change started taking place in the late 19th century (Halldórsson 1982). This is expected given that the Accusative subject construction is both much lower in type frequency than the Dative subject construction, and it can be divided into two subconstructions, i.e. one subconstruction for Experiencer verbs (37a) token frequency constructions in my material and found that there is a correlation between token frequency and type frequency in this investigation, in that high token frequency reflects high type frequency and vice versa. This is, however, only true for the written material and not the spoken material. Therefore, the discussion of frequency in this section indicates both token and type frequency. 202

CASE IN ICELANDIC and another one instantiated by predicates denoting changes in nature (37b): (37) a. b.

Mig dreymdi ömmu. I.acc dreamt grandma.acc Ána lagði. river-the.acc froze

On a Construction Grammar account we would expect the Experiencer verbs to be attracted by the Dative subject construction, precisely because these two constructions (partly) share the same semantics. This is further sustained by the fact that the Dative subject construction is not simply subsuming the Accusative subject construction, together with all its verbs, rather that the nature verbs have been attracted by the Nominative subject construction (see Jónsson 1997-98, and Eythórsson 2000). Since the Dative subject construction is not primarily a construction for verbs denoting changes in nature we would obviously not expect these verbs to start being associated with the Dative subject construction. Also, we would expect these Experiencer verbs to be attracted by the Dative subject construction and not the Nominative subject construction, precisely because the Dative subject construction is much more restricted in its semantics than the Nominative subject construction, and these two constructions have very similar semantics, in that the Dative subject construction is a construction primarily used for non-agentive verbs, while the Nominative subject construction is a semantically open construction, which can be instantiated by verbs from all semantic fields. Finally, both the Dative IObject construction and the Dative subject construction have decreased in frequency from Old to Modern Icelandic, both in type and in token frequency. Given that the Dative subject construction is a low-frequency construction compared to the Nominative subject construction, this is not unexpected. Also, the function of the indirect object has not necessarily been taken over, but is at least being shared with some independent PP constructions, containing the prepositions til 'to', fyrir 'for' and handa 'for', depending on verb classes. The Dative IObject construction is certainly not a high-frequency construction in Old Icelandic. These constructions are verb-class-specific constructions, which occur only with certain groups of verbs. To conclude, Construction Grammar together with the Usage-based model can easily account for changes in case marking from Old to Modern Icelandic.

203

CASE IN ICELANDIC 7.4.5.2 Swedish If a language has argument structure constructions that are synonymous or very similar in meaning, there are, logically, two ways for the language to deal with that: either by eliminating one of the two case constructions from the language, or by merging them into one. Icelandic seems to have taken the former way in that the Dat-Gen construction has fallen into disuse, and the verbs in the Accusative subject construction have a tendency to occur either with the Dative subject construction or the Nominative subject construction. However, Swedish, and Mainland Scandinavian in general, have gone the other way. In those languages the case constructions have merged and consequently disappeared. According to Delsing (1991, 1995), the first constructions to disappear in Swedish were the infrequent Genitive subject and Genitive Object constructions. This had already taken place before 1350. Next to disappear is the now lowest type frequency Accusative subject construction. That happens around 1400. Around 1450 all case endings have been lost, entailing that the case distinction between nominative and dative subjects is lost for nouns, and the case distinction between accusative and dative objects is also lost for nouns. At this point in time, Swedish only exhibits two case forms on pronouns, namely, nominative and non-nominative. The only case frames that are now left in Swedish are the Nominative subject construction and the former Dative, now Oblique, subject construction, although this is only visible on pronouns. According to Falk (1997) the number of different verbs occurring in the Oblique subject construction is less than 40, while the Oblique passive construction is much higher in type frequency. Thus, the 38 verbs occurring in the Oblique subject construction either become associated with the Nominative subject construction or fall into disuse during the 16th and 17th century. The last group to become associated with the Nominative subject construction is the ditransitive verbs in the Oblique passive construction. That happens around 1800. It is interesting to note, however, that despite the low type frequency of the Oblique subject construction, there are still documented cases of it being mildly productive. Falk (1997:51) reports on such examples: (38) a.

b.

Än sidhan honom iäfwadhe tok han til at sionka (ca. 1420) but since he.obl doubted took he to sink 'But since he doubted he started sinking' ty ær thz sa som mik tænker therefore is that such as I.obl think 'That is why it is as I think'

204

(ca. 1500)

CASE IN ICELANDIC The verbs iäfwa 'doubt' and tænka 'think' are conventionally associated with the Nominative subject construction in Old Swedish. That these verbs occur with the Oblique subject construction is presumably due to the lexical meaning of these verbs, and the fact that they are compatible in meaning with the semantics of the Dative subject construction. To sum up, Swedish, and Mainland Scandinavian in general, have dealt differently with synonymous argument structure constructions than Icelandic has. Swedish has merged the argument structure constructions, with the subsequent loss of the morphological case system, while in Icelandic the relevant argument structure constructions have fallen into disuse (compare the Dat-Gen construction). To conclude, according to the predictions of Construction Grammar and the Usage-based model, the constructions lowest in type frequency should be the ones in most danger of disappearing. This prediction is borne out in Swedish, in that the most infrequent constructions disappeared first and the least infrequent constructions disappeared last. 7.4.5.3 English According to Allen (1995:211-220) the first case construction to disappear in English was the Genitive object construction. That happened in two stages: first the genitive of the impersonal Acc/Dat-Gen disappeared, then the genitive of the Nom-Gen construction. Notice that this is identical to the development in Icelandic where the Dat-Gen construction has already disappeared while the Nom-Gen has decreased in frequency from Old to Modern Icelandic. Secondly, the distinction between accusative and dative is completely lost around 1200 for nouns. It is, however, maintained for pronouns. This is the situation for both objects and subjects. Thirdly, the Oblique passive construction has become very unusual in the late 14th century. Finally, the Oblique subject construction remains in use until the 14th century, starts declining in the 15th century and is completely lost in the 16th century. The productivity of the Oblique subject construction has been amply documented in Middle English (see Allen 1995, Seefranz-Montag 1983), in that the construction attracts both borrowed and already existing verbs. Allen (1995:250) reports on a modal verb occurring in the Oblique subject construction instead of the Nominative subject construction3: 3

I have also come across similar things with the modal verb mega 'may' in Old Icelandic texts. In some cases the Dative subject is clearly due to the lower verb being a Dative subject verb, but that is not true for all examples. Consider for instance: i)

[...] fyrir flví a› má mér fla› er yfir margan gengur [...] ... for it that may I.dat that.nom which over many.acc goes 205

CASE IN ICELANDIC

(39) Wherefore us oghte [...] have pacience. why we.obl should ... have patience

Middle English

There is one difference between the development of case in Swedish and English; that is the internal order of the loss of the Oblique subject construction and the Oblique passive construction. In Swedish, the loss of the Oblique subject construction precedes the loss of the Oblique passive construction while the order is reversed in English (this reverse order of events has also been reported by Knudsen 1956:36-41 for Danish). On a Usage-based model account we will expect this to be a manifestation of differences in type frequency of those groups in the two languages, that the Oblique passive construction with ditransitives had higher type frequency in Swedish than in English, and vice versa for the Oblique subject construction. Apart from that, the internal order of distinctions being lost is the same. That is consistent with an overall assumption that the type frequency of the different verb groups may have been relatively similar in the different Germanic languages, with some minor deviations to be expected. A possible explanation for differences in type frequency of a construction in two languages might be that the vocabulary is not replaced by a new vocabulary at the same rate in the two languages. Obviously, extensive borrowing will increase the type frequency of the most productive construction, and hence reduce the type frequency of other less productive constructions. Another explanation for differences in type frequency of constructions in different languages might be that verbs may be borrowed or coined in a particular language for one semantic field at a higher rate than for another semantic field. That may result in differences in type frequency between constructions. 7.4.5.3 German German differs from Swedish and English in that it has maintained its morphological case, like Icelandic and Faroese. However, the development detected in Icelandic, that the constructions lowest in type frequency disappear from the language, and the other constructions, also low in type frequency, become fewer in the language, is also evident in German. However, the development has gone much farther than in Icelandic. '[...] because I have to endure what many others have had to [...] (Hra 1987:1405-1406) In this case, it appears that the verb mega 'may' behaves like a main verb which selects for a Dative subject. The question arises, of course, whether such instances of mega should be regarded as modal or not. 206

CASE IN ICELANDIC The Nom-Acc, Nom-Dat and Nom-Gen constructions still exist in Modern German, but the Nom-Dat construction is only instantiated by approximately 140 verbs, while the corresponding figure for Modern Icelandic is 750 verbs (Maling 1999). According to Seefranz-Montag (1983) the genitive object of the Acc/Dat-Gen construction merged with the nom/acc forms in the 13th century. Furthermore, most of the verbs occurring in the Accusative subject and Dative subject constructions have either fallen into disuse in German or they have been attracted by the Nominative subject construction. However, during the Middle High German period there was a considerable variation between the different constructions, in that the impersonal verbs could readily occur with the Accusative, Dative and the Nominative subject construction. The Dative subject construction attracted many verbs from the Accusative subject construction, and the Accusative subject construction has, likewise, attracted (somewhat fewer) verbs from the Dative subject construction (1983:162). These facts clearly show that the Accusative and the Dative subject constructions must have been very similar in meaning since verbs were so easily exchanged between them. Finally, German has maintained the Dative passive construction. This is parallel to the Swedish situation in that the Dative subject construction disappears first, and then the Dative passive construction, while the order is the opposite in English and Danish. The situation in Modern High German is such that the Accusative/ Dative subject construction has more or less fallen into disuse. Thus, subjects in German are in the nominative case, objects in German are in the accusative case, indirect objects in German are in the dative case and nominal attributes are in the genitive case. Hence, all the high-frequency case constructions have been maintained in Modern High German, at the expense of the low type frequency constructions which have more or less disappeared. It therefore seems that the development in German is similar to the development in Icelandic, except for the fact that in German the development has gone farther. 7.4.6 The "Blended" Construction In the process of morphological case being lost, many Germanic languages develop the so-called "blended" construction, where the nominative object of the former Dat-Nom construction (realized as Obl-Nom at this point in the development) turns up in the accusative. The following examples serve to illustrate this: (40) for þi ðat him areowe ow for that that him.obj pity you.obj 'so that he would pity you' (Allen 1996:10) 207

Middle English

CASE IN ICELANDIC (41) Honom thykte sik wara j enom lystelikom stadh he.obl thought himself.obl be in an pleasing place.obl 'He felt as if he was in a pleasant place.' Old Swedish (ca. 1440) (Falk 1995:77) (42) Mær dámar væl hasa bókina. I.dat like this book.acc 'I like this book.' (Barnes 1986:33)

Modern Faroese

Allen reports that traditionally this blend has been regarded as an accident in the prevalent language material. She argues, however, and quite convincingly so in my opinion, that the blend deserves a better explanation than that. Given that the blend seems to arise independently in the Germanic languages, it certainly does not seem like an accident, but requires a systematic explanation. Allen herself argues that the blend emerges when the case-marking hierarchy disappeared, assuming that the case-marking hierarchy disappeared on the basis of the existence of the blend, thus her account is not independently motivated. Falk (1997:77-78), however, argues that the blend is a consequence of structural case being assigned to objects. Thus, she does not assume that the first argument of a clause not lexically case-marked receives structural nominative. The problem with both these analyses is that they do not address the question why only the object should be "structurally" case marked and not the subject. In other words, why should subjects retain their "lexical" case marking longer than objects? Since the case of the subject and the object does not change at the same time, why doesn't a Nom-Nom construction emerge instead of an Obl-Obl? I will return to the matter below. It may seem as if the "blended" construction is predicted not to arise on a Construction Grammar account since it entails a mixture of constructions, i.e. Dat-Nom and Nom-Acc. Thus, it may seem as if the emergence of the "blend" speaks against the assumption that case frames belong to the SYN-part of constructions, or that constructions like Dat-Nom and Nom-Acc should be assumed to exist at all. It should, however, be pointed out that the "blend" does not exist in a case language like Modern Icelandic, it has only been documented in languages in which the morphological case distinctions are in the process of being lost, i.e. in the relevant languages there are only a couple of choices for subjects and a couple of choices for objects. The morphological case distinctions are, however, not being lost in Faroese, but the facts of Faroese are even more complicated than this because the subject of the Dat-Nom has also been documented to appear in the nominative case:

208

CASE IN ICELANDIC (43) Ég dámi væl hasa bókina. I.nom like this book.acc 'I like this book.'

Modern Faroese (Barnes 1986:33)

It is thus not clear whether the object has independently taken on the accusative or whether the verb is simply occurring in another case frame. However, as I have already stated in Chapter 2, there are basically two ways of looking at morphological case within Construction Grammar: first, as a case pattern which constitutes a part of the form of the construction, such as Nom-Acc and Dat-Nom. Secondly, morphological case can be regarded as a construction of its own, such as a Nom subject construction and an Acc object construction, nested within a larger construction, namely, the Nom-Acc construction. Thus, the fact that one of the case forms changes first and then the other, instead of these changing simultaneously, is not incompatible with Construction Grammar, since subjects and objects are also regarded as independent constructions. However, within Radical Construction Grammar, where subjects and objects are assumed not to exist as constructions of their own, the "blend" would be treated as a change of form due to semantic similarities. In other words, the Dat-Nom construction has taken on the Acc of the Nom-Acc construction because of the semantic similarities of the lower arguments in the Nom-Acc and Dat-Nom, since Acc is a structural property of the Content/Theme in a Nom-Acc construction. I now return to the question why the Nom object of the Dat-Nom construction is replaced with an Acc object while the Dat subject remains unaffected. This is a legitimate question as it is not a priori given that the object changes its case form first and the subject later, since the reverse is true for many other languages (John Payne, p.c). On a Usage-based model account it is predicted that the case form which is lower in type frequency will be replaced first, whereas the case form higher in type frequency may be replaced later. As I have already outlined for Icelandic in section 7.5.4.1 above, the Nom object only exists in the Dat-Nom constructions whereas the Dat subject construction can select for different types of complements. Thus, the Dat subject construction is higher in type frequency than the Nom object construction and is thereby predicted to maintain its case form longer. That prediction is borne out for the "blended" construction in the history of the Germanic language, thus sustaining the validity of the Usagebased model. 7.4.7 Conclusions In this section I have given an overview of different theories on the development of case in Germanic. First, I have examined the hypothesis that loss of case is due to a development from synthetic to analytic. The 209

CASE IN ICELANDIC predictions of that theory have here been shown not to be borne out for Scandinavian. Also, I have discussed theories that assume that the loss of morphological case in Scandinavian/Germanic is due to the word order becoming more rigid and hence taking over the function of signalling grammatical relations. However, I have found that the predictions of that theory are not borne out either, since Icelandic and Dutch do not conform to the predicted pattern. I have also investigated whether the loss of morphological case may be due to the emergence of the definite article in Scandinavian and have found that both Icelandic and Faroese constitute counterexamples to such a claim. The theory that loss of case is due to lexical case being replaced by structural case is not borne out either for Icelandic, since I have found changes in case structures of verbs in both directions, i.e. lexical case seems to replace structural case and structural case seems to replace lexical case in the history of Icelandic. Finally, I have outlined a Construction Grammar/Usage-based model approach to the loss of morphological case and given a coherent analysis of the development in four Germanic languages: Icelandic, Swedish, English and German. My analysis is based upon the idea that different case constructions are either synonymous or very similar in meaning, and that logically there are two ways for languages to eliminate this synonymy: either by the high frequency constructions attracting the verbs conventionally occurring in the less frequent constructions, thereby causing the less frequent constructions to fall into disuse, or by merging two synonymous constructions into one, with a subsequent loss of morphological case. English, Dutch and Mainland Scandinavian have taken the latter alternative, while Icelandic, Faroese and German have gone the former way. Also, German (and perhaps Faroese?) have developed much farther in this direction than Icelandic. Moreover, there seems to be a correlation between the rate of vocabulary replacement and the case development. That is also predicted on a Construction Grammar/Usage-based model account, since it relies heavily on the type frequency of the constructions in question. English leads the development with the most extensive borrowings of all the languages being considered here, beginning in the 10th century. Swedish has also been involved in much language contact, with massive Low German influence beginning in the late 13th century. German has not had the extensive replacement in the vocabulary that both English and Swedish have, but it has nevertheless been more influenced than Icelandic, which is the least influenced language of the four. Obviously, the faster the vocabulary is replaced, the sooner the high type frequency constructions will increase in type frequency, and the sooner the low-frequency constructions will decrease in type frequency. Thus, on a Construction Grammar/Usage-based model account it is predicted that the language 210

CASE IN ICELANDIC which has been subject to most foreign influence will lead the development, and it is expected that the language which has been the least influenced will lag behind in the development. That prediction is borne out for Germanic. Finally, I have discussed the emergence of the "blended" construction in the history of the Germanic languages, a construction which is formally a mixture of the Dat-Nom and Nom-Acc constructions. Hitherto, the explanations offered in the literature for the blend have either assumed that it is an accident in the prevalent language material, or that it demonstrates that "lexical" case is being replaced by "structural" case. These explanations, however, have not offered any systematic explanation as to why the case of the object should be replaced but not the case of the subject, or why the case of the object was replaced first, since "lexical" case was being replaced by "structural" case anyway. I have proposed an analysis based on the Usage-based model where it is predicted that the argument containing a case form which is lower in type frequency will be replaced first and then the case form of the other argument higher in type frequency. This prediction is borne out for the blend in the history of Germanic, thus sustaining the validity of the Usage-based model.

7.5 Summary In this chapter I have examined case from a diachronic and a comparative point of view. I started by carrying out an investigation on the frequency of morphological case in an Old Icelandic text corpus. The investigation is described in section 7.2. I have examined the correlations of morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles in Old Icelandic (section 7.3) and compared the figures with corresponding figures from Modern Icelandic. My main conclusions are that, by and large, my results for Modern Icelandic also hold for Old Icelandic, although with some minor differences. I have detected differences that seem to be real differences between Old and Modern Icelandic, and differences that are due to stylistic factors. The main differences between Old and Modern Icelandic are that in Modern Icelandic the amount of genitive objects is lower, the amount of genitive prepositional phrases is lower, the amount of dative attributes is lower, the amount of dative objects is higher, the amount of dative prepositional phrases is higher, and the amount (or frequency) of dative subjects is (presumably) lower. The amount of accusative and genitive subjects has remained stable. However, these last two groups have become more uniform semantically. 211

CASE IN ICELANDIC The differences due to stylistic factors are the following: there is a higher frequency of subjects in general on a per word basis, nominative objects were more common, and prepositional phrases were less common in Old Icelandic. This is clearly correlated with sentences being shorter and simpler in the Old Icelandic texts, resulting in a larger amount of subjects, more objects and fewer prepositional phrases. Also, the Old Icelandic genres show greatest resemblance to the fictional genres of Modern Icelandic, and resemble the non-fiction genres least. Moreover, the Old Icelandic genres are more "actional" than the Modern Icelandic genres, containing more agentive predicates and fewer Experiencer and stative predicates. In section 7.3 I examined different theories of the development or the loss of morphological case in Scandinavian and/or Germanic. I have discussed and rejected the theories that the loss of case is due to a development from synthetic to analytic, due to the word order becoming more rigid and taking over the role of signalling grammatical relations, that loss of case is due to the emergence of the definite article, or due to lexical case being replaced by structural case. Instead I have outlined a Construction Grammar/Usage-based model approach where loss of morphological case is assumed to have its roots in the synonymy of the different argument structure constructions. In such a case, there are logically two ways for languages to evolve: • •

High frequency constructions attract verbs from low-frequency constructions, thereby gradually causing low-frequency constructions to fall into disuse. The morphological case distinctions disappear with a subsequent merging of the case constructions.

Icelandic, Faroese and German have evolved in the former way, whereas Mainland Scandinavian, English and Dutch have moved along the latter path. Furthermore, the predictions of the Construction Grammar/Usagebased model that the low-frequency constructions disappear first and the high-frequency construction disappear last have here been shown to be borne out for all the languages I have examined, namely, Icelandic, Swedish, English and German. Moreover, on a Construction Grammar/Usage-based model account it is predicted that the language that has had the highest rate of vocabulary replacement will lead the development and the language that has replaced the vocabulary least will lag behind in the development. This is predicted because the faster the vocabulary has been replaced the more opportunities the high type frequency constructions have had to increase in type frequency, and the higher the chances are for the items occurring in the low 212

CASE IN ICELANDIC frequency constructions to fall into disuse. This prediction is, furthermore, borne out for Germanic. Finally, I have discussed the "blended" construction which has been documented in the history of all the Germanic languages that have lost their case distinctions. A Usage-based model account makes correct predictions about which of the two arguments, the subject or the object, changes its case form first, i.e. the case construction lower in type frequency will change its case before the case construction higher in type frequency. For the Germanic languages, it is the Dat subject construction which is higher in type frequency, thus it has also retained its case for a longer time.

213

CASE IN ICELANDIC

8 Summary

In a new paper, Joan Maling (2001) points out that morphological case marking has erroneously been appealed to in the literature to explain various restrictions found on syntactic arguments. My overview in 7.4 above on the role attributed to morphological case in language change confirms Maling's claims. Thus, my aim in this work has been to contribute to the discussion of morphological case, from an empirical perspective. I have investigated morphological case in Icelandic and its functions. The research question was put forth in Chapter 1 above, repeated in the following: (1)

What is function of the Icelandic case system?

My basic assumption has been that morphological case should be regarded as a multifunctional category, whose function is not primarily of one, and only one, nature. That is, I consider morphological case to be a category whose role in grammar can be manifold, however, without any attempts on my part to dramatize its possible consequences for syntax and syntactic theory. I believe that morphological case is first and foremost a morphological category, whose function is partly syntactic, partly semantic, partly arbitrary, etc. The research presented in this book aims to be an empirical approach to morphological case, where a thorough investigation of the possible functions of morphological case in one language, namely Icelandic, is carried out and assessed. This research project has been divided into four parts: • • • •

To investigate new verbs in Icelandic and the morphological case they assign to their arguments. To investigate the correlation between morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles in Modern Icelandic texts. To investigate the correlation between morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles in Old Icelandic texts. To compare the results of the two previous subprojects, i.e. of Modern Icelandic and Old Icelandic, and to investigate whether the results coincide with the development of case in the other Germanic languages, and on the basis of that comparison put forth a theory on the development of morphological case in the Germanic languages. 211

CASE IN ICELANDIC

A list of new verbs in Icelandic has been collected from various sources and compiled (see Appendix C below). A thorough investigation of these verbs revealed that nominative is productive as a case for subjects, and that both accusative and dative are productive as object cases. On the basis of "dative substitution" and nonce-probe tests it was also concluded that the dative is mildly productive as a subject case. These findings contradict the predictions of generative grammar and its distinction between lexical and structural case. On such an account, nominative and accusative are assigned to subjects and objects, on the basis of their position or syntactic function in the sentence, while lexical case is (a) thematic, (b) idiosyncratic. An example of thematic case assignment is dative case to Experiencer subjects, and dative case to Beneficiaries (indirect objects). An example of idiosyncratic case would be dative as a case on (nonExperiencer) objects. Further, within generative grammar a distinction is made between highly productive syntactic rules, i.e. the core of grammar, and linguistic objects that cannot be generated by such rules, and thus are more on the periphery of grammar. Such a view of grammar, thus, predicts that only structural case should be productive, since it can be generated by a syntactic rule, while lexical/idiosyncratic case should be non-productive since it does not belong to the core of grammar. On this account, then, dative as a case for objects should not be productive. Thus, the predictions of the structural vs. lexical case account are not borne out for Icelandic, since 24-30% of all objects of new verbs are assigned dative case. Construction Grammar, however, assumes morphological case to be a part of the form (SYN-part) of constructions, which again are defined as form-meaning correspondences. Thus, it follows that no fundamental distinction is made between structural and lexical case; instead all case forms are treated uniformly as a part of the formal part of schematic constructions. More generally, a construction, and thus a case structure, is assumed to be productive if it has high enough type frequency, i.e. is instantiated by many verbs. Thereby, a construction that is instantiated by 687 verbs, like the Dative subject construction, should be more productive than a construction instantiated by 206 verbs, like the Accusative subject construction (see section 5.3.4.1.1 above). Thus, it is predicted that the Dative subject construction should show a higher degree of productivity than the Accusative subject construction. That is also borne out in Icelandic. The most productive construction in Icelandic should be the Nom-Acc construction, as it has the highest type frequency and the widest semantic range. That is also borne out for Icelandic. Furthermore, experimental evidence has shown that the Nom-Acc construction exists at a high level in the mind of speakers, and can be assigned to nonce verbs of all semantic types, while the Dative subject construction was documented 212

CASE IN ICELANDIC to exist only as a verb-class-specific construction, assigned only to verbs of that particular semantic verb class. Low type frequency constructions can therefore be productive, and attract new or already existing items, on the basis of a high degree of similarity. This investigation of new verbs in Icelandic has therefore revealed that morphological case is more accurately viewed as a part of a construction, i.e. as constructional, than as being "structural" or "lexical". The distinction between structural and lexical case, traditionally assumed by generative grammarians, has thus not been empirically supported by this research on the case assignment of novel verbs in Icelandic. Another subproject is to investigate the statistical relation between morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles in Modern Icelandic. A corpus of texts was compiled, with five genres of written Icelandic and one genre of spoken Icelandic. The written genres were the following: • • • • •

Icelandic fiction Translated fiction Biographies and memoirs Non-fiction Teenage and children's Literature

Each written genre consisted of ten texts, 500 words each, a total of 5,000 words for each genre. The spoken material consisted of recordings of a call-in radio programme, therefore representing many speakers of Icelandic. The radio programme was 15,000 words, thus the total corpus of Modern Icelandic was 40,000 words. In order to assure that the corpus used here is representative a comparison was made with case frequency figures from a corpus of 500,000 words, compiled in 1991 for an Icelandic word frequency count. The results of that comparison were that my case frequency figures were almost identical to the figures in the 1991 corpus, meaning that my material is highly representative of written Icelandic. The results of the investigation revealed that morphological case correlates with both syntactic and semantic factors. A clear majority of subjects (94%) is in the nominative case, a clear majority of objects (67%) is in the accusative case, and 56% of prepositional phrases are in the dative case. Regarding thematic roles, there is a clear tendency for certain thematic roles to correlate with certain morphological cases, either 100%, as is the case with Agents and Causes being nominative, and Instruments being dative, or to a high extent, as is the case with Stations being nominative, Contents being accusative, Cognizers and Perceivers being nominative, Beneficiaries, Comitatives, Locations and Manners being dative, and Goals, Paths and Times being accusative. One thematic role, 213

CASE IN ICELANDIC Themes, is distributed relatively evenly across nominative, accusative and dative, whereas Experiencers are evenly divided among nominatives and datives. Finally, there is also a correlation between syntactic functions and thematic roles: Agents, Causes, Stations, Experiencers, Cognizers and Perceivers are (almost) always linked to subjects. Themes, Contents and Beneficiaries are evenly distributed across subjects, objects, indirect objects and prepositional phrases. Goals, Reasons, Sources and Comitatives link to prepositional phrases. Instruments link to objects and prepositional phrases. Finally, Locations, Paths, Manners, Measures and Times link to prepositional phrases and adverbials. To conclude, there is a statistical relation between morphological case and syntactic functions, between morphological case and thematic roles and between syntactic functions and thematic roles. The generative distinction between lexical and structural case also makes certain predictions about the acquisition of morphological case in Icelandic. In other words, since nominative of subjects and accusative of objects are assumed to be generated by a highly productive rule, the verbs that occur in the Nom-Acc construction should not have to be stored as such in memory, while all other verbs have to be stored in the lexicon together with their case frames. Moreover, if structural case is generated by a highly productive rule while lexical case is not, children would be expected to generalize nominative and accusative and not the other cases. Research on the acquisition of morphological case does not support this distinction between structural and lexical case. First, there is no evidence that Nom-Acc verbs are treated any differently from other verbs. Secondly, the error children make involve exchanging structural case for structural case, structural case for lexical case, lexical case for structural case, and finally lexical case for lexical case. The predictions of the generative distinction between lexical and structural case on the acquisition of morphological case are thus not borne out in Icelandic. I have also briefly discussed the semantics of dative subject verbs in Icelandic and concluded that the view that they are Experiencer or Benefactive verbs is too simplistic. It appears that oblique subjects encode semantic information of a much richer and varied nature than is assumed and denoted by the gross distinctions into thematic roles. Furthermore, in addition to morphological case being constructional, syntactic and semantic, I have discussed various other functions that morphological case can have in a language. For instance, in Icelandic, morphological case can function as a device to distinguish between different lexical meanings of verbs which are otherwise polysemous or homonyms. For certain verbs, dative case vs. nominative/accusative signals the animacy of the referents. In other constructions, dative contrasts with the accusative in signaling equal status of the referents. In yet some other 214

CASE IN ICELANDIC cases accusative and dative denote different kinds of motion, directed or undirected. Also, objects of verbs denoting movement/transfer are in a clear majority of cases case-marked with the dative, and not the accusative. Case marking, together with agreement marking, can be a device to differentiate between different subconstructions of both the passive and the ergative construction in Icelandic. Finally, I have shown that the syntactic cases, that is, nominative and accusative, seem to carry a meaning of their own, namely, of control and affectedness, respectively, Thus, my conclusion is that morphological case is a multifunctional category. I have, furthermore, carried out an investigation of the statistical relation between morphological case, syntactic functions and thematic roles in Old Icelandic. A corpus of 20,000 words was compiled, containing texts from the following four Old Icelandic genres: • • • •

Family Sagas and Tales of Icelanders Romantic Sagas Contemporary Sagas: (a) of Bishops, (b) Sturlunga Non-fiction

These four genres are the Old Icelandic equivalents of the first four Modern Icelandic genres, where genre definitions are based on the content and literary structure (not the grammatical properties) of the texts. The investigation was conducted according to the same criteria as the investigation of the Modern Icelandic texts. The results for Modern Icelandic were, by large, also valid for Old Icelandic, namely, that there is a statistical correlation between both syntactic functions and morphological case, and thematic roles and morphological case. Morphological case, thus, has both syntactic and semantic functions in Old Icelandic, and also in Modern Icelandic. However, some differences were also found between the two corpora. First, the number of genitive objects has decreased, as has the number of genitive prepositional phrases and dative attributes. Secondly, the number of dative objects and dative prepositional phrases has increased. It also seems as if dative subjects are less frequent in Modern Icelandic than in Old Icelandic. Finally, accusative subjects and genitive subjects have remained stable from Old Icelandic to Modern Icelandic times, a remarkable fact considering their low type frequency. However, these two subject categories have become semantically more uniform. I have discussed the following five theories on the loss of morphological case in Germanic:

215

CASE IN ICELANDIC • • • • •

A change from synthetic to analytic Word order takes over from morphological case The definite article takes over from morphological case Structural case replaces lexical case Semantic overlap of case constructions

The first four theories were rejected since their predictions were shown not to be borne out, and as they could not uniformly account for the development in all the Germanic languages. Instead I have put forward a hypothesis that morphological case has been lost because of the synonymy of the different case constructions. That is, since the Nom-Acc construction has the highest type frequency of all case constructions it is to be expected that it attracts verbs from the other case constructions. Secondly, since the Nom-Acc construction has the widest semantic range it subsumes all the other case constructions. Under such circumstances verbs from the low type frequency constructions may gradually be attracted to the high type frequency construction, with a subsequent loss of the low type frequency constructions from the language. There are logically two ways for languages to deal with synonymous case constructions: •

•

High-frequency constructions attract verbs from low-frequency constructions, thereby gradually causing low-frequency constructions to fall into disuse. The morphological case distinctions disappear with a subsequent merging of the case constructions.

In the history of Germanic both of these developments have been documented. English, Dutch, and Mainland Scandinavian have merged their constructions into one, with the subsequent loss of morphological case, whereas German, Faroese and Icelandic have maintained their case systems intact, with fewer and fewer lexical items associating with the lowfrequency constructions. The changes have, thus, occurred in the same order in all the languages: the most infrequent construction has been lost first, and the least infrequent construction last. First, the Genitive object construction has disappeared, then the Genitive subject construction, then the Accusative subject construction has been lost, then the distinction between the accusative and dative has been reduced, and finally the Oblique subject construction has disappeared, leaving behind only the high-frequent (original) Nom-Acc construction. A Construction Grammar/Usage-based model account also makes certain predictions about the speed of this change. The language that replaces its vocabulary fastest will lead the development, whereas the 216

CASE IN ICELANDIC language with the least replacement in the vocabulary will maintain its case constructions longest. This is an immediate consequence of the fact that high type frequency constructions are the ones that attract new or already existing items which again increase the speed of the low-frequency constructions falling into disuse. For the languages that I have investigated, Icelandic, German, Swedish and English, I have found a 100% correlation between the timing of the loss of case and the timing and degree of the vocabulary replacement. English was the first language to lose its morphological case and the first language to suffer from massive lexical borrowings, followed by Swedish, then German, and finally, Icelandic has borrowed least, maintained its original vocabulary to the highest degree, and has lost the fewest case constructions of all the languages. Finally, I have discussed the "blended" construction which has arisen in the history of the Germanic languages and suggested a Usage-based model account of why the subject construction and the object construction do not change their case at the same time. The prediction is that the construction lower in type frequency will exchange its case first and the construction higher in type frequency will exchange it case later. This prediction is borne out for the blended construction in the Germanic languages, sustaining the validity of the Usage-based model.

217

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Bibliography Corpus of written Modern Icelandic Excerpted texts Icelandic Fiction Býl = Guðmundsson, Böðvar. 1996. Híbýli vindanna. Íslenski kiljuklúbburinn, Reykjavík, pp. 191-192. Eng = Guðmundsson, Einar Már. 1995. Englar alheimssins. Íslenski kiljuklúbburinn, Reykjavík, pp. 153-155. Fal = Björnsson, Björn Th. 1996. Falsarinn. Íslenski kiljuklúbburinn, Reykjavík, pp. 192-193. Han = Sigurðardóttir, Steinunn. 1997. Hanami: Sagan af Hálfdáni Fergussyni. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 126-128. Hei = Gunnarsson, Pétur. 1997. Heimkoma. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 42-44. Hjó = Pálsson, Páll. 1994. Á hjólum. Forlagið, Reykjavík, pp. 119-120. Höf = Valdimarsdóttir, Þórunn. 1994. Höfuðskepnur: Ástarbréfaþjónusta. Forlagið, Reykjavík, pp. 134-136. Kom = Helgason, Hallgrímur. 1995. Þetta er allt að koma. Íslenski kiljuklúbburinn, Reykjavík, pp. 135-137. Ráð = Kárason, Einar. 1992. Heimskra manna ráð. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 111-112. Vei = Ólafsson, Ólafur Jóhann. 1994. Sniglaveislan. Vaka-Helgafell, Reykjavík, pp. 94-96. Translated Fiction Ame = Kafka, Franz. 1998. Ameríka. Translated by Ástráður Eysteinsson and Eysteinn Þorvaldsson. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 53-54. Dag = Shields, Carol. 1996. Dagbók steinsins. Translated by Ólöf Eldjárn. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 109-110. Fer = King, Stephen. 1998. Fjórir á ferð. Translated by Björn Jónsson. In Leit. Fróði hf, Reykjavík, pp. 122-123. Frá = Marquez, Gabriel García. 1997. Frásögn af mannráni. Translated by Tómas R.Einarsson. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 15-17. Hæf = Høeg, Peter. 1996. Hugsanlega hæfir. Translated by Eygló Guðmundsdóttir. Mál og menning, Reykavík, pp. 105-106. Mjö = Guterson, David. 1997. Fellur mjöll í Sedrusskógi. Translated by Árni Óskarsson. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 169-170.

219

CASE IN ICELANDIC Mor = Mankell, Henning. 1998. Morðingi án andlits. Translated by Vigfús Geirdal. Íslenski kiljuklúbburinn, Reykjavík, pp. 87-89. Sat = Petróníus, Gajus. 1997. Satýrikon: Grallarasögur. Translated by Erlingur E. Halldórsson. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 97-98. Sof = Gaarder, Jostein. 1995. Veröld Soffíu. Translated by Aðalheiður Steingrímsdóttir and Þröstur Ásmundsson. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 136-138. Vat = Ekman, Kerstin. 1995. Atburðir við vatn. Translated by Sverrir Hólmarsson. Íslenski kiljuklúbburinn, Reykjavík, pp. 180-181. Biographies and Memoirs Árn = Jónsson, Már. 1998. Árni Magnússon: Ævisaga. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 115-116. Bal = Indriðason, Þór. 1990. Hannibal Valdimarsson og samtíð hans. Líf og saga, [Reykjavík], pp. 111-112. Ben = Bjarnason, Dóra S. 1996. Undir huliðshjálmi: Sagan af Benedikt. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 73-74. Dóm = Friðriksson, Guðjón. 1992. Dómsmálaráðherrann: Saga Jónasar Jónssonar frá Hriflu. Iðunn, Reykjavík, pp. 94-95. Far = Pálmadóttir, Elín. 1996. Með fortíðina í farteskinu. Vaka-Helgafell, Reykjavík, pp. 107-109. Múl = Árnason, Jón Múli. 1996. Þjóðsögur Jóns Múla Árnasonar. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 226-227. Rad = Vilhjálmsson, Thor. 1994. Raddir í garðinum. Íslenski kiljuklúbburinn, Reykjavík, pp. 135-136. Ská = Aðalsteinsdóttir, Silja. 1994. Skáldið sem sólin kyssti: Ævisaga Guðmundar Böðvarssonar. Hörpuútgáfan, [Reykjavík], pp. 111-113. Stei = Eggertsson, Dagur B. 1998. Steingrímur Hermannsson: Ævisaga I. Vaka-Helgafell, Reykjavík, pp. 148-149. Ævi = Gröndal, Gylfi. 1991. Kristján Eldjárn - Ævisaga. Forlagið, Reykjavík, pp. 209-210. Non-fiction C-14 = Theodórsson, Páll. 1996. Hvoru skal trúa: Ara fróða eða C-14 aldursgreiningum. Eðlisfræði á Íslandi VIII. Eðlisfræðifélag Íslands, Reykjavík, pp. 86-87. For = Grímsson, Þorkell. 1997. Ögurbrík. Árbók hins íslenska fornleifafélags 95:5-33. Ed. Mjöll Snæsdóttir. Reykjavík, pp. 5-6. Haf = Guðmundsson, Helgi. 1997. Um haf innan: Vestrænir menn og íslensk menning á miðöldum. Háskólaútgáfan, Reykjavík, pp. 284286. Hug = Gylfason, Þorsteinn. 1996. Að hugsa á Íslenzku. Heimskringla, Háskólaforlag Máls og menningar, Reykjavík, pp. 108-109. 220

CASE IN ICELANDIC Ísl = Ísleifsson, Sumarliði. 1996. Ísland framandi land. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 83-85. Lög = Jónsson, Steingrímur. 1997. "Núpufellsbók". Gömul, prentuð lögbók án útgáfustaðar og árs. Ritmennt 2:35-54, pp. 35-37. Mey = Kress, Helga. 1993. Máttugar meyjar: Íslensk fornbókmenntasaga. Háskólaútgáfan, Reykjavík, pp. 153-155. Rof = Arnalds, Ólafur, Elín Fjóla Þórarinsdóttir, Sigmar Metúsalemsson, Ásgeir Jónssón, Einar Grétarsson and Arnór Árnason. 1997. Jarðvegsrof á Íslandi. Landgræðsla ríkisins og Rannsóknarstofnun landbúnaðarins, [Reykavík], pp. 56-62. Vín = Bergþórsson, Páll. 1997. Vínlandsgátan. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 36-38. Þjó = Þórhallsdóttir, Þóra Ellen. 1994. Áhrif miðlunarlóns á gróður og jarðveg í Þjórsárverum. Líffræðistofnun háskólans, Reykjavík, pp. 39-40. Teenage and Children's Literature Bei = Eldjárn, Sigrún. 1994. Syngjandi beinagrind. Forlagið, Reykjavík, pp. 21-25. Dúf = Erlingsson, Friðrik. 1992. Benjamín dúfa. Vaka-Helgafell, Reykjavík, pp. 68-69. Eld = Andersen, Hans Christian. 1995. Litla stúlkan með eldspýturnar. Translated by Steingrímur Thorsteinsson. Fjölvaútgáfan, Reykjavík, pp. 6-13. Frí = Singer, A. L. 1992. Fríða og dýrið. Translated by Þrándur Thoroddsen. Vaka-Helgafell. Reykjavík, pp. 15-19. Ísb = de Beer, Hans. 1992. Lítill ísbjörn eignast vin. Text written by Jürgen Lassig and translated by Helga K. Einarsdóttir. Örn og Örlygur, Reykjavík, pp. 2-9. Ljó = Ingoglia, Gina. 1994. Konungur ljónanna. Translated by Sigrún Árnadóttir. Vaka-Helgafell, Reykjavík, pp. 16-20. Non = Árnason, Árni and Halldór Baldursson. 1993. Ævintýri á aðfangadag. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 9-12. Peð = Árnadóttir, Olga Guðrún. 1995. Peð á plánetunni jörð. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 158-160. Ski = Þorsteinsson, Þorvaldur. 1993. Skilaboðaskjóðan. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 3-9. Þrö = Lindgren, Astrid. 1994. Þýtur í laufi, þröstur syngur. Translated by Gunnlaugur R. Jónsson. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 46-49.

221

CASE IN ICELANDIC Corpus of Spoken Icelandic Þjóðarsálin. 1996-1997. A Corpus of Spoken Icelandic compiled by Halldór Á. Sigurðsson and Camilla Wide. Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland. Corpus of written Old Icelandic Excerpted texts Family Sagas and Tales of Icelanders (Icelandic Fiction) Bra = Brandkrossa þáttur. 1987. Íslendinga sögur og þættir. Vol III. Ed. Bragi Halldórsson, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson, Örnólfur Thorsson. Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 2104-2105. Egi = Egils saga. 1987. Íslendinga sögur og þættir. Vol I. Ed. Bragi Halldórsson, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson, Örnólfur Thorsson. Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 389. Gís = Gísla saga Súrssonar. 1987. Íslendinga sögur og þættir. Vol II. Ed. Bragi Halldórsson, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson, Örnólfur Thorsson. Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 859-860. Gre = Grettis saga. 1987. Íslendinga sögur og þættir. Vol II. Ed. Bragi Halldórsson, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson, Örnólfur Thorsson. Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 1043-1044. Hra = Hrafnkels saga. 1987. Íslendinga sögur og þættir. Vol II. Ed. Bragi Halldórsson, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson, Örnólfur Thorsson. Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 1405-1406. Ill = Gísls þáttur Illugasonar (Eftir Huldu og Hrokkinskinnu). 1987. Íslendinga sögur og þættir. Vol III. Ed. Bragi Halldórsson, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson, Örnólfur Thorsson. Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 2117-2118. Ing = Ívars þáttur Ingimundarsonar. 1987. Íslendinga sögur og þættir. Vol III. Ed. Bragi Halldórsson, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson, Örnólfur Thorsson. Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 2180-2181. Njá = Brennu Njáls saga. 1987. Íslendinga sögur og þættir. Vol I. Ed. Bragi Halldórsson, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson, Örnólfur Thorsson. Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 203. Ótt = Óttars þáttur svarta (eftir Bergsbók). 1987. Íslendinga sögur og þættir. Vol III. Ed. Bragi Halldórsson, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson, Örnólfur Thorsson. Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 22052206. Ögm = Ögmundar þáttur dytts, 1987. Íslendinga sögur og þættir. Vol III. Ed. Bragi Halldórsson, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson, Örnólfur Thorsson. Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 2338-2339. 222

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Romantic Sagas (Translated Fiction) Art = Erex saga Artuskappa. 1965. Foster W. Blaisdell (ed.). Editiones Arnamagnæanæ Series B, vol. 19. Munksgaard, Copenhagen, pp. 24-28. Cla = Clari saga. 1951. In Riddarasögur V. Bjarni Vilhjálmsson (ed.). Íslendingasagnaútgáfan, Reykjavík, pp. 45-47. Elí = Elís saga og Rósamundu. 1951. In Riddarasögur IV. Bjarni Vilhjálmsson (ed.). Íslendingasagnaútgáfan, Reykjavík, pp. 68-70. Íve = Ívens saga. 1979. Foster W. Blaisdell (ed.). Editiones Arnamagnæanæ Series B, vol. 18. C.A. Reitzels forlag, Kaupmannahöfn, pp. 95-99. Kar = Karlamagnús saga. 1980. Knud Togeby and Pierre Halleux (eds.). Det danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab, Copenhagen, pp. 44-48. Möt = Mƒttuls saga. 1987. Marianne E. Kalinke (ed.). Editiones Arnamagnæanæ Series B, vol. 30. C.A. Reitzels forlag, Copenhagen, pp. 41-45. Par = Partalopa saga. 1983. Lise Præstgaard Andersen (ed.). Editiones Arnamagnæanæ Series B, vol. 28. C.A. Reitzels forlag, Copenhagen, pp. 53-60. Tri = Tristrams saga ok Ísöndar. 1999. In Norse Romance I. The Tristan Legend. Marianne E. Kalinke (ed.). D.S. Brewer, Cambridge, pp. 148-150. Tró = Trójumanna saga. 1963. Jonna Louis-Jensen (ed.) Editiones Arnamagnæanæ Series A, vol. 8. Munksgaard, Copenhagen, pp. 127-131. Þið = Þiðreks saga af Bern. 1951. Guðni Jónsson (ed.). Íslendingasagnaútgáfan, Reykjavík, pp. 39-41. Contemporary Sagas (Biographies and Memoirs) Bis = Árna saga biskups. 1988. In Sturlunga saga II. Örnólfur Thorsson, Bergljót S. Kristjánsdóttir, Bragi Halldórsson, Gísli Sigurðsson, Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir, Guðrún Ingólfsdóttir, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson (eds.). Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 776-778. Dýr = Guðmundar saga dýra. 1988. In Sturlunga saga I. Örnólfur Thorsson, Bergljót S. Kristjánsdóttir, Bragi Halldórsson, Gísli Sigurðsson, Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir, Guðrún Ingólfsdóttir, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson (eds.). Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 134-135. Guð = Guðmundar saga A. 1983. In Guðmundar sögur biskups I. Stefán Karlsson (ed.) Editiones Arnamagæanæ Series B, vol. 6. C.A. Reitzels forlag, Kaupmannahöfn, pp. 21-25. Kak = Þórðar saga kakala. 1988. In Sturlunga saga II. Örnólfur Thorsson, Bergljót S. Kristjánsdóttir, Bragi Halldórsson, Gísli Sigurðs223

CASE IN ICELANDIC son, Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir, Guðrún Ingólfsdóttir, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson (eds.). Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 477-478. Lau = Laurentius saga biskups. 1969. Árni Björnsson (ed.). Handritastofnun Íslands, Reykjavík, pp. 89-91. Pál = Páls saga. 1978. In Byskupasƒgur. Jón Helgason (ed.). [Editiones Arnamagæanæ Series A, vol. 13,2.] København, pp. 410-412. Ska = Þorgils saga skarða. 1988. In Sturlunga saga II. Örnólfur Thorsson, Bergljót S. Kristjánsdóttir, Bragi Halldórsson, Gísli Sigurðsson, Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir, Guðrún Ingólfsdóttir, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson (eds.). Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 606-607. Stu = Sturlu saga. 1988. In Sturlunga saga I. Örnólfur Thorsson, Bergljót S. Kristjánsdóttir, Bragi Halldórsson, Gísli Sigurðsson, Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir, Guðrún Ingólfsdóttir, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson (eds.). Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 77-78. Sve = Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar. 1987. Guðrún P. Helgadóttir (ed.). Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 18-20. Þor = Þorláks saga A. 1978. In Byskupasƒgur. Jón Helgason (ed.). [Editiones Arnamagæanæ Series A, vol. 13,2.] København, pp. 186188. Non-fiction Bló = Af náttúru manns og blóði. 1990. In Heimskringla Lykilbók. Bergljót S. Kristjánsdóttir, Bragi Halldórsson, Jón Torfason, Örnólfur Thorsson (eds.). Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 81-82. Gam = Gamanfræði. 1990. In Heimskringla Lykilbók. Bergljót S. Kristjánsdóttir, Bragi Halldórsson, Jón Torfason, Örnólfur Thorsson (eds.). Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 89-90. Gyl = Gylfaginning. 1982. In Edda [Second part of Snorri Sturluson's Edda.]. Anthony Faulkes (ed). Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 27-28. Jón = Jónsbók og Réttarbœtr. 1970. Ólafur Halldórsson (ed.). Odense Universitetsforlag, Odense, pp. 25-28. Kon = Konungs skuggsjá. [no year]. Speculum Regale. Magnús Már Lárusson (ed.). Leiftur, Reykjavík, pp. 75-76. Lei = Leiðarvísir. 1988. In Sturlunga saga. Skýringar og fræði. Örnólfur Thorsson, Bergljót S. Kristjánsdóttir, Bragi Halldórsson, Gísli Sigurðsson, Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir, Guðrún Ingólfsdóttir, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson (eds.). Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 50-51. Nam = Landnáma, Ch. 0-1. Netútgáfan, http://www.snerpa.is/net/snorri/ landnama.htm Phy = Physiologus. 1991. In Heimskringla Lykilbók. Bergljót S. Kristjánsdóttir, Bragi Halldórsson, Jón Torfason, Örnólfur Thorsson (eds.). Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 46-48. 224

CASE IN ICELANDIC Stj = Stjörnumörk. 1991. In Heimskringla Lykilbók. Bergljót S. Kristjánsdóttir, Bragi Halldórsson, Jón Torfason, Örnólfur Thorsson (eds.). Mál og menning, Reykjavík, pp. 64-65. Ver = Veraldar saga. 1991. In Sturlunga saga. Skýringar og fræði. Örnólfur Thorsson, Bergljót S. Kristjánsdóttir, Bragi Halldórsson, Gísli Sigurðsson, Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir, Guðrún Ingólfsdóttir, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson (eds.). Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. 41-42. Excerpted Dictionaries Árnason, Mörður, Svavar Sigmundsson and Örnólfur Thorsson. 1982. Orðabók um slangur, slettur, bannorð og annað utangarðsmál. Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík. Flugorðasafn: Íslenskt-enskt, enskt-íslenskt. 1993. Jónína Margrét Guðnadóttir (ed.). Rit íslenskrar málnefndar 7. Íslensk málnefnd, Reykjavík. Orðasafn úr tölfræði: Íslenskt-enskt, enskt-íslenskt. 1990. Snjólfur Ólafsson and Sigrún Helgadóttir (eds.). Rit íslenskrar málnefndar 5. Íslensk málnefnd, Reykjavík. Orðaskrá úr uppeldis- og sálarfræði: Íslensk-ensk, ensk-íslensk. 1994. Rit íslenskrar málnefndar 2. Íslensk málnefnd, Reykjavík. Tölvuorðasafn: Íslenskt-enskt, enskt-íslenskt. 3. útgáfa, aukin og endurbætt. 1998. Stefán Briem (ed.). Rit íslenskrar málnefndar 10. Íslensk málnefnd, Reykjavík. References Allen, C. 1986. Reconsidering the history of like. Journal of Linguistics 22:375-409. Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Allen, Cynthia L. 1996. A Change in Structural Case Marking in Early Middle English. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax II, pp. 3-20. Eds. Höskuldur Thráinsson, Samuel D. Epstein and Steve Peter. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Anderson, Stephen R. 1990. The Grammar of Icelandic Verbs in -st. In Modern Icelandic Syntax. Syntax and Semantics 24. Ed. Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, pp. 235-273. 225

CASE IN ICELANDIC Andrews, Avery D. 1976. The VP Complement Analysis in Modern Icelandic. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 6:1-21. Anward, Jan and John Swedenmark. 1997. ¡Kasus nej, bestämdhet ja! Om Möjliga modeller av nominalböjningens utveckling i svenskan [¡Case no, Definiteness yes! On Possible Models on the Development of the Noun Declension in Swedish]. Ed. Patrik Åström. Studier i svensk språkhistoria 4. MINS 44, Stockholm, pp. 21-34. Arad, Maya. 1998. VP-Structure and the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. Doctoral Dissertation, University College London. Askedal, Jan Ola. 1999. 'Oblique Subjects', Structural and Lexical Case Marking: Some Thoughts on Case Assignment in North Germanic and German. Ms. University of Oslo. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1993. Accusative and Dative Case of Objects of Some Transitive Verbs in Icelandic and the Semantic Distinction between them. In Flyktförsök: Kalasbok till Christer Platzack på femtioårsdagen 18 november 1993, från doktorander och dylika. Lund. pp. 1-13. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1997. Oblique Subjects in Old Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 60:25-50 [see also Barðdal 2000a]. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1998. Argument Structure, Syntactic Structure and Morphological Case of the Impersonal Construction in the History of Scandinavian. Scripta Islandica 49:21-33. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1999a. The Dual Nature of Icelandic Psych-Verbs. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 64:79-101. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1999b. Case in Icelandic - A Construction Grammar Approach. TijdSchrift voor Skandinavistiek 20-2:65-100. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1999c. Case and Argument Structure of some Loan Verbs in 15th Century Icelandic. In Alla tiders språk: En vänskrift till Gertrud Pettersson november 1999, p. 9-23. Ed. Inger Haskå and Carin Sandqvist. Lundastudier i Nordisk språkvetenskap A 55. Institutionen för nordiska språk, Lund. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2000a. Oblique Subjects in Old Scandinavian. NOWELE 37:25-51. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2000b. The Subject is Nominative: On Obsolete Axioms and their Deep-Rootedness. In 17th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, pp. 93-117. Ed. Carl-Erik Lindberg and Steffen Nordahl Lund. Institute of Language and Communication, Odense. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2000c. Case Assignment of Nonce Verbs in Icelandic. SKY Journal of Linguistics 13:7-27. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001a. The Perplexity of Dat-Nom Verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24:47-70.

226

CASE IN ICELANDIC Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001b. The Role of Thematic Roles in Constructions? Evidence from the Icelandic Inchoative. To appear in Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 2000. Ed. Arthur Holmer, Jan-Olof Svantesson and Åke Viberg. Department of Linguistics, Lund. Barðdal, Jóhanna. (in prep). Thematic Roles or Not? An Investigation into the Semantics of Dative Subject Assigning Verbs. Lund University & University of Manchester [Presented at the 10th Postgraduate Linguistics Conference at the University of Manchester, 31 March 2001]. Barðdal, Jóhanna and Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2001. The Evolution of Oblique Subjects in Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 67:57-83 Barðdal, Jóhanna, Nils Jörgensen, Gorm Larsen and Bente Martinussen. 1997. Nordiska: Våra språk förr och nu [Scandinavian: Our Languages' Past and Present]. Studentlitteratur, Lund. Barðdal, Jóhanna and Valéria Molnár. 2000. Passive in Icelandic - Compared to Mainland Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65:109-146. Barnes, Michael P. 1986. Subject, Nominative and Oblique Case in Faroese. Scripta Islandica 37:13-46. Bernódusson, Helgi. 1982. Ópersónulegar setningar [Impersonal sentences]. Master's thesis. University of Iceland. Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Boeckx, Cedric. 1998. Agreement Constraints in Icelandic and Elsewhere. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 62:1-35. Braine, Martin D. S. 1988. Modeling the Acquisition of Linguistic Structure. Ed. Yonata Levy, Izchak M. Schlesinger and Martin D. S. Braine. Categories and Processes in Language Acquisition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey. Braine, Martin D. S., Ruth E. Brody, Shalom M. Fish, Mara J. Weisberger and Monica Blum. 1990. Can Children Use a Verb without Exposure to its Argument Structure? Journal of Child Language 17:313-342. Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular Morphology and the Lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10,5:425-455. Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bybee, Joan L. and Carol Lynn Moder. 1983. Morphological Classes as Natural Categories. Language 59:251-270.

227

CASE IN ICELANDIC Bybee, Joan L. and Dan I Slobin. 1982. Rules and Schemas in the Development and Use of English Past Tense. Language 58:265-89. Chomsky, Noam. (1981)1993. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. 7th ed. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1995. The Theory of Principles and Parameters. In The Minimalist Program, 13-127. MIT Press, Cambridge and London. Croft, William. 1993. Case Marking and the Semantics of Mental Verbs. In Semantics and the Lexicon. Ed. James Pustejovsky. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecth, pp. 55-77. Croft, William. 1998. Event Structure in Argument Linking. In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Ed. Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder. CSLI, Stanford. Croft, William. 2000. Lexical Rules vs. Constructions: A False Dichotomy. In Motivation in Language: Studies in Honour of Günter Radden. Ed. H. Cuyckens, Th. Berg, R. Dirven, and Kl.-U. Panther. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Croft, William. (in prep.) Verbs, Aspect and Argument Structure. Ms. University of Manchester. Croft, William, Jóhanna Barðdal, Willem Hollmann, Maike Nielsen, Violeta Sotirova and Chiaki Taoki. (in prep.) Discriminating Verb Meanings: The Case of Transfer Verbs. Ms. University of Manchester. Cruse, D. Alan and William Croft. (in prep.) Cognitive Linguistics. To appear in the Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics Series. Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1991. Om genitivens utveckling i fornsvenskan [On the Devlopment of the Genitive in Old Swedish]. Ed. Sven-Göran Malmgren and Bo Ralph. Studier i svensk språkhistoria 2, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Göteborg, pp. 12-30. Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1995. Prepositionsstrandning och kasus i äldre svenska [Preposition Stranding and Case in Earlier Swedish]. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 110:141-178. Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional Grammar. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam. Einarsson, Stefán. 1949. Icelandic: Grammar, Texts, Glossary. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2000. Dative vs. Nominative: Changes in Quirky Subjects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 8:27-44. Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1987. On the History of Grammatical Relations. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 23:64-78. The Chicage Linguistic Society, Chicago. 228

CASE IN ICELANDIC Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1990. Syntactic Change: Toward a Theory of Historical Syntax. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1999. The Notion of Oblique Subject and its Status in the History of Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 63:1-44. Falk, Cecilia. 1995. Lexikalt kasus i svenska [Lexical Case in Swedish]. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 110:199-226. Falk, Cecilia. 1997. Fornsvenska upplevarverb [Experiencer Verbs in Old Swedish]. Lund University Press, Lund. Falk, Hjalmar and Alf Torp. 1900. Dansk-norskens syntax i historisk fremstilling [The Syntax of Danish-Norwegian from a Diachronic Perspective]. Aschehoug, Kristiania. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The Case for Case. Universals in Linguistic Theory. Ed. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, pp. 1-88. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay and Mary Kay O'Connor. 1988. Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: the Case of Let Alone. Language 64:501-538. Garðarsdóttir, María Anna. 1990. Fallmörkun, setningarlegt hlutverk og merkingarhlutverk [Case Assignment, Syntactic Function and Semantic Role]. Ms. University of Iceland. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language Universals. Mouton & Co., The Hague, Paris. Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Goldberg and Ronald Wilson. 1989. The Learnability and Acquisition of the Dative Alternation in English. Language 65-2:203-257. Guðmundsson, Halldór, Árni Ibsen and Guðrún Nordal. 1996. Íslensk bókmenntasaga 3 [The History of Icelandic Literature]. Mál og menning, Reykjavík. Guðmundsson, Valtýr. 1922. Islandsk grammatik. H. Hagerups Forlag, København [Reprinted by Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, Reykjavík]. Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Halldórsson, Halldór. 1982. Um méranir: Drög að samtímalegri og sögulegri athugun [About Dativizings: Preliminaries of a Synchronic and Diachronic Investigation]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 4:159-189. Haugan, Jens. 1998. Passiv av norrøne dobbelt objekt-konstruktionar og subjektspørsmålet [The Passive of Old Norse Double Object 229

CASE IN ICELANDIC Constructions and the Issue of Subjecthood]. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 16:157-184. Haugen, Odd Einar. 1993. Grunnbok i norrønt språk [The Basics of Old Norse]. Ad Notam Gyldendal, Oslo. Hauksson, Þorleifur and Þórir Óskarsson. 1994. Íslensk stílfræði [Icelandic Stylistics]. Mál og menning, Reykjavík. Hentschel, Gerd. 1993. Haben Kasus Bedeutungen oder sind sie eine diakritische Kategorie? Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 53, 1:97-112. Holmberg, Anders. 1994. Morphological Parameters in Syntax: The Case of Faroese. Report 35:21-62. Institutionen för lingvistik, Umeå Universitet, Umeå. Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Doctoral Dissertation, Stockholm University. Holland, Gary. 1993. Transitivity, Causativity, and Surface Case in Old Norse. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 108:19-37. Howe, Stephen. 1996. The Personal Pronouns in the Germanic Languages. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. Hróarsdóttir, Thorbjörg. 1996. The Decline of OV Word Order in the Icelandic VP. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57:92-141. Íslensk orðabók handa skólum og almenningi [Icelandic Dictionary]. 1988. Ed. Árni Böðvarsson. 2nd Edition. Bókaútgáfa Menningarsjóðs, Reykjavík. Íslensk orðtíðnibók [Icelandic Word Frequency Book]. 1991. Ed. Jörgen Pind. Orðabók Háskólans, [Reykjavík]. Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. The MIT Press, Cambridge. Jahr, Ernst Håkon. 1994. Språkkontakt og språkforandring i Norden i hansatida [Language Contact and Language Change in Scandinavian during the Hansa Period]. Dialektkontakt, språkkontakt och språkförändring i Norden. Ed. Ulla-Britt Kotsinas and John Helgander. MINS 40, Stockholm, pp. 23-37. Jahr, Ernst Håkon. 1995. Nedertysk og nordisk: språksamfunn og språkkontakt i Hansa-tida [Middle Low German and Scandinavian: Language Society and Language Contact during the Hansa Period]. Nordisk og nedertysk: Språkkontakt og språkutvikling i seinmellomalderen. Ed. Ernst Håkon Jahr. Novus forlag, Oslo, pp. 928. Janda, Laura A. 1993. A Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

230

CASE IN ICELANDIC Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1997-98. Sagnir með aukafallsfrumlagi. [Verbs Selecting for Oblique Subjects]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 19-20:11-43. Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1998. A List of Predicates that Take a Quirky Subject in Icelandic. Ms. University of Iceland, Reykjavík. Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1999. Case Absorption with -st-verbs in Icelandic. Presented at the "14th Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop" in Lund, 8-9 January 1999. Jónsson, Jón Hilmar. 1984. Islandsk grammatikk for utlendinger [Icelandic Grammar for Foreigners]. Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, Reykjavík. Josefsson, Gunlög. 1997. On the Principles of Word Formation in Swedish. Lund University Press, Lund. Kay, Paul & Charles Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What's X Doing Y? Construction. Language 75:1-34. Kemenade, Ans van. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris. Knudsen, Tryggve. 1956. Kasuslære I. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. Kress, Bruno. 1982. Isländische Grammatik. VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie, Leipzig. Kristoffersen, Kristian Emil. 1991. Kasus, Semantiske roller og Grammatiske funksjonar i norrønt [Case, Semantic Roles and Grammatical Functions in Old Norse]. Institutt for nordistikk og litteraturvitskap, Unviversitetet i Oslo, Oslo. Kristoffersen, Kristian Emil. 1994. Passiv i norrønt og nyislandsk - ei sammanlikning [Passive in Old Norse and Modern Icelandic - A Comparison]. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 12:43-67. Kristoffersen, Kristian E. 1996. Infinitival Phrases in Old Norse: Aspects of their Syntax and Semantics. University of Oslo, Oslo. Kvaran, Guðrún. 1996. Þættir úr sögu orðaforðans [On the History of the Icelandic Vocabulary]. Erindi um íslenskt mál, pp. 35-48. Íslenska málfræðifélagið, Reykjavík. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Langacker, Ronald, W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Langacker, Ronald, W. 1988. A Usage-Based Model. In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Ed. Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 127-161. Langacker, Ronald, W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 231

CASE IN ICELANDIC Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York. Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Latin Case Relations in Typological Perspective. Syntaxe et Latin. Ed. Christian Touratier. Université de Provence, pp. 81-102. Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: a Preliminary Investigation. London and Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Lightfoot, David. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolution. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Mass. Maling, Joan. 1995. Dative Object Verbs in Modern Icelandic. Ms. Brandeis University. Maling, Joan. 1998. A Review of Kristoffersen (1996). Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 16:219-231. Maling, Joan. 1999. Verbs with Dative Objects. Ms. Brandeis University and Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands. Maling, Joan. 2001. Dative: The Heterogeneity of the Mapping among Morphological Case, Grammatical Functions, and Thematic Roles. Lingua 111:419-464. Maling, Joan and Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson. 1995. On Nominative Objects in Icelandic and the Feature [+Human]. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 56:71-79. Malmsten, Solveig. 2001. Dativbruket i färöiskan över 60 år [The Use of Dative in Faroese during 60 Years]. Ms. Uppsala University. Marold, Edith. 1980. Mischsprache oder Kontinuum? Die skandinavischdeutschen Sprachbeziehungen im Mittelalter im Licht der neueren Forschung zum Sprachkontakt. Akten des VI. Internationalen Germanistenkongress in Basel 1980 2:142-148. Ed. Heinz Rupp and Hans-Gert Roloff. Lang, Bern. Michaelis, Laura A. 1998. Aspectual Grammar and Past-Time Reference. Routledge, London and New York. Mørck, Endre. 1992. Subjektets kasus i norrønt og mellomnorsk. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 107:53-99. Nemvalts, Peep. 1996. Case Marking of Subject Phrases in Modern Standard Estonian. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 25. Doctoral dissertation. Uppsala University. Norde, Muriel. 1994. De lågtyska lånorden och kasussystemets förenkling i svenskan [The Loan-Words from Middle Low German and the Break-Down of the Case System in Swedish]. Dialektkontakt, språkkontakt och språkförändring i Norden. Ed. Ulla-Britt Kotsinas and John Helgander. MINS 40, Stockholm, pp. 98-106. 232

CASE IN ICELANDIC Norde, Muriel. 1997. The History of the Genitive in Swedish: A Case Study in Grammaticalization. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag and Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70:491-538. Ottósson, Kjartan G. 1986. Mörk orðmyndunar og beygingar [The Delimitation of Word Formation and Inflection]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 8:63-119. Ottósson, Kjartan G. 1987. An Archaising Aspect of Icelandic Purism. The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics 6:311-324. Ottósson, Kjartan G. 1990. Íslensk málhreinsun: Sögulegt yfirlit [Icelandic Purism: An Historical Overview]. Rit íslenskrar málnefndar 6. Íslensk málnefnd, Reykjavík. Ottósson, Kjartan G. 1992. The Icelandic Middle Voice: The Morphological and Phonological Development. Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund. Petterson, Gertrud. 1996. Svenska språket under sjuhundra år: En historia om svenskan och dess utforskande [The Swedish Language during seven hundred Years: The History of Swedish and its Research]. Studentlitteratur, Lund. Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. Phoenix, London. Platzack, Christer. 1987. The Scandinavian Languages and the NullSubject Parameter. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5:377401. Platzack, Christer. 1999. The Subject of Icelandic Psych-Verbs: A Minimalist Account. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 64: 103-115. Ragnarsdóttir, Hrafnhildur, Hanne Gram Simonsen and Kim Plunkett. 1999. The Acquisition of Past Tense Morphology in Icelandic and Norwegian Children: an Experimental Study. Journal of Child Language 26:577-618. Ringgård, Kristian. 1986. Flektionssystemets forenkling og middelnedertysk [The Break-Down of the Declensional System and Middle Low German]. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 101:173-183. Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1983a. Ritdómur um Isländische Grammatik eftir Bruno Kress [A Review of Isländische Grammatik by Bruno Kress]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 5:185-196. Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1983b. Þágufallssýkin og fallakerfi í íslensku. Skíma 16:3-6.

233

CASE IN ICELANDIC Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1986. Íslensk orðhlutafræði: Kennslukver handa nemendum á háskólastigi [Icelandic Morphology: Teaching Material for University Students]. Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, Reykjavík. Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1991. Quirky Subjects in Old Icelandic. In Papers from the Twelfth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, pp. 369-378. Ed. Halldór Á. Sigurðsson. Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland, Reykjavík. Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1995. Old Icelandic: A Non-Configurational Language? Nowele 26:3-29. Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1996a. Frumlag og fall að fornu [Subject and Case in Old Icelandic]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 18:37-69. Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1996b. Word Order Variation in the VP in Old Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 58:55-86. Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1997. Orðafar Íslendinga sagna. In Milli himins og jarðar, pp. 271-286. Eds. Anna Agnarsdóttir, Pétur Pétursson and Torfi H. Tulinius. Háskólaútgáfan, Reykjavík. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. Harcourt, Brace and World, New York. Schultink, Hendrik. 1961. Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der Letteren 2:110-125. Schwegler, Armin. 1990. Analyticity and Syntheticity: A Diachronic Perspective with Special Reference to Romance Languages. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York. Seefranz-Montag, Ariane v. 1983. Syntaktische Funktionen und Wortstellungsveränderung. Die Entwicklung 'subjektloser' Konstruktionen in einigen Sprachen. Studien zur Theoretischen Linguistik 3. Wilhelm Fink Verlag, München. Seefranz-Montag, Ariane v. 1984. 'Subjectless' Constructions and Syntactic Change. Historical Syntax. Ed. J. Fisiak. Mouton Publishers, Berlin. Sigurðardóttir, Herdís. 2000. Fallmörkun í barnamáli [Case Marking in Child Language]. Ms. University of Iceland. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lund. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1990-91. Beygingarsamræmi [Agreement], Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 12-13:31-77. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1991. Icelandic Case-Marked PRO and the Licencing of Lexical Arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:327-363. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1992. The Case of Quirky Subjects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 49:1-26. Sigurðsson, Halldór, Ármann. 2000. The Locus of Case and Agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65:65-118. 234

CASE IN ICELANDIC Smith, Henry. 1994. 'Dative Sickness' in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:675-736. Smith, Henry. 1996. Restrictiveness in Case Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Starosta, Stanley. 1988. The Case for Lexicase: An Outline of Lexicase Grammatical Theory. Pinter Publishers, London. Sundman, Marketta. 1985. Från Mik angrar till Jag ångrar [From Mik angrar to Jag ångrar]. Folkmålsstudier 29:85-123. Svavarsdóttir, Ásta. 1982. "Þágufallssýki" ["Dative Sickness"]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málffræði 4:19-62. Svavarsdóttir, Ásta. 1993. Beygingakerfi nafnorða í nútímaíslensku [Noun Declension in Modern Icelandic]. Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, Reykjavík. Svavarsdóttir, Ásta, Gísli Pálsson and Þórólfur Þórlindsson. 1984. Fall er fararheill: Um fallnotkun með ópersónulegum sögnum [Fall is a Sign of Luck: On Case Use with Impersonal Verbs]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 6:33-55. Teleman, Ulf. 1974. Manual för analys och beskrivning av talad och skriven svenska [A Manual for the Analysis and Description of Spoken and Written Swedish]. Institutionen för nordiska språk, Lund. Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On Complementation in Icelandic. Garland Publishing, New York. Tomasello, Michael. 1998. Cognitive Linguistics. In A Companion to Cognitive Science. Ed. William Bechtel and George Graham. Blackwell Publisher, Massachusetts and Oxford, pp. 477-487. Tómasson, Sverrir and Örnólfur Thorsson. 1987. Um Íslendinga sögur [On the Family Sagas]. In Íslendinga sögur og þættir. Vol II. Ed. Halldórsson, Bragi, Jón Torfason, Sverrir Tómasson and Örnólfur Thorsson. Svart á hvítu, Reykjavík, pp. vii-liii. Tommola, Hannu. 1986. Aspektual´nost´v finskom i russkom jazykach [Aspectuality in Finnish and in Russian]. Neuvostoliittoinstituutin vuosikirja 28. Helsinki Neuvostoliiittoinstituutti, Helsinki. Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Topics, Subjects and Word Order: from SXV to SVX via TVX. In Historical Linguistics 1:339-376. Ed. John M. Anderson and Charles Jones. North Holland, Amsterdam. Warren, Beatrice. (forthcoming). An Alternative View of Linguistic Knowledge. In Pragmatic Aspects of Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics. Ed. Jan-Ola Östman. John Benjamins Publisher, Amsterdam. Wessén, Elias. 1929. Om det tyska inflytandet på svenskt språk under medeltiden [On the German Influence on the Swedish Language during the Middle Ages]. Nordisk Tidsskrift: 265-280. 235

CASE IN ICELANDIC Wessén, Elias. 1992. Svensk språkhistoria 1 [Swedish Language History]. Nytryck i nordiska språk och svenska - NNS 4. Akademitryck, Stockholm. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1981. Case Marking and Human Nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1:43-80. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1983. The Semantics of Case Marking. Studies in Language 7:247-275. Yip, Moira, Joan Maling and Ray Jackendoff. 1987. Case in Tiers. Languages 63:217-250. Yli-Vakkuri, Valma. 1987. Aspect and the Affective Attitude of the Speaker: Usage and Meaning in Grammatical Case Variation in Finnish. Fennistica festiva in honorem Göran Karlsson septuagenarii. Ed. Mauno Koski, Eeva Lähdemäki and Kaisa Häkkinen. Åbo Akademis Förlag, Åbo, pp. 189-205. Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and Grammatical Functions: The Icelandic Passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:441-483.

236

CASE IN ICELANDIC

237

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Appendix A: Frequency Tables In Table 4.6 the figures from the spoken corpus are divided into two, since the corpus of spoken Icelandic is 15,000 words whereas the other genres are 5,000 words each. In 6a the total amount has been divided by three, in order to obtain comparable figures for all the genres. In 6b the total figures for all 15,000 words are given. Table 4.7: Morphological case forms divided on syntactic functions in all genres. Nominative Accusative Dative Genitive 1

248

5 178 2 291

1 77

21 3

Subject Object IObject Prep. Attrib. Adv Pred.

589 7

4 188

Subject Object Biographies IObject and memoirs Prep. Attrib. Adv Pred.

423 9

Icelandic fiction

2 Translated fiction

Subject Object IObject Prep. Attrib. Adv. Pred.

534 6

3

4 Non-fiction

Subject Object IObject Prep. Attrib. Adv Pred.

196 105

13 4

6 175 3 183

86

32 2

423 6

5 119 145

132

17 4

237

21 67 14 35 1 9 1

9 41 3 1

30 76 8 275 2 10 2

2 9

21 57 15 390 3 5

4 4

16 38 5 401 5 3 2

3 3

42 35 5

70 113 9

63 168 13

CASE IN ICELANDIC 5 Children's literature

6a Spoken Icelandic

6b Spoken Icelandic

Subject Object IObject Prep. Attrib. Adv Pred.

665 9

12 149

85

11 2

Subject Object IObject Prep. Attrib. Adv Pred.

572 24

6 153

0,6 120

21 0,7

Subject Object IObject Prep. Attrib. Adv Pred.

1715 73

17 459

228

123

369 2 360

64 2

23 62 7 255 2 4

37 21 4

37 59 8 191 1 2

3 20 13 7

110 178 25 573 3 6

Table 4.14: Morphological case across thematic roles and genres. Genre 1 Nom Acc Dat Agent 225 Cause 2 Theme 32 92 35 Content 23 160 69 Station 177 2 Experiencer 28 3 10 Cognizer 34 2 4 Perceiver 12 2 Beneficiary 4 6 23 Goal 48 7 Reason 3 5 Source 1 22 Instrument 14 Comitative 1 12 Location 32 89 Path 28 9 Manner 12 34 Measure 2 1 Time 2 42 24

238

3

10 59 39 22

Gen

3 13

10

7 2 1 1

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Genre 2 Agent Cause Theme Content Station Experiencer Cognizer Perceiver Beneficiary Goal Reason Source Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time Genre 3 Agent Cause Theme Content Station Experiencer Cognizer Perceiver Beneficiary Goal Reason Source Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time

Nom 231 8 33 15 179 45 67 16 2

Nom 143 1 19 21 201 15 22 2 7 1

Acc

Dat

77 180

39 78 2 14 5 1 19 11 3 22 5 5 105 6 21 1 24 Dat

2 1 1 22 1 1 34 20 3 1 27 Acc

61 194

24 102 1 8 4 1 30 3

4 5 13 4 7

29 2 11 164 6 29 1 33

23 10 7 54

239

Gen

20

9 1

9 1 5

Gen

20

22 11

8 2 3 2 1

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Genre 4 Agent Cause Theme Content Station Experiencer Cognizer Perceiver Beneficiary Goal Reason Source Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time Genre 5 Agent Cause Theme Content Station Experiencer Cognizer Perceiver Beneficiary Goal Reason Source Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time

Nom 71 0 18 60 253 3 17 1 2 2

1 Nom 277 15 52 19 167 41 60 33 6

Acc

Dat 1

29 154

14 92 1 2 2

2 2 4

1 26 11 6 1 32 Acc

6 2 3 46 11 5 159 2 33 1 24 Dat

87 138

54 45

11

14 4

6 47

3 30 32 2

17 13 1 27 11 4 93 11 21

27

12

4

Gen

20

11 3 2 12 1 6 3 Gen

7

16 1

11 4 1

4

240

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Genre 6 Agent Cause Theme Content Station Experiencer Cognizer Perceiver Beneficiary Goal Reason Source Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time

Nom 458 9 78 127 701 98 204 45 25

3

Acc

Dat

Gen

82 554

35 174 1 86 8 1 121 12

1 15

16 13 44 4

31 6 4 217 7 34 1 33

1 24 17 3 1 108

Table 4.16: Thematic roles and syntactic functions across genres. Genre 1 Subject Object IObject PrObject Agent 225 Cause 2 Theme 32 109 1 20 Content 19 130 2 114 Station 179 Exp. 41 Cognizer 40 Perceiver 14 Ben. 5 7 13 8 Goal 66 Reason 8 Source 23 Instrument 7 7 Comitative 13 Location 1 127 Path 1 30 Manner 47 Measure 1 Time 1 2 45

241

14 1

7 1 8 11 3

Adv.

1 8 2 21

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Genre 2 Agent Cause Theme Content Station Exp. Cognizer Perceiver Ben. Goal Reason Source Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time Genre 3 Agent Cause Theme Content Station Exp. Cognizer Perceiver Ben. Goal Reason Source 1 Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time

Subject 231 8 40 11 181 61 73 17 3

Object

IObject

91 165

3

9

5

3 1

Subject 143 1 23 21 202 27 25 3 8

Object

63 156

IObject

PrObject

Adv.

15 117

5 42 5 22 2 6 145 24 27 1 33 PrObject Adv.

4 2

14 158

12

5 38 15 36 2 11 192 18 36

3 2 2 1 18

1 17

52

242

3 3 3 36

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Genre 4 Agent Cause Theme Content Station Exp. Cognizer Perceiver Ben. Goal Reason Source 2 Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time Genre 5 Agent Cause Theme Content Station Exp. Cognizer Perceiver Ben. Goal Reason Source Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time

Subject 71

Object

20 67 254 7 19 1 3

34 125

1

6 134

1

3

1

2

3 17 6 50 8 8 189 13 43 2 39 PrObject

1 Subject 277 15 54 12 167 66 64 33 8

Object

IObject

IObject

96 109

1

42 88

10

6

5 76 2 27 7 7 130 46 23

4

4

PrObject Adv.

1

26

243

8 1 2 20 Adv.

4 1 1 12

CASE IN ICELANDIC Genre 6 Agent Cause Theme Content Station Exp. Cognizer Perceiver Ben. Goal Reason Source Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time

Subject 458 9 81 58 703 200 212 46 32

Object

IObject

PrObject

96 525

1

18 288

88

23

16 70 5 31 4 5 241 22 40

2 1 1 1

80

Adv.

6 2 5 13 66

Table 7.12: Morphological case across thematic roles and genres in Old Icelandic. Genre 1 Nom Acc Dat Gen Agent 322 Cause 5 Theme 30 94 52 6 Content 41 140 49 36 Station 172 2 1 Experiencer 35 1 38 Cognizer 22 1 4 Perceiver 8 Beneficiary 5 2 54 2 Goal 20 13 28 Reason 2 6 9 Source 28 Instrument 5 Comitative 2 13 Location 27 63 2 Path 18 3 1 Manner 2 11 Measure 1 1 Time 1 35 12 1

244

CASE IN ICELANDIC Genre 2 Agent Cause Theme Content Station Experiencer Cognizer Perceiver Beneficiary Goal Reason Source Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time Genre 3 Agent Cause Theme Content Station Experiencer Cognizer Perceiver Beneficiary Goal Reason Source Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time

Nom 317 3 35 19 125 33 14 22 10

Acc

Dat

Gen

141 137

25 45

9 13

1

10 13 19 4

14 4 1 73 8 6 45 15 11 53 1 31

23 Acc

15 Dat

77 130 1 1

18 58 3 12 1 1 42 10 8 29 4 17 74 6 10

3 23 5

15

3

24 2

2 Nom 280 2 36 39 157 25 15 12 7

2 42 5 6 18 18

3

54

245

19 11

4 1 2 3 Gen

2 29 15

2 1

CASE IN ICELANDIC Genre 4 Agent Cause Theme Content Station Experiencer Cognizer Perceiver Beneficiary Goal Reason Source Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time

Nom 133 9 46 23 318 12 15 9 6 6

Acc

Dat 1

9 163

8 58

2 1

3 5

3 18 1 1

35 10 9 61 15 9 105 2 36 3 13

4 20 11 6 2 31

Gen

12

30 3 1 11 1 2

Table 7.13: Thematic roles and syntactic functions across genres in Old Icelandic. Genre 1 Subject Object IObject PrObject Adv. Agent 322 Cause 4 1 Theme 48 98 36 Content 15 178 72 Station 175 Exp. 74 Cognizer 27 Perceiver 8 Ben. 10 13 36 4 Goal 61 Reason 17 Source 28 Instrument 3 2 Comitative 15 Location 4 87 1 Path 16 6 Manner 13 Measure 1 1 Time 1 26 22

246

CASE IN ICELANDIC Genre 2 Subject Agent 317 Cause 3 Theme 40 Content 6 Station 125 Exp. 48 Cognizer 18 Perceiver 23 Ben. 15 Goal Reason Source Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time 2 Genre 3 Subject Agent 280 Cause 2 Theme 45 Content 23 Station 166 Exp. 38 Cognizer 16 Perceiver 13 Ben. 14 Goal Reason Source Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time 3

Object

IObject

PrObject

137 165

3

30 46

20

46

2 51 19 45 12 21 67 18 35

3 1

Object IObject

PrObject

27 Adv.

66 149

2

21 78

19

12

8 81 28 29 4 23 92 22 10

1

51

247

Adv.

2 3 2 14

1 3 21

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Genre 4 Subject Agent 133 Cause 9 Theme 47 Content 21 Station 318 Exp. 17 Cognizer 21 Perceiver 9 Ben. 13 Goal Reason Source 6 Instrument Comitative Location Path Manner Measure Time

Object

IObject

49 200

17

1

10

7 4

248

PrObject

Adv.

6 35

4 58 13 63 8 13 132 14 42 1 38

4 8

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Appendix B: Predicates occurring in the Oblique subject construction This appendix contains a list, in alphabetical order, of all the predicates occurring in the Oblique subject construction in my two corpora, including both impersonal predicates and passives. First I list the predicates in the Modern Icelandic corpus, and then the predicates in the Old Icelandic corpus: Modern Icelandic corpus: Dat Subject Predicates (71 types): bera 'be obliged', berast til eyrna 'hear', bregða fyrir 'be briefly seen', detta í hug 'get an idea', festa saman 'be fastened together', finnast 'feel', fjölga 'increase', fljúga í hug 'get an idea', fylgja 'accompany', ganga vel 'be successful', halla 'incline', heyrast 'hear, gather', hitna í hamsi 'become angry', koma saman um 'agree on', koma við 'be of sby's business', langa 'want', leiðast 'be bored', líða 'feel', líka 'like', lítast á 'like', ljósta 'strike', vera lýst 'be described', nægja 'suffice', renna kalt vatn á milli skinns og hörunds 'be terrified', reynast 'turn out to be', skiljast 'understand, gather', standa stuggur af 'be scared of sth', sýnast 'seem, appear', sæta 'be the reason for', takast 'manage, succeed', verða á mistök 'make a mistake', vera bágt til bjargar 'be difficult to save', vera beint 'be directed', verða bilt við 'be startled', vera fjarri 'be remote', vera fært 'be capable', vera haldið 'be kept', vera haldið fram 'be argued', vera heitið 'be promised', vera heitt í hamsi 'be angry', vera hugleikið 'be on sby's mind', verða hugsað 'have a thought', verða hugsað til 'remember, think about sby', vera hætt 'be ended', verða kalt 'be cold', vera leitt 'be sad', verða ljóst 'realize', vera lokið 'be finished', vera lyft 'be raised', vera meinað 'be prohibited', vera mútað 'be bribed', vera nóg 'have enough', vera nóg boðið 'be fed up', vera ókunnur 'be unknown, vera ómótt 'feel nauseated', vera ósvarað 'be unanswered', verða rótt 'become calm', vera rænt 'be kidnapped', vera sagt 'be told', vera safnað 'be collected', vera sama 'don't mind', vera sinnt 'be attended to', vera slegið föstu 'be decided', verða starsýnt á 'stare', vera stjórnað 'be controlled', vera stolið 'be stolen', vera takmörk sett 'be limited', vera tekið 'be received', vera þægð í 'be content with', virðast 'seem, appear', þykja 'feel, think, seem'. Acc Subject Predicates (14 types): bresta kjark 'lack courage', dreyma 'dream', finna 'find', fýsa 'desire', gruna 'suspect', langa 'want', leggja 'waft', lysta 'want', mega heyra 'may be heard', reka í rogastans 'become surprised', skorta 'lack', taka 'take', undra 'be surprised', vanta 'need'. Gen Subject Predicates (7 types): gerast þörf 'is needed', gæta 'be perceptible', vera að geta 'be mentioned', vera dæmi 'examples exist', vera getið til 'be guessed', vera gætt 'be considered', verða vart 'be perceptible'. Old Icelandic corpus: Dat Subject Predicates (72 types):

249

CASE IN ICELANDIC bera 'be obliged', berast 'receive', bjóða hugur 'want', byrja 'get wind', dæmast 'be judged', endast 'last', fara 'be successful', fara vel 'suit well', finnast 'think, feel, seem', fylgja 'accompany', gagna 'be of use', ganga til 'have the intention', ganga (vel) 'be (un)successful', getast að 'like', greiðast 'go well', halda 'hold', koma í hug 'get an idea', leiða illt 'get into trouble', líka 'like', lítast á 'like', ljúka 'end', mega 'must', misfarast 'be unsuccessful', mislíka 'dislike', segja hugur um 'have a feeling', snúa 'turn', standa mein að 'have problems with', sýnast 'appear, seem', takast 'succeed', vandast málið 'become difficult', vaxa afl 'become strong', vera að harmi 'be griefstrucken', verða að munni 'accidentally speak', vera áheyrilegt 'like', vera ást á 'love', vera best 'be best for sby', vera borgið 'be safe', vera fjarri 'be remote', vera forvitni á 'be curious', vera eftirsjá 'regret', vera farið 'be in a certain way', vera gerðar aðfarir 'be attacked', vera gefið 'be given', vera goldið 'be payed back', verða gott til fjár 'become rich', vera grunur 'suspect', verða hamingja að 'be of happiness for sby', verða kunnugt 'become known', vera í skapi 'feel like', vera játað 'be confessed', vera maklegt 'be deserved', vera veitt 'be given', verða mein að 'be harmful', vera nauðsyn 'be necessary', vera ofurefli 'be inferior to', vera sagt 'be told', vera sár fótur 'have pain in the leg', verða sein förin 'be late', verða seint 'be late', vera síður 'be long', vera siglt 'be sailed', vera skipað 'be given a place to sit', vera slitið 'be ended', vera tekið far 'arrange sby a lift', vera til dauða 'cause to die', vera ekki um e-n 'dislike', vera vant 'be difficult for sby', verða vei 'be woe to', vera þungt 'be difficult for sby', vera þökk 'deserve thankfulness', votta 'testify', þykja 'feel'. Acc Subject Predicates (13 types): bera 'be obliged', bera undan 'float away', bresta 'lack', forvitnar 'be curious', fýsa 'want', gefa til 'get favourable weather', gera fúsan 'become eager', greina á 'disagree', hungra 'hunger', reka 'drift', saka 'harm', sjá 'see', skorta 'lack'. Gen Subject Predicates (7 types): mega vera 'may be', vera auðið 'have the possibility, vera freistað 'be tempted', vera getið 'be mentioned', vera kostur 'be a possibility', vera tíðinda 'be new', vera von 'be expected'.

250

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Appendix C: Neologisms in the Icelandic Verb Vocabulary The following lexical entries are all marked with a figure from (1) to (6) depending on the source. Árnason et al. (1982) is marked (1), Orðasafn úr tölfræði (1990) is marked (2), Orðaskrá úr uppeldis- og sálarfræði (1994) is marked (3), Flugorðasafn (1993) is marked (4), Tölvuorðasafn (1998) is marked (5) and the corpus of spoken Icelandic is marked (6). afbaka (3) - distort. afbrengla (5) - descramble. afferma (4) - unload. afhverfa (3) - abstract. afkóta (5) - decode. afmeyja (1) - open a bottle/take the first sip. afmóta (5) - demodulate. afrita (5) - copy: afrita skrá af segulbandi á seguldisk. afrugla (5) - descramble. afskrifa (5) - scratch. afturkalla (5) - back out, undo. afþjappa (5) - unpack (governs accusative). afþjappa (5) - expand (governs accusative). aka (flugvél á jörðu) (4) - taxi. alhæfa (3) - generalize. analýserast (6) - analyse: okkur analýseraðist svo að ... annast (5) - support. applisera (6) - apply. arisera (6) - arrange. auka (5) - increment. áreita (3) - stimulate. baka (1) - treat sby badly; win sby. bakka (1) - back: bakka upp - back up, support; bakka með - back out, bakka út (6) - back out, bakka bílnum (6) - drive the car in reverse. bakka (5) - backspace. bakleita (5) - backward space, reverse search, reverse find. baksa (1) - clean a cabin in a ship. baksmala (5) - disassemble. bakþýða (5) - decompile.

banka (1) - hit, bang: banka grillið/stellið. barna (1) - add: barna frétt, barna söguna. baska (1) - busk, improvize. bauna (1) - say sth uncomfortable to sby: bauna e-u á e-n. bánsa (1) - bounce, bump: bánsa saman. beina (5) - route. beinstilla (5) - collimate. beita (stýrum) (4) - apply (flight controls); beita upp í vindinn (4) - crab. bekenna (1) - follow suit in cards; admit, agree. bera (1) - carry, sound: húsið ber vel. bera saman (5) - compare. besta (5) - optimize. betrekkja (1) - wall cover. beygja (4) - turn. beygla (1) - hit: á ég að beygla þig? biðfæra (5) - spool (Simultaneous Peripheral Operations On-Line). bila (4) - fail. binda (3) - attach, bind. birta (5) - display. blikka (5) - blink, flash. bísa (1) - scrounge, beg, steal: vera á bísanum: bísast fyrir bjór, þeir bísuðu frá mér bókunum. bíta (1) - fuck off, shut up, eat shit, piss off, get lost, beat it, fuck oneself, bíttu í þig, bíttu undan þér, bíttu gras, bíttu í rassgatið/punginn á þér.

251

CASE IN ICELANDIC bítta, býtta (1) - switch, trait, exchange, change: geturðu bíttað hundraðkalli? bíttar engu - makes no difference. bjaga (1) - distort, bend a tune: gítarinn bjagar. bjalla (1) - phone, ring: bjallaðu í mig á morgun. blaka (1) - get lost: blaka sér, blakaðu þér! blammera (1) - scoff, dishonor, insult. blanda (1) - mix, cut: blanda hamp með tóbaki. blása (1) - blow, vent: blása á e-ð - show contempt, blása af - give vent to sth, blása út (6) - give vent to sth. bleyta (1) - soften sound: bleyta sándið - soften the sound; bleyta sig - get sexually aroused; bleyta sig, bleyta í sér - drink alcohol. blikka (1) - blink; flirt. blífa (1) - stay unchanged, sustain: stjórnarskráin blífur. blokka (1) - block, block a shot (in sport); blokka frá - block sby's way. blokkera (1) - hinder. blotna (1) - get wet (sexual). blotta (1) - expose oneself, flash; put one's foot in it: blotta sig. blúsa (1) - play blues; be down, smoke dope/grass. blússa (1) - drive fast. blýstanda (1) - have an erection, have a hard-on, have it up. blæða (1) - pay for others: blæða á liðið, blæða í flösku. blöffa (1) - bluff. blöffbjóða (1) - bluff in cards. boðkenna (3) - program. boðrita (3) - program. boltast (1) - drag oneself along: boltast um bæinn. bomma (1) - make pregnant; give a receipt in a restaurant.

bonga (1) - give a receipt in a restaurant. breika (1) - take a break. brengla (5) - scramble: brengla gögn eða umskrá þau, áður en þau eru send. brenna (1) - drive fast, hurry, rush: brennum í bíó; brenna í gang, brenna af stað; brenna af - miss the target brenna út - burn out brenna yfir - burn out, break down. brenna inni með e-ð: be too late to say sth. brennsa (1) - drink alcohol, booze. breyta stærð (5) - resize. brillera (1) - perform brilliantly. brotlenda (4) - crash. brotna (1) - have a nervous break-down. bræða (1) - charm: bræða stelpurnar - charm the girls; bræða úr sér - become exhausted, burn out, break down; bræða á - begin; bræða af stað - set off. bulla (1) - begin sth: bulla sér í e-ð. bunkast (1) - move, dump, plop. bursta (1) - win with superiority. búmma (1) - cast a net in the sea without results. búsa (1) - drink alcohol, booze. bústa (1) - boost, bústaðu miðjuna. búta (5) - quantize: oft getur komið sér vel að búta aldur manns þannig að [...]. bylta (1) - have sex. bæla (3) - repress. bæta (5) - patch. böffa (1) - sell bad drugs. bögga (1) - bug, disturb: fjármálin bögga mig ekki; bug a telephone. bömmerast (1) - become depressed: bömmerast yfir skólanum. bösta (1) - bust; swindle, trick, cheat. dagrétta (5) - update. dálkahlaupa (5) - tabulate. 252

CASE IN ICELANDIC dánsa (1) - use drugs to become high: þeir fóru með hana inneftir og dánsuðu hana. deildaskipta (5) - partition. dekka (1) - cover: dekkaðu Hemma! Skagamenn dekkuðu vel allan völlinn. demba (5) - dump: gögnunum er dembt með tilteknu sniði svo að unnt sé að greina þau. demonstrera (1) - demonstrate. detta (1) - start drinking after a pause, have a relapse; detta inn - go to jail; detta í það - drink alcohol: detta í tvennt - have a child, detta í sundur - have a child. deyfa (3) - extinguish. deyfa (5) - dim. deyja (1) - die because of an overdose: deyja brennivínsdauða. digga (1) - like, dig: ég digga bárujárnsrokk; make a pass at sby - digga við. dilla (1) - get lost, dillaðu þér - get lost; dilla sér saman (6) - have a r elationship. dingla (1) - ring a bell; hang, dangle: dingla í rassgatinu á e-m; dinglaðu þér - get lost. diskriminera (6) - discriminate against: diskriminera fólki. diskútera (1) - discuss. díla (1) - make a deal, deal: díla um stuðning við ríkisstjórnina, díla við bossinn um frí; díla stuði - sell drugs, deal in drugs; díla spilunum (6) - deal the cards. dírka, dirka (1) - open a locker without a key: dírka upp. djamma (1) - jam, party. djeila (1) - imprison. djobba (1) - work. djóka (1) - joke. djúsa (1) - drink alcohol, booze. djönka (1) - be a junkie: djönka (sig).

djönkast (1) - be a junky. dobla (1) - double; doublecross. dona (1) - give up: dona uppi - give up; be forgotten somewhere: vörubíllinn donaði í brekkunni og við komumst fram úr. dópa (1) - dope: dópa sig: numb oneself with: dópa sig með sögualdarrómantík. dópast (1) - dope. draga (2) - randomize; draga inn (5) - indent; draga út (5) - extract. draugast (1) - wonder about, drag oneself around: hann hefur verið að draugast um borgina í tíu ár. drekka (1) - drink alcohol: hann er farinn að drekka; drekka sig niður. drepa (1) - hunt: ertu eitthvað að drepa hann?; stop a ball - drepa bolta. dressa (1) - dress - dressa sig upp - buy clothes, put on clothes. dreypa (1) - take a sip - dreypa á/í drink alcohol, have a drink. dripla (1) - dribble. drita (1) - spread; drita af - shoot; drita út - send away; drita í - throw in; drita út hverri bókinni af annarri, drita seðlum í bús og píur. drífa (1) - get started, drive, force: drífa langt, drífa ekkert, drífa í gegn - be heard, stand out: gítarinn dreif vel í gegn; drífa í gegn (6) - get something t hrough. droppa (1) - drug: droppa sýru: þeir droppa oft á ári; droppa við - pay a short visit; droppa út - quit, back out, give up: hann droppaði djobbinu. drulla (1) - move, transport, move oneself; fuck off:

253

CASE IN ICELANDIC viltu drulla bífunum á þér frá nefinu á mér, drulla sér, drullaðu þér út. drullast (1) - move, transport: drullastu í rúmið. dræfa (1) - drive. dudda (1) - dawdle; cuddle. dulrita (5) - encrypt, encipher. dúlla (1) - dawdle. dúmma (1) - say sth stupid, put one's foot in it: dúmma sig (út). dúmpa (1) - dump lightly; fail; dúmpuðu fingur hægri handar á borðröndina; dúmpa á prófi - fail a test. dúndra (1) - kick (a ball). dúndrast (1) - get high: dúndrast upp. dæla (1) - pump; dæla í sig áfengi drink heavily. döbba (1) - dub (a film). dömpa (6) - dump: dömpa e-m. e-maila (6) - e-mail, e-maila þér þetta. eiga (1) - have: áttu eitthvað? - do you have any (about drugs), got any on you?; eiga leikinn - have the next move. eigna (3) - attribute. einangra (3) - isolate. einræða (5) - disambiguate. eitra (1) - poison, eitra sig - use drugs, eitra fyrir e-m - give drugs to sby. elta uppi (4) - intercept. endurgera (3) - reconstruct. endurheimta (3) - retrieve. endurheimta (5) - restore. endurmeta (3) - reevaluate. endurmóta (5) - restructure. endurnefna (5) - rename. endurnýja (1) - renew, get a younger wife. endurrétta (5) - recover. endursemja (5) - reconstruct. endurskoða (5) - audit. endursníða (5) - reformat. endurtaka (2) - replicate.

endurvekja (5) - undelete. eyða (5) - delete, remove: eyða færslu úr skrá eða gagnasafni. éta (1) - use drugs, éta sýru - use LSD, éta yfir sig - have an overdose; éta e-ð hrátt - accept sth without criticism. falda (5) - nest: falda eina lykkju annarri. falla (1) - start drinking after having a sober period, to have a relapse; falla fyrir - be charmed by sby, fall for sby. falsa (1) - falsify, forge, write. fansa (4) - stow. fantasera (1) - fantasize. fara (1) - go, leave, fara inn - break in; fara niður - get down (after being drugged), fara upp - get drugged; fara upp á - have sex; fara út - go out for entertainment. fara út (5) - exit. fatra (3) - frustrate. fatta (1) - grip; understand; get an idea, get it, akkerið fattar - the anchor is at the bottom; fatta sýstemið - understand the system; fatta upp á þessu - get this idea. faxa (6) - fax. fá (1) - fá úr honum - ejaculate; fá það have sex, have an orgasm, orgams, come. fá aðgang að (5) - access. feika (1) - fake, falsify, deceive. feisa (1) - face. feitletra (5) - boldface. fella saman (5) - merge. ferma (1) - have sex. ferma (4) - load. fiffa (1) - get, fix; fiffa peningum - get money; fiffa ketilinn - fix the kettle. filma (1) - film. fingra (1) - pick pockets. 254

CASE IN ICELANDIC finna til (6) - feel hurt: mér finnur til í hendinni. finta (1) - trick, deceive. fiska (1) - get hold of something, gain possession of something. fitta (1) - fit. fixa (1) - fix, get, fixa gramm, fixa í pípu; fixa e-n - get sby in trouble. fíla (1) - like, fíla bókina, fíla sig vel. fíra (1) - slacken. fjolla (1) - flirt, have a romantic relationship, fjolla við e-n, fjolla saman. fjarræsa (5) - remote bootstrap, remote boot. fjölbinda (5) - overload. flagga (1) - let one's underwear be visible. flassa (1) - flash, expose oneself; see a picture in one's mind which disappears as soon as it appears. flatreka (1) - be adrift; turn a car in a curve so sharply that you almost lose control. fletja (1) - flat out, fletja e-n út - hit sby; fletja tútturnar - a sudden increase of the speed of a car. fleytast (um hjól loftfars) (4) aquaplane, hydroplane. flétta (5) - interleave. flippa (1) - flip, flip out, flippa á - think intensively about sth.; give up; flippa út - give vent to something; give up; go bananas; flippa e-n/e-m út - have strong influence on sby. fljóta (1) - drink alcohol: nú skal flotið. fljóta (4) - float. fljúga (1) - get drugged, be high. fljúga (4) - fly, fljúga fram hjá (4) - overfly, fljúga frá (4) - overshoot, fljúga yfir (4) - overfly.

flokka (5) - sort. flotta (1) - be showy: hann flottaði sig og fór á Hótel Holt. flytja (5) - transfer, move; flytja inn (5) - import; flytja niður (5) - download, flytja upp (5) - upload; flytja út (5) - export. fokka (1) - fuck up, mess up, make a mess of sth: fokka e-u upp fyrir e-m. forðast (3) - avoid. formóta (5) - elaborate. forrita (5) - program, code. forskoða (5) - preview. forsníða (5) - format. forvarda (6) - forward, forvarda e-u. fossa (1) - cry intensively. fókusera (1) - focus, fókusera á vandann, fókusera vélina (6), fókusera e-u (6). fóna (1) - phone. framleita (5) - forward search. framsenda (5) - forward. frasera (1) - phrase (in music). frígíra (1) - freewheel; relax. fríhjóla (1) - freewheel. fríka (1) - freak out, fríka á - dislike; fríka út - freak out, lose control, go bananas; fríka e-n/e-m út - get irritated by sby, scare sby, confuse sby. frímerkja (1) - to be glued to sby, to shadow sby, be at someone's heels. frísa (1) - give up, change one's mind. frjósa (1) - freeze, become stiff; smoke an overdose. frumgilda (5) - initialize. frumhæfa (3) - postulate. frumstilla (5) - initialize. frústrera (1) - make sby frustrated, confused or disappointed. fullbúa (5) - implement. fullnusta (5) - fire a rule, fire. fullstækka (5) - maximize. funkera (1) - function, work. 255

CASE IN ICELANDIC fúla (1) - fool, deceive. fúlla (1) - seduce: fúlla konu. fylla (1) - write, forge, falsify, fiddle with: fylla út ávísun. fylla (5) - fill; fylla á (4) - refuel, fuel. fýra (1) - put a light on, smoke, light, light up/on, fire, fýraðu upp í kamínunni; fýraðu í pípunni. fæfa (1) - smoke: fæfa sig. fæla (1) - categorize. færa í efnisskrá (5) - catalogue. færa og sleppa (5) - drag and drop. færa til (5) - relocate. gabba (5) - spoof. ganga frá (5) - render. garantera (1) - guarantee. gefa (1) - give, gefa í botn - speed up; gefa hann góðan - be a good lover; gefa fyrir - throw a ball. geiga (4) - yaw. gera (1) - do, gera í e-u - show effort; gera það - have sex. gera óvirkan (5) - disable. gera sjálfvirkan (5) - automate. gera virkan (5) - enable. geyma (5) - store; carry. gilja (1) - have sex; gilja greip sína masturbate, jerk off, whack off. gjörhreinsa (5) - sanitize: gjörhreinsa gögnin. glerja (1) - drink alcohol: glerja sig. gleypa (1) - accept: gleyptu það hrátt. grassera (1) - spread, circulate; gain a f irm footing, þegar dóp byrjaði að grassera hér, pestin grasserar í honum. greipa (1) - masturbate, jerk off, whack off: greipa sig. grilla (1) - grill sby, barbecue; burn; treat sby badly, put sby down. grípa fram í (5) - barge in. grípa inn í (5) - interrupt. grísa (1) - guess right, grísa á, grísa út.

gróðursetja (1) - bury. grófmixa (1) - mix sound temporarily. grunna (1) - record basic tunes. græja (1) - fix; græja sig upp - smarten oneself up. gubba (1) - be disgusted; talk. ég gæti gubbað - I feel sick; hann gubbaði öllu saman - he spilled everything out (gave information). gufa (1) - disappear, get lost: æ góði gufaðu upp. gútera (1) - validate, acknowledge, a ccept. gæda (1) - guide. göfga (3) - sublimate. hafa aðgang að (5) - access. hafa í geymslu (5) - store. hakka (1) - hit, eat intensively, tuck in, grind, hakka í spað; hakka í sig. halda áfram (5) - restart. halda hæð (um flugvél) (4) - maintain altitude. halla (4) - bank. hanga (4) - hover. hangfljúga (um svifflugur og svifdreka) (4) - slope soar. hamla (3) - inhibit. hástafa (5) - uppercase, capitalize. hefta (3) - frustrate. heilda (3) - integrate. heima á (4) - home. heimta (5) - retrieve. hella (1) - have sex: hella upp á. herma eftir (5) - emulate. hilla (1) - flirt: hilla píuna. hinta (1) - hint: hinta (að). hita (1) - warm, warm up; prepare for conflict: hita (sig) upp - warm up. hjóla (1) - take sth on; rush to get sth done: hjóla í. hjúpa (5) - incapsulate. hlaða (1) - make pregnant. hlaða (5) - load: hlaða minni, hlaða gögnum í minni. hlaupa yfir (5) - skip.

256

CASE IN ICELANDIC hleypa (1) - hleypa upp á sig - have sex. hliðra (5) - translate. hljóðblanda (1) - mix (sound, music). hlunkast (6) - move slowly and heavily. hneppa (5) - iconize, stow, minimize: hneppa glugga í teikn. hnita (3) - plot. hnita (4) - pinpoint. hnoða (1) - cuddle; have sex; make a baby, að hún skuli geta látið hann hnoða sig; hnoða saman krakka. hommast (1) - behave like a homosexual. hopa (5) - backspace. hoppa (1) - have sex. hrapa (4) - crash. hreinsa (1) - pick pockets; stop an attack in football. hreinsa (5) - clear. húkka (1) - hook, húkka fiskinn (með krók); húkka bíl - hitchhike; húkka gæa - pick up a man. húkkast (1) - become addicted: húkkast á sjónvarpið, húkkast á heróin. hvetja (5) - prompt. hvetja til (3) - motivate. hylja (3) - mask. hylja (5) - obscure; hylja dálka (5) - hide columns, hylja núllhólf (5) - hide if zero. hýða (1) - play drums. hægrijafna (5) - right-justify. hæka (1) - hitchhike. hækka upp (5) - round up. hætta við (5) - cancel. hömma (1) - hum. impróvisera (1) - improvise: impróvisera brandara. inna (5) - execute; inna lykkju (5) - loop; inna ræsiforrit (5) - bootstrap. innrita (4) - check in: innrita sig (4) check in. installera (6) - install: installera e-ð, installera e-u.

intressera (1) - have an interest in, be interested in: intressera sig fyrir. íbrenna (5) - burn in. íhuga (3) - contemplate. ísa (1) - move slowly on a scene; put sth on ice. jafna (5) - justify, unify; jafna út (5) round off. jesúsa (1) - call upon God; be shocked at something: jesúsa sig. jobba (1) - work. jogga (1) - jog. jolla (1) - have fun, jolla við - make a pass at sby, jolla saman - have a relationship. jukka (1) - do sth badly; push sth back and forth; have sex that is a fiasco, flunk. kalla á (5) - call. kalla fram frábrigði (5) - raise an exception. kasta (1) - throw out nets; cast; give a sound: hátalararnir kasta vel. káfa (1) - be sby's business: hvað káfar það upp á þig þó ég drekki? kássast (1) - bother, hassle sby: kássast upp á annarra manna jússur. kemba (5) - debug. keðjureykja (1) - smoke non-stop, chain-smoke. keyra (1) - do sth. with great power: keyra upp. kingsa (1) - miss the ball. kinka (hreyfast um þverás sinn) (4) pitch. kippa (1) - feel drunk; masturbate: kippa í. kitla (1) - kitla pinnann - drive fast. kíkja (1) - pay a short visit, pop in, pop by, stop by; drink alcohol, kíkja inn, kíkja við; kíkja í glas. klassa (1) - fix, mend: klassa upp. klessa (1) - throw fast; destroy, klessa í vinkilinn; klessa bílinn.

257

CASE IN ICELANDIC klessukeyra (1) - destroy (a car) in an accident. klifra (4) - climb. klikka (1) - fail, break down. klikkast (1) - go bananas. klippa (1) - jump high jump from the side: klippa aftur fyrir sig - let oneself fall and kick the ball at the same time. klippa (5) - cut. klippa og líma (5) - cut and paste. klossbremsa (1) - push the breaks hard and suddenly. klæja (1) - klæja í fingurna - be restless to begin sth. knarka (1) - use drugs. knúsa (1) - hug intensively. koffína (6) - get tuned up by caffeine: koffína sig upp. koma (1) - get an orgasm, come, orgasm; koma í gegn - sound; koma niður - get down from being high. kommentera (1) - comment. kompa (1) - comp (music). kompónera (1) - compose. kortsetja (4) - plot. koxa (1) - get paralysed, collapse (because of drug abuse), koxa út - fall asleep, koxa yfir - fall asleep; koxa á - give up. kóp(í)era (1) - copy: kópera erlend lög. kóta (5) - encode, code. krakka (1) - crack, become bankrupt; break down, go bananas, let the cat out of the bag. krepera (1) - give up: Jón er alveg að krepera. krossa (1) - use many different drugs at the same time. krumpa (1) - speed up: krumpa malbikið. krunka (1) - talk, krunka saman, krunka e-u að e-m. krúsa (1) - cruise, drive around; search for a date/a sexual partner/a trick (among homosexuals).

kúpla (1) - back out, cop out: kúpla sér út (úr). kúra (1) - study hard, cram. kútta (1) - cut, gut fish. kvaka (4) - squawk. kvarða (5) - scale, normalize. kveðja (5) - prompt. kveikja (4) - ignite. kyssa (1) - drink alcohol: kyssa stútinn. kýla (1) - hit, kick hard; begin sth; kýldi gæjann í rot; kýla á, kýla af stað. kæsa (1) - treat sby badly. kötta (1) - eke out dope/grass with additional substances, cut; change the power of a frequency when mixing a sound; stop a defence player in baseball from getting to an attack player: kötta á manninum. labba (1) - go; sth goes well, is easy: e-ð labbar sig e-ð. lagskipta (2) - stratify. langlenda (4) - overshoot. lansera (6) - launch, lansera laginu - launch the song. lása (1) - lock together (with a lock); lása úr - unlock. láta (1) - have sex - láta það (about a woman). láta fylgja (5) - attach. leggja fram (5) - post. leisa (1) - lace, stitch together: leisa saman. leita (5) - search, find. leka (1) - leak information. lempa (1) - adjust. lenda (1) - land (after using drugs). lenda (4) - land. lensa (1) - be adrift; pump out water; have a leak. lepja (1) - drink alcohol slowly. lesa (1) - smoke dope/grass. lesa (5) - read. lesbast (1) - behave as a lesbian. leysa (5) - expand (stækka teikn í glugga).

258

CASE IN ICELANDIC liggja (1) - have sex, liggja konu - have sex with a woman, liggja undir e-m - have sex with a man; liggja í því - be defeated. lista (5) - list. lífga (5) - animate. líma (5) - paste. lofta (1) - lift, raise: lofta undir mynd; lofta (út) - discuss problems. losna (1) - get out of prison. lúlla (1) - sleep together without having sex; potter about: þær lúlluðu við hárið á sér. lyfja (1) - give drugs to sby; lyfja sig. lyfjast (1) - use drugs. lyftast (1) - get high (from drugs). lækka niður (5) - round down. læna (1) - line; læna upp. magngreina (3) - quantify. mala (1) - defeat sby completely. manúera (1) - manoeuvre; solve a problem: hvernig ætlarðu að manúera þetta? matsa (1) - match. meika (1) - make, meika það - be well off, be a hit, make it; meika það ekki - not being able to handle sth; meika seðla - make money; meika ekki sens - doesn't make sense; meika (í) pípu - fix a pipe; meika sig - put on make up. meina (1) - mean: ég meina það. meilast á (6) - e-mail to each other. melast (1) - have a loose relationship: þau eru eitthvað að melast. melda (1) - report: melda sig. mera, merast (1) - be in a rush (about a woman); be shocked in a "feminine way". merkja (3) - label. meta (2) - estimate, evaluate. miðja (5) - centre. miðjusetja (5) - centre. millifæra (4) - interline. minnast (3) - recollect. minnka (5) - decrement.

mixa (1) - mix music; mix (a pipe): mixa pípu. mjólka (1) - masturbate. moka (1) - use drugs, moka í nefið, moka í e-n. móta (4) - modulate. músa (1) - put a rope in order: músa fyrir. músisera/mússisera (1) - play or sing music. mygla (1) - have a steady relationship, g o steady: mygla saman. myndlífga (5) - animate. mýkjast (1) - get soft by using drugs: mýkjast upp. mæka (1) - amplify a sound: mæka upp trommurnar. möndla (1) - fix, make an agreement. nauðbeita (skrúfu) (4) - feather. negla (1) - hit; shoot fast, nail; negla niður - decide; í fallinu negli ég höfðinu í stálbita - when falling I hit my head on a piece of steel; hann negldi í markið; negla píu - nail a girl; negla bæinn - drive around; negla niður - break suddenly; negla á - begin sth. neita (5) - negate. netast á (6) - write to each other on the Internet. netsíma (5) - telnet. nótera (1) - note, write down. núllfylla (5) - zerofill. núrétta (5) - update. nýglæða (5) - refresh. nýstilla teljara (5) - reset a counter. næla (1) - get, næla sér í pening, næla sér í gæja. næma (1) - understand; feel good; have sex. næma (3) - sensitize. oja (1) - say yuck, show disgust: yfir hverju ojarðu? ofnema (3) - overlearn. ofreisa (4) - stall. ofrísa (4) - stall. 259

CASE IN ICELANDIC opna (1) - open up, be honest, show one's feelings: opna sig. ordna (1) - get sth for sby, be in care of sth. organisera (6) - organize, organisera e-ð, organisera e-u. ógilda (5) - back out, undo. ónanera (1) - masturbate: ónanera á frönskum kúltúr. óperera (1) - operate. padda (1) - dampen strength. pakka (1) - pack, pakka saman; pakka e-m saman - treat sby badly. para (1) - find a sexual partner, mate, pare: fólkið paraði sig í vangalaginu. parkera (1) - park a car, give up; parkera sér - install oneself. pensla (1) - have sex (with a woman): pensla nýrun. peppa (1) - pep, make livelier: peppa upp. pikka (1) - typewrite; find a lover; get, take; pikka stelpu; pikka upp farþega; pikka fæting - pick a fight. pilla (1) - scathe, pick on; leave: held þú ættir að pilla þér af stað. pissa (1) - give up: pissa út. pípa (1) - peep; nag; pípa á - give a shit. plaffa (1) - shoot: plaffaðu hann niður. plana (1) - plan, organize. planera (1) - plan, organize. planta (1) - put, planta e-u e-s staðar - put sth. somewhere, planta sér niður - sit down. plata (1) - deceive: plata hann upp úr skónum. plokka (1) - con money off sby; play an instrument tune by tune: plokka gítar. plotta (1) - make a plot. pluma, plumma (1) - do well; feel good/bad: pluma sig vel. plögga (1) - plug.

poppa (1) - make popcorn; pop (pills), take poppers: poppa pillum - misuse prescribed drugs. pósta (6) - post, pósta bréfunum - post the letters. pressa (1) - attack (in football); deceive; press, þeir pressuðu Jón til að segja af sér, pressa á. pródúsera (1) - produce. prófa (5) - test. prógrammera (1) - arrange sth; indoctrinate. prumpa (1) - fart; talk nonsense. pumpa (1) - press sby to talk; pumpa sig - make a lot of noise, argue. punda (1) - speak out, attack, punch sby: Einar pundaði aldeildis á hann í sjónvarpinu. punkta (1) - break suddenly. punktera (1) - have a flat/puncture. putta (1) - pick pockets. puttast (1) - hitchhike. púffa (1) - smoke (dope/grass). pússa (1) - sell drugs, push: pússa stuði. pústa (1) - rest. pútta (1) - hit the final shot (in golf). pæla (1) - think about: þeir eru að pæla í að koma kannski í kvöld; pæla gegnum - work through sth difficult; pæla út - discover. pöffa (1) - smoke dope/grass. raða (1) - recollect oneself: ég raðaði mér saman og lagði íann aftur. raða af handahófi (2) - randomize. raða (5) - order. raða (5) - sort. raða verkum (5) - schedule. ralla (1) - drink and party. ranast (1) - cuddle, kiss: þau hafa verið eitthvað að ranast. rannsaka (3) - investigate. rappa (1) - rap; talk lyrics instead of singing. rasa (1) - give vent to one's feelings rasa út. 260

CASE IN ICELANDIC ráða (5) - evaluate. rápa (5) - navigate - browse. rása (4) - swing. redda (1) - help; provide sth, reddaðu mér um fimmkall, redda bakaríinu - prevent problems. reddast (1) - work out, þetta reddast allt saman. reita (3) - stimulate. reka (4) - drift. rekja (5) - trace. rekja upp (5) - roll back. renna (5) - zoom, renna að (5) - zoom in, renna frá (5) - zoom out. rennifljúga (4) - glide. renusa (1) - get rid of a suit (in cards): renusa sig. rétta af (4) - recover. rétta flugið (4) - recover. rétta úr (4) - pull out. rita (5) - type. rita yfir (5) - overwrite. ritla (5) - edit. ritsetja (5) - edit. ritvinna (5) - edit. ríða (1) - have sex, ríða (með) (about women), ríða undir (about women); ríða framhjá - have an affair; ríða sig fastan - get married and have children. rífa (1) - rífa sig - make a lot of noise, argue; rífa upp - rebuild; rífa e-n upp á rassgatinu - drag sby out of bed; order sby to work. rjúfa (5) - interrupt. rjúfa á rofstað (5) - initiate a breakpoint. rokka (1) - play rock and roll; dance to rock and roll, rock. róla (1) - play or dance to rock and roll: rokka og róla. róta (1) - move things: rótum dótinu inn; hver rótar fyrir hljómsveitina? - move and put up instruments for bands; drive off harshly.

rótbursta (1) - win with superiority. rugla (5) - scramble. runka (1) - jerk sby off, manually stimulate, masturbate; þetta fólk er alltaf að runka sér á hámenningunni. rúlla (1) - start drinking after a sober period, rúlla e-m - get sby to start to drink again: einmanaleikinn hefur rúllað mörgum; rúlla e-m - steal from a drunk person; rúlla e-m upp - win sby with superiority; rúlla yfir - give up, die. rúnna (1) - round off a number: rúnna upphæðina af. rúnta (1) - drive around. rússa (1) - drink alcohol without stopping. ryðja inn (5) - roll in, swap in. ryðja út (5) - roll out, swap out. ryka (1) - become aware of fish in special search equipment: það lóðaði hvergi uppi í sjó, en rykaði svolítið niður við botninn. rýma (4) - evacuate. ræsa (1) - wake up; start. ræsa (5) - boot. rövla (1) - talk nonsense (when drunk), babble. safnvista (5) - archive. salla (1) - shoot intensely; argue against: sallað á ráðherra í leiðaranum; salla niður - shoot down, argue against: gagnrýnandinn sallaði Jón greyið niður í dómnum. samraða (5) - collate. samsama (3) - identify. samsníða (3) - conform. sannprófa (5) - verify. sannvotta (5) - authenticate. saxa (1) - jump high jump from the side. sánda (1) - sound, carry sound: orgelið sándar ekki nógu vel, hvernig sándar í húsinu? segjast (1) - what's up, what's new: hvað segist? senda (4) - transmit; 261

CASE IN ICELANDIC senda amapóst (5) - spam; senda áfram (5) - forward; senda illskeyti (5) - flame; senda með gildi (5) - pass by value; senda með tilvísun (5) - pass by reference. sentra (1) - throw ball between players (sport). servera (1) - serve: það er serverað vín þar. setja í (5) - mount; load; setja í flugbann (4) - ground; setja í geymslu (5) - store, carry; setja í töflu (5) - tabulate. setjast (um sjóflugvél) (4) - alight. setla, sétla (1) - settle: setla málin, það þarf að setla Magnús. sénera (1) - bother. sénsast (1) - have sex irregularly: þau eru eitthvað að sénsast saman. sérgreina (5) - qualify. sérsníða (5) - customize. sértaka (3) - abstract. signalera (6) - signal: signalera e-ð, signalera e-u. sippa (1) - rope; drink alcohol; sippa sér - go somewhere: sippum okkur á ball. sirka (1) - guess: sirka út. sía sjálfvirkt (5) - autofilter. símsenda (5) - fax. sjarmera (1) - charm: hann sjarmeraði áheyrendur upp úr skónum. sjá (1) - see: sé þig. sjást (1)- sjáumst - see you. sjálfþýða (5) - bootstrap. sjokkera (1) - shock. sjússa (1) - drink alcohol: sjússa sig. sjæna (1) - make shiny, sjæna bílinn, sjæna staðinn dáldið til, sjæna sig - dress up/put on make up. skalla (1) - head a ball (in football). skammlenda (4) - undershoot. skammta (5) - quantize. skandalísera (1) - make a scandal.

skanna (5) - scan. skáletra (5) - italicize. skálka (1) - close with shutters or a sail: skálka lest, skálka lúgur. skera (1) - sail over fishing gear. skeyta við (5) - append. skila (5) - deallocate; skila gildi (5) return a value. skilma (1) - throw out the tree fish: kondu og skilmaðu hérna framar. skilyrða (3) - condition. skippa (6) - skip: skippa e-u. skipta (5) - toggle; skipta á síður (5) - paginate; skipta í kafla (5) - segment; skipta um (5) - replace; skipta um kafla (5) - overlay. skíta (1) - shit; skíta peningum - be economically strong; skíta á tappa - drink alcohol; vera úti að skíta - be ignorant. skjala (5) - document. skjalbúa (5) - document. skjóta (1) - shoot; skjóta sig í - have a crush on; skjóta á sig - drink alcohol; skjóta sig - inject (with morphine/heroin); skjóta - film a movie. skorða farangur (4) - stow. skotra - (5) pan. skralla (1) - drink and party. skrambla (6) - scramble: skrambla andlaginu. skrá - log: skrá inn (5) - log on, log in, sign on, skrá í (5) - log on, log in, sign on, skrá stöðulýsingu (5) - journalize, log out, skrá úr (5) - log off, log out, sign off, skrá út (5) - log off, log out, sign off. skrifa (1) - falsify a check: hann er fyrir austan, skrifaði of mikið. skrifa (5) - write: skrifa ofan í (5) - overwrite; skrifa sig (5) - subscribe. skriflæsa (5) - write protect. skríma (1) - scream. 262

CASE IN ICELANDIC skrína (1) - screen (sport). skrolla (6) - scroll: ég skrolla gluggunum. skruna (5) - scroll: ég skruna gluggunum (6). skurka (5) - hack. skrúfa (1) - silence: skrúfa fyrir kjaftinn. skúbba (1) - push sby; scoop; skúbba af - finish sth in a rush. skúffa (1) - disappoint; push sby: ef ég léti hann skúffa mér aftur fyrir sig. skvera (1) - square, make ready: skvera skip, láta trollið skvera sig; skvera sig af/upp - dress up; skvera af - finish sth in a rush. skvísa (1) - squeeze; skvísa sér - dash: fýsurnar skvísuðu sér niður á ísbar. skyggja á (5) - occlude. skynja (3) - perceive; sense. slaka (1) - hand over, give, slakaðu til mín bókinni, slakaðu kaffinu, slaka sér - leave: slökum okkur á ball, æ blessaður slakaðu þér; slakaðu hleranum - shut the window. slaka (3) - relax. slappa (1) - relax: slappa af. slaufa (6) - skip: slaufa e-u. slá (1) - get a loan, sló pabba fyrir bílnum, vonlaust að slá víxil; slá í gegn - become famous; slá (undir) í barn - make a child. slá inn (5) - key. slátra (1) - win with superiority; finish: slátruðum viskýflösku. slefa (1) - drag; lift; blather; gossip; rétt slefar upp í 6000 krónur almost makes 6000 crowns. sleikja (1) - kiss. slembiraða (2) - randomize. slétta úr (4) - flare out. slíta vinnslu (5) - abort. slurka (1) - drink alcohol.

smakka (1) - smakka það - drink alcohol. smala (5) - assemble (governs accusative). smassa (1) - smash (sport). smella (5) - click. smika (1) - smika sig - smoke cannabis. smóka (1) - smóka sig - smoke cannabis. smúla (1) - squirt. smúl(l)a (1) - smuggle: hann smúllaði flösku inn á ballið, hann smúllaði sér inn í hléinu. smækka (5) - iconize, stow, minimize. smæla (1) - smile: smælaðu framan í heiminn, smæla til smælingjanna. snapa (5) - scavenge. snerta (4) - touch down. sniffa (1) - sniff drugs. sníða (5) - format. snjóa (1) - snow, disturb; flock inside: þá byrjaði krökkum að snjóa inn í sjoppuna; be drugged by amphetamine/cocaine: það hefur snjóað upp í andlitið á honum. snobba (1) - snob, snobba fyrir - flatter sby, snobba niður á við - flatter those who have lower prestige. snuða (1) - deceive, hann snuðaði mig um afganginn, kúplingin snuðar illa, bíllinn snuðar í fjórða gír. snuðra (5) - lurk. snyrta (5) - round. snýta (1) - win with superiority, við rótburstuðum þá, snýttum þeim; snýttu þér - shut up; get lost. snögglosa (4) - jettison, dump. sofa (1) - sofa hjá - have sex. sóla (1) - play solo (sport). spaðast (1) - shake hands. spá (1) - spá í - think about, er að spá í að skipta um vinnu, spáðu í mig, þá mun ég spá í þig, spá í e-u (6). spegla (5) - mirror.

263

CASE IN ICELANDIC spila (1) - play, spila sig - pretend: þeir eru farnir að spila sig bossa; spila út - give up; go crazy. spinna (3) - improvise. spíta (1) - speed: spíta í - increase the speed of a car suddenly. spítta (1) - speed, drive fast; use drugs. splitta (1) - split, splitta hópnum, splitta upp - eigum við ekki bara að splitta upp grúppunni?; splittar ekki diff - makes no difference. splæsa (1) - put together a rope; splæsa á - pay for others, splæsa í flösku. sporta (1) - sporta sig - have fun. spóla (1) - spóla í e-n - attack sby; spóla í e-m - make sby angry; spóla e-n upp úr skónum deceive sby. spólera (1) - spoil: þú spólerar öllu. spranga (5) - surf, network surf. sprauta (1) - sprauta sig - inject oneself with drugs. spreða (1) - waste: spreða fimmhundruð- köllunum. spreðast (1) - drink and party: ætliði að spreðast eitthvað í kvöld? spreia (1) - spray. sprengja (1) - sprengja sig - inhale too much dope in one go. springa (1) - explode, have an orgasm, orgasm, come (about women). spúkast (1) - be secretive about sth. spúla (1) - squirt. spýta (1) - spýta í - increase the speed of a car: spýta í brakið. spæla (1) - treat sby badly, trick sby. staðfesta (5) - commit. staðgreina (3) - localize. staðla (3) - standardize, normalize. staðmarka (3) - localize. staðrétta (5) - justify: staðrétta til hægri (5) - rightjustify, staðrétta til vinstri (5) left-justify. staðsetja (3) - localize. stafa (5) - digitize.

stafsía (5) - mask. staga (5) - patch. stampa (1) - pant. standa (1) - standa klár að e-u - be ready; standa klár á e-u - be certain; standa - have a hard on manni stendur bara af því að sjá hana. starta (1) - start. stefna (4) - vector. stegla (3) - stereotype. steinka (1) - spray with perfume; wet clothes before ironing. stela (1) - stela senunni - rob the attention from sby; get the attention surprisingly; get the ball from the opponent (in sport): hann stal tuðrunni af honum. stélkastast (4) - ground loop. stigbæta (5) - upgrade. stilla (4) - trim. stilla teljara (5) - set a counter. stinga (1) - stinga inn - put to jail; stinga niður - hit the ball to the floor in basketball; stinga undan - steal sby's lover/fiancé; stinga út - drink up. stinga í samband (5) - plug. stinka (1) - stink, be suspicious, be corrupt: þessi bransi stinkar. stíga (1) - stíga út - block the way (sport). stíga (4) - climb. stíma (1) - steam, sail; stíma á - crash. stímúlera (1) - stimulate. stjaka (5) - shift. storma (1) - rush, dash. stóna (1) - give cannabis; stóna sig smoke cannabis. stónka (1) - stónka sig - smoke cannabis. stónkast (1) - smoke cannabis, get stoned. stranda (6) - strand: stranda frumlaginu. stramma (1) - stramma sig af - pull oneself together, try to sober up. strauja (1) - crash: hann straujaði tækið. streða (1) - work hard, 264

CASE IN ICELANDIC streða í skóla, streða eftir, streða sér áfram. stressa (1) - make nervous: þessi vinna stressar mig. strika undir (5) - underline, underscore. strippa (1) - strip. strokka (1) - strokka sig - masturbate (about men), jerk off, whack off, stroke. stropa (1) - make a woman pregnant. stræka (1) - strike: stræka á - strækum á að vinna í kvöld. strögla (1) - struggle. stuða (1) - pulverize; bother: dönskusletturnar stuða mig ekkert; stuða sig - use cannabis. stúa (1) - arrange boxes on a board. stúta (1) - kill; stúta flösku - drink alcohol from one bottle. stykkja (5) - tessellate. styrkja (3) - reinforce. stæla (3) - model. stöffa (1) - stöffa sig - use drugs. stökkva (5) - jump; stökkva út (4) - bail out. sukka (1) - party and use drugs: sukkuðu stíft. sulla (1) - drink alcohol: sulla í brennivíni. svansa (1) - career. svara (3) - respond, reply. sverja (1) - swear: ég sver það! Unbelievable! sviffljúga (4) - soar. svipta (3) - deprive. svissa (1) - switch: hann svissaði yfir í nýmáladeild. svífa (4) - glide. svína (1) - svína (á) - take risks in cards; drive carelessly. svípa (1) - sweep, increase the strength of a frequency: svípaðu miðjuna. svæfa (5) - occlude. synda (1) - be drunk. syngja (1) - give information to the police. taglhnýtast (5) - tailgate. taka (1) - have sex; fara inn og taka - steal;

taka í; try (instrument/car); have sex; taka ofan í sig - breathe smoke down in the lungs; taka út á sér/e-m getnaðarlim sinn/e-s - take out the penis. taka afrit (5) - copy; taka á leigu (4) - charter; taka á móti (4) - receive; taka flugið (4) - take off; taka sjálfgefið gildi (5) - default to; taka sýni (5) - sample; taka úr (5) - dismount, demount; taka öryggisafrit (5) - backup. takast á loft (4) - lift off. takla (1) - tackle. tappa (1) - tappa af - pie. táknsetja (3) - code. teika (1) - hold on to a car which is driving. teikna (5) - plot. teista (1) - try. tendra (4) - ignite. tengja (5) - link. terrorísera (1) - terrorize. testa (1) - test. teygja (5) - stretch. tékka (1) - falsify a check; tékka á - check on sth: tékkaðu á málunum; tékka sig inn - check in a flight. tigla (5) - tile. tigna (3) - idealize. tikka (1) - tick, typewrite. tilreiða (5) - edit. timbrast (1) - get hangover. tippa (1) - tip (a lottery); guess. títa (1) - have sex: að títa hana. tjakka (1) - see tékka. tjá (3) - express. tjúna (1) - tune an instrument; tjúna upp - make sby aggressive/aroused. tjútta (1) - party. trekkja (1) - attract: svona stykki trekkja alltaf vel. trilla (1) - drive, move around, roll. trimma (1) - trim. trippa (1) - trip, take LSD; trippa á think intensively about sth; flip over. trixa (1) - trick: trixa upp úr skónum. 265

CASE IN ICELANDIC troða (1) - troða upp - perform; troddu þér - get lost; troða e-u upp í andlitið á sér eat sth; troða e-u upp í rassinn/ rassgatið á sér; stop minding other people's business. trukka (1) - make a pass at sby. trylla (1) - drive fast: tætum og tryllum. tuddast (1) - play harshly (sport). turna (1) - win sby over by giving him cannabis for the first time: þá var mér tjörnað. túlka (3) - interpret. tvinna (5) - merge. tvífalda (5) - duplicate. tvísmella (5) - double click. tölvuvæða (5) - computerize. törnast (1) - turn, get turned upside down. ulla (1) - stick out one's tongue, show disrespect in defiance; don't give a shit: ég ulla á þau. umfæra (3) - transfer. umlýsa (5) - reverse. ummóta (5) - endurmóta. ummynda (5) - transform. umrita (5) - transcribe. umskipa (3) - restructure. umskrá (5) - convert. umstafa (5) - transliterate. umtákna (3) - encode. umturna (1) - turn upside down. umturnast (6) - change totally. umtútta (1) - change tyres on a car. undirstrika (5) - underline, underscore. uppfæra (5) - update. uppgötva (3) - detect. úthluta (5) - allocate. vakta (4) - monitor. vana (3) - castrate. vanga (1) - dance cheek to cheek. varíera (6) - vary, change. varpa (5) - map. váa (1) - say wow: váaði hún í undirmeðvitundinni, ungpíurnar váa. veiða (1) - look for a lover. veita tíma (5) - dispatch. vekja (5) - activate, invoke. velja (5) - select.

velta (4) - roll. vera (1) - vera með - have sex; have a relationship; vera saman - have a steady relationship; have sex; vera á því, vera í því - be drugged, vera á e-u - use drugs on a regular basis: hann er á pillum, allt liðið var á fljúgandi spítti. vera sveitt (6) - feel sweaty: mér er sveitt. vernda með aðgangsorði (5) - password protect. vinda saman (5) - convolve. vinda til baka (5) - rewind. vinna úr gögnum (5) - process data. vinstrijafna (5) - left-justify. vista (5) - save. vistfengja (5) - address. vistþýða (5) - compile. víbra (1) - vibrate; have good/bad vibres: mér finnst hann alltaf víbra svo óþægilega; víbra inn á - understand, perceive. víbrera (1) - see víbra. víma (1) - víma sig - drug oneself. vísasetja (5) - index. víxla (5) - swap. voka (4) - hover. vökva (1) - vökva sig - drink alcohol. yfirhala (1) - go over sth and mend it. yfirspila (1) - be more competent than sby. yngja (1) - yngja upp hjá sér - remarry sby younger. ýta (4) - push back. þátta (5) - parse. þefa (1) - þefa af - get acquainted with: eitthvað hefurðu þefað af hljómsveitarbransanum hér áður; þefa af tappa - drink alcohol. þenja (1) - play intensely: hann þandi gítarinn, þenja nikkuna. þjappa (1) - sell drugs. þjappa (5) - pack (governs accusative). þjappa (5) - compress, compact (governs accusative). þruma (1) - kick a ball intensely.

266

CASE IN ICELANDIC þrusa (1) - kick; þrusa sér - dash, rush: þrusa sér í bíó. þurrka út (5) - erase. þynna (4) - dilute. þynnast (1) - þynnast upp - decreasing influence of alcohol: maður fer að þynnast upp ef þeir koma ekki með meira. þýða (5) - translate.

267

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Appendix D: Possible Constructions of Icelandic Novel Verbs In the list below, the verbs always are always given in the infinitive form, apart from the impersonal verbs selecting oblique subjects. They are always finite. I have not differentiated between reflexive and non-reflexive verbs. Both are listed according to their occurrences in constructions, irrespective of whether the object is an ordinary accusative or dative object, or a reflexive pronoun in the accusative or dative case. This means that verbs selecting accusative or dative objects are listed separately with both reflexive and non-reflexive objects. Some examples are marked with a question mark '?'. That means that I have not felt sure about my own judgements, but these are only a handful of examples and not used to base any conclusions upon. (1)

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjAcc (402 instances)

b.

afbaka e-ð, afbrengla e-ð, afhverfa e-ð, afkóta e-ð, afmeyja e-ð, afmóta eð, afrita e-ð, afrugla e-ð, afskrifa e-ð, afturkalla e-ð, afþjappa e-ð, annast e-ð, auka e-ð, áreita e-n, baka e-n, baksmala e-ð, bakþýða e-ð, banka e-n, baksa e-ð, barna e-ð, beinstilla e-ð, bekenna e-ð, besta e-ð, betrekkja e-ð, beygla e-ð, biðfæra e-ð, binda e-ð, birta e-ð, bíta e-ð, blammera e-n, blanda e-ð, bleyta e-ð/sig, blikka e-n, blokka e-ð, blokkera e-ð, blotta sig, blöffa e-n, boðkenna e-ð, boðrita e-ð, bomma e-ð/e-n, bonga e-n, brengla e-ð, breyta stærð, bræða e-n, bursta e-n, búmma e-ð, búsa e-ð, bústa e-ð, búta e-ð, bæla e-ð, bæta e-ð, böffa e-ð, bögga e-ð/e-n, bösta e-ð/e-n, dagrétta e-ð, dálkahlaupa e-ð, dánsa e-n, dekka e-ð/e-n, demonstrera e-ð, deyfa e-ð, digga e-n, diskútera e-ð, djeila e-n, djönka sig, dobla e-n, dópa sig, drekka e-ð, drepa e-ð/e-n, drífa ekkert, dræfa e-ð/e-n, dulrita e-ð, dúmma sig, döbba e-ð, e-maila e-ð, eiga e-ð, einangra sig/e-ð, einræða eð, eitra sig, endurgera e-ð, endurheimta e-ð, endurmeta e-ð, endurmóta eð, endurnefna e-ð,endurnýja e-ð, endurrétta e-ð, endursemja e-ð, endurskoða e-ð, endursníða e-ð, endurtaka e-ð,endurvekja e-ð, éta e-ð, falsa e-ð, fansa e-ð?, fatta e-ð, fatra e-ð, fá e-ð, faxa e-ð, feika e-ð, feisa e-n, feitletra e-ð, ferma e-ð/e-n, fiffa e-ð, filma e-ð, finta e-n, fiska e-ð, fixa e-ð/e-n, fíla sig, fjarræsa e-ð, fjölbinda e-ð, fletja e-ð, flétta e-ð, flokka e-ð, flotta sig, forðast e-ð, formóta e-ð, forrita e-ð, forskoða e-ð, forsníða e-ð, fókusera e-ð, framsenda e-ð, frasera e-ð, frímerkja e-ð, frumgilda e-ð, frumhæfa e-ð, frumstilla e-ð, frústrera e-n, fullbúa e-ð, fullnusta e-ð, fullstækka e-ð, fúla e-n, fúlla e-n, fæfa sig, fæla e-ð, gabba e-n, garantera e-ð, gera það, geyma e-ð, gilja greip sína, gjörhreinsa e-ð, glerja sig, greipa sig, grilla e-n, gróðursetja e-n, grófmixa e-ð, græja e-ð, gútera e-ð, göfga e-n, hástafa e-ð, hefta e-ð/e-n, heilda e-ð, heimta e-ð, hilla e-n, hjúpa e-ð, hlaða e-n/e-ð, hljóðblanda e-ð, hnoða e-n, hreinsa eð, húkka e-ð/e-n, hylja e-ð, hýða e-ð, hægrijafna e-ð, impróvisera e-ð, inna e-ð, innrita e-n/sig, installera e-ð, íbrenna e-ð, íhuga e-ð, ísa e-ð, jafna e-ð, jesúsa sig, kemba e-ð, kitla e-ð, klessa e-ð, klessukeyra e-ð, klippa e-ð, knúsa e-n, kommentera e-ð, kompa e-ð, kompónera e-ð, kortsetja e-ð, kópíera e-ð, kóta e-ð, krumpa e-ð, kútta e-ð, kvarða e-ð, kyssa stútinn, kæsa e-n, kötta e-ð, láta það, lansera e-ð lempa e-ð, lepja eð, lesa e-ð, leysa e-ð, ligga e-n, lista e-ð, lífga e-ð, líma e-ð, lyfja sig, 267

CASE IN ICELANDIC magngreina e-ð, mala e-n, manúera e-ð, meika það, meina það, melda en, merkja e-ð, meta e-ð, miðja e-ð, miðjusetja e-ð, millifæra e-ð, minnka e-ð, mixa e-ð, mjólka sig, móta e-ð, myndlífga e-ð, möndla e-ð, negla eð/e-n, netsíma e-ð, nótera e-ð, núllfýlla e-ð, núrétta e-ð, nýglæða e-ð, nýstilla e-ð, næma e-ð, ofnema e-ð, ofreisa e-ð, opna sig, ordna e-ð, ógilda e-ð, padda e-ð, para sig, pensla nýrun, pikka e-n/e-ð, plana e-ð, planera e-ð, plata e-n, plokka e-n, plotta e-ð, plögga e-ð, poppa e-ð, pósta e-ð, pródúsera e-ð, prófa e-ð, prógrammera e-ð, pumpa sig/e-n, putta e-ð, púffa e-ð, pútta e-ð, pöffa e-ð, rannsaka e-ð, reita e-ð/e-n, rekja e-ð, renusa sig, rétta e-ð, rita e-ð, ritla e-ð, ritsetja e-ð, ritvinna e-ð, rífa sig, rjúfa e-ð, rótbursta e-n, rugla e-n, rýma e-ð, ræsa e-ð/e-n, safnvista e-ð, samsníða e-ð, sannprófa e-ð, sannvotta e-ð, senda e-ð, sentra e-ð, servera e-ð, setla e-ð, sénera e-n, sérgreina e-ð, sérsníða e-ð, sértaka e-ð, signalera e-ð, símsenda e-ð, sjarmera e-n, sjá e-n, sjálfþýða e-ð, sjokkera e-n, sjússa sig, sjæna e-ð/sig, skalla e-ð, skammta e-ð, skanna e-ð, skáletra e-ð, skálka e-ð, skera e-ð, skilyrða e-n/e-ð, skjala e-ð, skjalbúa, skjóta sig, skorða e-ð, skrá e-ð, skrifa sig, skrína e-ð, skurka e-ð, skúffa en, skvera e-ð, skynja e-ð, slá e-ð/e-n, sleikja e-n, smakka e-ð, smala e-ð, smika sig, smóka sig, smúla e-ð, smækka e-ð, snapa e-ð, snerta e-ð, sníða e-ð, snyrta e-ð, snögglosa e-ð, spegla e-ð, spinna e-ð, sporta sig, sprauta sig, sprengja sig, spúla e-ð, spæla e-n, staðfesta e-ð, staðgreina e-ð, staðla e-ð, staðmarka e-ð, staðrétta e-ð, staðsetja e-ð, stafa e-ð, stafsía e-ð, staga e-ð, stampa e-ð, stegla e-ð, steinka e-ð, stigbæta e-ð, stilla e-ð, stíga e-ð, stímúlera e-n, stóna sig, stónka sig, strauja e-ð, stressa e-n, strokka sig, stropa e-n, stuða e-n, stúa e-ð?, stykkja e-ð, styrkja e-ð, stæla e-n, stöffa sig, sverja e-ð, svipta e-n, svípa e-ð, svæfa e-ð, taka e-ð, takla e-ð, táknsetja e-ð, teikna e-ð, teista e-ð, tendra e-ð, tengja e-ð, terrorísera e-n, testa e-ð, teygja sig/e-ð, tigla e-ð, tigna e-n, tilreiða e-ð, títa e-n, tjá sig/eð, tjúna e-ð, trukka e-n, túlka e-ð, tvífalda e-ð, tölvuvæða e-ð, umfæra eð, umlýsa e-ð, ummóta e-ð, ummynda e-ð, umrita e-ð, umskipa e-ð?, umskrá e-ð, umstafa e-ð, umtákna e-ð, umtútta e-ð, undirstrika e-ð, uppfæra e-ð, uppgötva e-ð, vakta e-ð, vana e-n, veiða e-n/e-ð, veita e-ð, vekja e-ð, velja e-ð, vinda e-ð, vinstrijafna e-ð, vista e-ð, vistfengja e-ð, vistþýða e-ð, víma sig, vísasetja e-ð, vökva sig/e-n, yfirhala e-ð, yfirspila e-n, þátta e-ð, þenja e-ð, þjappa e-ð, þynna e-ð, þýða e-ð ... (2)

a.

SubjNom Verb (203 instances)

b.

alhæfa, bakka, bakleita, baksa, baska, beygja, bila, blikka, bjaga, blífa, blotna, blúsa, blússa, blæða, blöffbjóða, breika, brennsa, brillera, brotlenda, brotna, búmma, búsa, búta, bæta, böffa, dagrétta, dálkahlaupa, detta, deyja, díla, djobba, djóka, djúsa, drekka, drekka, dripla, dræfa, endurgera, falla, fatta, fingra, finta, fitta, flassa, flatreka, fljóta, fljúga, fossa, frígíra, fríhjóla, frísa, frjósa, funkera, fylgja, geiga, geyma, grassera, gubba, gæda, halla, hanga, hangfljúga, hopa, hoppa, hrapa, hæka, hömma, impróvisera, ísa, jobba, jogga, jukka, keðjureykja, kingsa, kinka, kippa, klifra, klikka, klippa, klossbremsa, knarka, koma, kommentera, kompa, koxa, krakka, krepera, krossa, krúsa, kúra, kvaka, kveikja, langlenda, leka, lenda, lensa, lepja, lesa, losna, lúlla, matsa, músisera, oja, ofrísa, ónanera, parkera, plotta, poppa, pródúsera, prófa, 268

CASE IN ICELANDIC prumpa, punkta, punktera, púffa, pútta, pæla, pöffa, ralla, rappa, rápa, rása, renna, rennifljúga, rita, ríða, rokka, róla, róta, rúnta, rússa, ryka, rövla, saxa, sánda, sentra, sénera, sippa, sjálfþýða, skammlenda, skandalísera, skera, skíta, skjóta, skralla, skrifa, skríma, slurka, smassa, smella, smæla, snapa, snuða, snuðra, sóla, spá, spinna, spítta, splæsa, spranga, spreða, spreia, springa, stafa, stinka, storma, streða, stressa, strippa, strögla, sukka, sulla, svansa, sviffljúga, svífa, svæfa, synda, syngja, taka, teika, teygja, tékka, tikka, tjakka, tjútta, trilla, trimma, trippa, trixa, trylla, tvinna, tvísmella, umtútta, vakta, vanga, varíera, váa, veiða, vinda, vinstrijafna, vista, voka, þruma, þrusa ... (3)

(4)

a.

SubjNom Verb PrepAcc (104 instances)

b.

alhæfa um e-ð, annast um e-ð, auka á e-ð, bakka með e-ð, banka í e-ð/e-n, binda við e-ð, bíta í e-ð, bjalla í e-n, blása á e-ð, blæða á e-n, brenna í e-ð, brillera í e-u, detta í e-ð, digga við e-n, dírka upp e-ð, djóka um e-ð, dræfa um e-ð, dudda við e-n, dúlla við e-n, dúmpa á e-u, éta yfir sig, fantasera um e-ð, fara upp á e-n, fitta inn í e-ð, fixa í e-ð, fjolla við e-n, fljúga yfir e-ð, fókusera á e-ð, fóna í e-n, fylla á e-ð, grísa á e-ð, hakka í sig, heima á e-ð, hjóla í e-ð, hlaupa yfir e-ð, hleypa upp á sig, hætta við e-ð, jolla við e-n, kalla á e-n, kalla fram e-ð, káfa upp á e-n, kíkja í glas, klessa í e-ð, klippa aftur fyrir sig, kommentera á e-ð, kútta á e-ð, kýla á e-ð, lofta undir e-ð, lúlla við e-ð, manúera með e-ð, matsa við e-ð, meika í pípu, moka í nefið, moka í e-n, músa fyrir e-ð, mæka upp e-ð, negla í/á e-ð, næla í e-ð, óperera með e-ð, pípa á e-ð/e-n, pressa á e-n, punda á e-n, pæla (í) gegnum e-ð, rita yfir e-ð, salla á e-n, saxa á e-ð, setja í e-ð, skanna inn í e-ð, skeyta við e-ð, skipta um/á/í e-ð, skíta á e-ð, skjóta á sig, skrá í e-ð, skrúfa fyrir e-ð/e-n, skyggja á e-ð, slá í e-ð, slefa upp í e-ð, smella á e-ð, snjóa upp í e-ð, spá í e-ð, splæsa á e-n, splæsa í e-ð, spóla í e-n, spýta í e-ð, stinga í e-ð, stíma á e-ð, streða við e-ð, strika undir e-ð, stræka á e-ð, strögla við e-ð, svissa yfir í e-ð, svína á e-n, taka ofan í sig, tippa á e-ð, tjúna inn á e-ð, tvísmella á e-ð, ulla á e-n, vanga við e-n, varíera með e-ð, víbra inn á e-ð, víbrera inn á e-ð, þefa af e-u, þruma í eð, þrusa í e-ð ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjDat (97 instances)

b.

aka e-u/e-m, applisera e-u, arisera e-u, bakka bílnum, beita e-u, bísa e-u, bítta e-u, blaka sér, bylta sér, brengla e-u, deildaskipta e-u, demba e-u, deyja e-u, dilla sér, dingla sér, diskriminera e-m, díla e-u, droppa e-u, drulla sér, dræfa e-u-/e-m, dudda sér, dúlla sér, dömpa e-u/e-m, eyða e-u, fansa e-u? fiffa e-u, flagga e-u, flassa e-u, flatreka e-u, forvarda e-u, fókusera e-u, gæda e-m, hamla e-u, hliðra e-u, installera e-u, kasta e-u, lagskipta e-u, lansera e-u, leka e-u, nauðbeita e-u, neita e-u, parkera sér, pilla sér, poppa pillum, pósta e-u, prumpa e-u, putta e-u, pússa stuði, raða e-u, ráða e-u, redda e-u, rennifljúga e-u, rugla e-u, runka sér/e-m, rúlla eu/e-m, samraða e-u, signalera e-u, skammlenda e-u, skammta e-u, skila eu, skippa e-u, skipta e-u, skíta e-u, skrambla e-u, skriflæsa e-u, skrolla eu, skruna e-u, slaka e-u, slaufa e-u, slátra e-u, slembiraða e-u, slíta vinnslu, smassa e-u, smúlla e-u, snýta sér/e-m, splitta e-u, spólera e-u, 269

CASE IN ICELANDIC spreða e-u, starta e-u, stefna e-u/e-m, stela e-u, stjaka e-u, stranda e-u, stúa e-u?, stúta e-u, svara e-u/e-m, troða sér, turna e-m, umskipa e-u?, umturna e-u, úthluta e-u, varpa e-u, varíera e-u, velta e-u, víxla e-u, ýta eu, þjappa e-u ... (5)

(6)

(7)

a.

SubjNom Verb Part (88 instances)

b.

bakka út, blása af, blása út, blokka frá, brenna af, brenna út, brenna yfir, brotna niður, detta inn, dona uppi, draga inn, draga út, drífa langt, drífa í gegn, droppa við, droppa út, fara inn, fara niður, fara upp, fara út, fjolla saman, flippa út, fríka út, fylgja með, gefa fyrir, grípa fram/inn í, gufa upp, halda áfram, hella upp á, hita upp, hrapa niður, hækka upp, hætta við, jafna út, jolla saman, kippa í, kíkja inn, kíkja við, koma í gegn, koma niður, koxa út, koxa yfir, krunka saman, krúsa um, lofta út, lúlla saman, læna upp, músa fyrir, mygla saman, negla niður, pissa út, pústa út, rasa út, rápa um, rása um, rekja upp, renna að, renna frá, rétta af, ríða með/undir/framhjá, rúlla yfir, rúnta um, ryðja inn/út, senda áfram, sjæna til, skipta um, skrá inn/út, slaka á, slappa af, slá inn, sofa hjá, spíta í, splitta upp, spíta í, stinga út, stíga út, stökkva út, synda um, taka í, tappa af, trekkja að, troða upp, vanga saman, vera saman, vinda saman, voka um, yngja upp, þurrka út ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjAcc Part (70 instances)

b.

bakka e-n upp, bánsa e-ð/e-n saman?, bera e-ð saman, bæla e-ð niður, draga e-ð inn, draga e-ð út, drekka sig niður, dressa e-n/sig upp, drífa e-ð í gegn, dúmma sig/e-n út, elta e-ð/e-n uppi, fella e-ð saman, fíra e-ð niður, fletja e-n út, flippa e-n út, flytja e-ð inn/niður/upp/út, fríka e-n út, fylla e-ð út, færa e-ð til, grísa e-ð út, græja sig upp, hita sig upp, hnita e-ð niður, hækka e-ð upp, jafna e-ð út, keyra e-ð upp, klassa e-ð upp, koffína sig upp, kúpla sig út, lása e-ð saman, lása e-ð úr?, láta e-ð fylgja, leggja e-ð fram, leisa e-ð saman, lempa e-ð til, lífga e-ð við, líma e-ð við, lækka e-ð niður, negla e-ð niður, peppa sig/e-n upp, pikka e-n upp, plaffa e-n niður, pæla e-ð út, rekja e-ð upp, rétta e-ð af, ríða sig fastan, rífa e-ð/e-n upp, rúnna e-ð af, salla e-n niður, sirka e-ð út, sjæna e-ð til, skanna e-ð inn, skurka sig inn, skrá e-ð inn/út, skvera e-ð af, skvera sig upp, slá e-ð inn, stramma sig af, taka e-ð út, taka e-ð á leigu, tengja e-ð saman, tékka sig/e-n inn, tjakka sig/e-n inn, tjakka e-ð upp, tjúna sig/e-n upp, trixa e-ð fram, tvinna e-ð saman, vekja e-ð upp, vinda e-ð saman, þurrka e-ð út ...

a.

SubjNom Verb PrepDat (65 instances)

b.

bakleita að e-u, dingla í e-u/e-m, djóka í e-m, dona í e-u, dreypa í/á e-u, dúmpa á e-u, eitra fyrir e-m, falla fyrir e-m, fatta upp á e-u, fá úr e-u/e-m, fá aðgang að e-u, fingra úr e-u, fiska eftir e-u, fíra á e-u, flippa á e-u, fljúga fram hjá e-u, fljúga frá e-u, framleita að e-u, fríka á e-u, fýra í/upp í e-u, ganga frá e-u, gera í e-u, grassera í e-m, herma eftir e-m, hinta að eu, jobba í e-u, koxa á e-u,/e-m, krepera á e-u, kveikja á e-u, kötta á e-m, lása úr e-u?, leita að e-u, liggja undir e-m, liggja í e-u, oja út af/yfir e-u, ónanera á e-u, putta úr e-u, putta frá e-m, pæla í e-u, raða af handahófi, 270

CASE IN ICELANDIC renna að/frá e-u, rétta úr e-u, ríða með/undir/framhjá e-m, rjúfa á rofstað, senda með e-u, skrá úr e-u, slétta úr e-u, snobba fyrir e-m, sofa hjá e-m, spá í e-u, spóla í e-m, standa klár á/að e-u, stinga undan e-m, streða eftir e-u, sulla í e-u, taka á móti e-u, taka úr e-u, tendra í e-u/e-m, tékka á e-u, tjakka á e-u, trippa á e-u, umtútta á e-u, vera með e-m, vera á/í e-u, vinna úr e-u ... (8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

a.

SubjNom Verb+st (31 instances)

b.

bunkast, bömmerast, djönkast, dópast, draugast, fleytast, hlunkast, hommast, klikkast, lesbast, lyfjast, lyftast, melast, merast, puttast, ranast, reddast, segjast, setjast, sjást, spaðast, spreðast, spúkast, stélkastast, stónkast, taglhnýtast, timbrast, tuddast, turnast, törnast, umturnast ...

a.

SubjNom Verb Adv/Prep (29 instances)

b.

aka út í e-ð, beita upp í e-ð, bera vel, betrekkja í e-u, bila illa, bleyta vel, brenna af stað, brotlenda e-s staðar, bræða af stað, fitta vel, gefa í botn, kasta vel, kýla af stað, rápa e-t, róta af stað, sánda vel, skilma e-s staðar, skrifa mikið, slá í gegn, smæla framan í heiminn, snobba niður á við, snuða illa/e-s staðar, snuðra e-s staðar, spranga e-s staðar, storma e-t, streða e-s staðar, trekkja vel, víbra óþægilega, víbrera óþægilega ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjDat Part (28 instances)

b.

bánsa e-u/e-m saman?, blanda e-u saman, dilla sér saman, díla e-u út, drulla sér út, flippa e-m út, fokka e-u upp, fríka e-m út, gubba e-u út, hliðra e-u til, lása e-u saman, lúlla sér saman, pakka e-m saman, raða sér saman, róta e-u inn, rugla e-u saman, rúlla e-m upp, ryðja e-u inn/út, skeyta e-u við, skotra e-u til, skúbba e-u af, smúlla sér/e-u inn, splitta e-u upp, stinga e-m inn, stinga e-u niður, streða sér áfram, tvinna e-u saman, ýta e-u burt/aftur ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjAcc PrepDat (23 instances)

b.

blanda e-ð með e-u, dópa sig með e-u, einangra sig frá e-u, hafa aðgang að e-u, hafa e-ð í geymslu, intressera sig fyrir e-u, kúpla sig út úr e-u, para sig í e-u, plata e-n upp úr skónum, rífa e-n upp á rassgatinu, sjarmera e-n upp úr skónum, skálka e-ð með e-u, skilyrða e-ð með e-u, skjóta sig í e-m, skrifa sig fyrir e-u, slá e-n fyrir e-u, spóla e-n upp úr skónum, styrkja e-ð með e-u, teista e-ð á e-u, testa e-ð á e-u, trixa e-n upp úr skónum, vernda e-ð með e-u ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjDat PrepAcc (18 instances)

b.

applicera e-u á e-ð, bauna e-u á e-n, bulla sér í e-ð, dræfa e-u/e-m um e-ð, dæla e-u í e-ð, hlaða e-u í e-ð, hleypa e-m upp á sig, matsa e-u við e-ð, negla e-u í e-ð, næla sér í e-ð, pilla e-u á e-n, redda e-m um e-ð, skeyta e-

271

CASE IN ICELANDIC u við e-ð, skúffa e-m aftur fyrir sig, spreia e-u á e-ð, tjá sig um e-ð, tjúna sig inn á e-ð, varpa e-u á e-ð ... (13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

a.

SubjNom Verb+st Part (17 instances)

b.

boltast um, bullast á, bunkast um, bömmerast um, draugast um, dúndrast upp, hlunkast um, lesbast um, lyfjast um, lyftast upp, meilast á, melast saman, mýkjast upp, netast á, sénsast saman, timbrast upp, þynnast upp ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjDat Adv/Prep (10 instances)

b.

beina e-u e-t, drulla sér burt, gubba e-u út úr sér, labba sér e-t, sippa sér et, skvísa sér e-t, slaka sér e-t, stefna e-u/e-m e-t, troða e-u e-t, þruma e-u e-t, þrusa e-u e-t ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjAcc PrepAcc (9 instances)

b.

hakka e-n í spað, hneppa e-ð/e-n í e-ð, kýla e-n í rot, ordna e-ð fyrir e-n, samsama sig við e-n, skanna e-ð inn í e-ð, skrifa sig í e-ð, snuða e-n um e-ð, tengja e-ð við e-ð ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjAcc Adj/Adv (8 instances)

b.

éta e-ð hrátt, fíla e-ð vel, gefa e-n góðan, gera e-n virkan/óvirkan/ sjálfvirkan, gleypa e-ð hrátt, pluma sig vel, sía e-ð sjálfvirkt, staðsetja e-ð e-s staðar ...

a.

SubjNom Verb PrepGen (8 instances)

b.

beygja til e-s, fóna til e-s, hvetja til e-s, kveðja til e-s, netsíma til e-s, smæla til e-s, staðrétta til hægri/vinstri, vinda til baka ... SubjNom Verb+st PrepAcc (7 instances)

a. b.

bísast fyrir e-ð, boltast um e-ð, draugast um e-ð, drullast í e-ð, húkkast á e-ð, kássast upp á e-n, takast á loft ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjAcc PrepGen (7 instances)

b.

e-maila e-ð til e-s, faxa e-ð til e-s, hvetja e-n til e-s, kveðja e-n til e-s, pressa e-n til e-s, rekja e-ð til e-s, senda e-ð til e-s ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjDat PrepDat (6 instances)

b.

krunka e-u að e-m, pilla sér af stað, runka sér á e-u, skammta e-m af e-u, stela e-u frá/af e-u, syngja e-u að e-m ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjDat ObjAcc (5 instances)

272

CASE IN ICELANDIC

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

b.

e-maila e-m e-ð, eigna e-m e-ð, símsenda e-m e-ð, skammta e-m e-ð, snapa sér e-ð ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjDat PrepGen (4 instances)

b.

skalla e-u til e-s, skotra e-u til hliðar, slaka e-u til e-s ...

a.

SubjDat Verb (3 instances)

b.

e-m blýstendur, e-m geigar, e-m stendur ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjAcc ObjDat (3 instances)

b.

falda e-ð e-u, samsama sig e-u, svipta e-n e-u ...

a.

SubjDat Verb+st Clause (1 instance)

b.

e-m analýserast svo ...

a.

SubjNom Verb Part PrepAcc

b.

brenna inni með e-ð ...

a.

SubjNom Verb+st PrepDat

b.

bömmerast yfir e-u ...

a.

SubjNom Verb PrepAcc PrepAcc

b.

díla við e-n um e-ð ...

a.

SubjDat Verb Part

b.

e-m finnur til ...

a.

SubjNom Verb Part ObjDat

b.

hnoða saman e-u ...

a.

SubjAcc Verb PrepAcc

b.

e-n klæjar í fingurna ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjAcc Adv/Part

b.

labba sig e-t ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjGen

273

CASE IN ICELANDIC

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

b.

leita e-s ...

a.

SubjNom Verb+st ObjGen

b.

minnast e-s ...

a.

SubjAcc Verb Adv/Part

b.

e-ð rekur um/áfram ...

a.

SubjAcc Verb

b.

e-ð rekur ...

a.

SubjNom Verb ObjDat ObjDat

b.

snapa sér e-u ...

a.

SubjDat Verb Adv/Prep

b.

e-m snjóar inn í e-ð ...

a.

SubjDat Verb Prcp

b.

e-m er sveitt ...

274

CASE IN ICELANDIC

275

CASE IN ICELANDIC

Index idiosyncratic 102, 103, 105, 106, 119126, 193-196 lexical, 103-4, 105, 106, 109, 119-126, 193-196 morphology, Ch. 1, 145 semantic 102 thematic case, 103, 106, 121-124 structural, 102-104, 109, 119126, 193-196 caused-motion construction, 28, 29, 139, 152-156 Chomsky, N., 14, 16, 120 cluster attraction, 130-131, 139 cognitive linguistics, 19, 21, 104 cognitive science, 21 compositionality, 23, 25-26, computational system, 120 conceptual level, see real world level constructicon, 25, 38 construction grammar, 19, Ch.2, 48, 104-105, 107, 125-130, 134, 136, 140, 142, 196-208 constructions scematic, Ch. 2, 112-117, 196208 lexically filled, Ch. 2 semantically open, 35, 200 low-frequency, 126, 127, 196208 high-frequency, 126, 127, 196208 verb-specific, 129, 132, 133, 136, 139, 141, 196, 198 verb-class-specific, 129, 139, 141, 196 merging together, 201 contact language, 129 control construction, 42, 43-44, 46, 169, 171 conventionalization, 22 Croft, W.A., 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 45, 59, 60, 106, 123, 126, 128-129, 147, 152, 158 Cruse, A.D., 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 106, 123

accusative languages, 14, accusative subjects, see oblique subjects acquisition, 120, 103, 106-107, 126127 active construction, 103, 119 active languages, 14 adjectival passive, 104, 156 Allen, C., 17, 119, 173, 193, 197, 202, 203, 205 analytic, 189-191 Anderson, S., 131 animacy, 148-149 Andrews, A., 12, 45 Anward, J., 15, 18, 192 Arad, M., 59 argument structure borrowing, 132-133 Árnason, M., 110, 111, 118 Askedal, J.O., 168, 189, 192, 193 Barðdal, J., 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 35, 38, 45, 46, 59, 64, 104, 109, 110, 125, 127, 128, 132, 133, 136, 139, 146, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 156, 157, 168, 169, 172, 173 Barnes, M., 173, 205, 206 Bernódusson, H., 15, 45, 172 Bjarnadóttir, K., 199 blended construction, 204-206 Blum, M., 127 Boeckx, C., 16 borrowings, 111, 122-124, 128, 129, 133, 136, 137, 139, 142, 154, 202, 203 massive lexical, 197-208 Braine, M., 127, 133 Brody, R., 127 Bybee, J., 22, 31, 32, 33, 126 case acquisition, 103, 106-107 agreement, 12, 15, 135, 148, 156 break-down, 14, 188-208 definition of, 16 functional, see structural 275

CASE IN ICELANDIC Danish, 17, 123, 203, 204 dative of misfortune, 33 dative sickness, see dative substitution dative subjects, see oblique subjects dative substitution, 15, 102, 135, 193, 200 deagentivization, 124, 137 Delsing, L.-O., 15, 18, 193, 201 dependent-marking language, 13 Dik, S., 14 directed-motion construction, 151 ditransitive construction, 46, 119, 128, 129, 135, 136, 189-190, 191 dual processing models, 32, 106 Dutch, 17, 18, 192, 193

written Icelandic, 76-78, 80-85, 87-90, 93-94, 97-98, 102, 136, 164-166, 175-176, 179, 181182, 184, 185 spoken Icelandic, 77, 87-90, 9394, 97-98, 102, 136, 179, 181182, 184, 185 German, 11, 1417, 18, 33, 193, 203204 Germanic languages,11, 17, 18, 75, 102, 173, 189, 192, 193-196, 197-208 Goldberg, A.E., 22, 27, 28, 31, 32, 59, 126, 128, 133, 135, 152 Goldberg, R., 133 grammar, core, 120-121 periphery, 120-121 Greenberg, J., 85 Gropen, J., 133 Guðmundsson, H., 164 Guðmundsson, V., 11

Einarsson, S., 11 emergence of definite article, 192-193 English, 17, 18, 57, 123, 126, 128, 152, 173, 190-191, 193, 195196, 202-203 equality, 149-150 entrenchment, 31 degrees of, 31-32 ergative languages, 14 Eythórsson, Th., 15, 17, 38, 135, 168, 169, 200

Haegeman, L., 120 Halldórsson, H., 15, 135, 200 Haugan, J., 15, 168, 169 Haugen, O.E., 75 Hauksson, fi., 164 head-marking language, 13 heavy subject construction, 42, 44, 45 Hentschel, G.,14 Holland, G., 154 Hollander, M., 133 Hollmann, W., 152 Holmberg, A., 15, 119, 192 Howe, S., 12 Hróarsdóttir, Th., 16, 169

Faarlund, J.T., 15, 168, 189, 192 Falk, C., 15, 119, 193, 201, 205 Falk, H., 16, 191 Faroese, 17, 18, 58, 173, 189, 192, 193, 203, 205-206 Fillmore, C.J., 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 Finno-Ugric languages, 14, 192 Fish, S., 127 "free" word order, 16 frequency, 30, 32, 35, 80-102, 117, 118-119, 121, 141, 145, 157, 174-188, 189, 191, 196-208 token frequency, 31-32 type frequency, 31-32, 33, 35, 39, 126, 128, 129, 132, 136, 140, 157, 197-208

Ibsen, Á., 164 idioms, 23-24, 132, 141 imperative construction, 50 impersonal construction, 14-15, inchoative construction, 59-60 incremental theme, 153 indefinite subject construction I, 42, 44 indefinite subject construction II, 42, 44 Indo-European, 12 intransitive construction, 60, 127 intransitive motion construction, 28, 29,

Garðarsdóttir, M., 141 generative grammar, 119-125, 195 genres

276

CASE IN ICELANDIC intransitive resultative construction, 28, 29 inversion constructions, 41-42, 169 isolate attraction, 131-132, 139

neologism, 109-112, 124, 127, 128, 139, 155, 156 Nemvalts, P, 14 network models, 21, 26-29, 104 complete inheritance model, 27 full-entry model, 27 network links, 30 instance links, 28, 38 metaphorical links, 28, 29 polysemy links, 28, 29 subpart links, 28, 29 Nielsen, M., 152 nominative objects, 12-13, 45, 89-90, 102, 118, 180 nominative-verb agreement, 13 non-configurationality, 168 Nordal, G., 164 Norde, M., 18, 197 Norwegian, 126, 154 noun declension, 11 Nunberg, G., 23, 63

Jackendoff, R., 14, 195 Jahr, E.H., 189, 197 Janda, L., 17 Jónsson, J.G.,11, 12, 15, 35, 39, 45, 45, 58, 64, 65, 103, 119, 134, 136, 137, 157, 158, 180, 195, 200 Josefson, G., 120, 125 Jörgensen, N., 11 Kay, P., 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 Kemenade, A.v., 191 Kivunju, 120 Knudsen, T., 203 Kress, B., 11 Kristoffersen, K.E., 15, 168 Kvaran, G., 167 Langacker, R.W., 21, 22, 23, 30, 57 language encoding level, 57-58, 97 Lakoff, G., 21, 22 Larsen, G., 11 Lasnik, H., 120 Latin, 85 Lehmann, C., 16, 191 levels of schematicity, 128 Levin, B., 152 lexical strength, see entrenchment lexical transfer, 131 lexicon, 120 Lieber, R., 125 Ligthfood, D., 119, 193 locatum, 153

object, definition of, 46 oblique subjects, 12-13, 45, 88-90, 102, 118, 124, 134-134, 136, 157, 159, 177-178, 188 oblique subject construction, 12-13, 3339, 90, 136, 137, 158, 169-174, 196-208 O'Connor, M., 22, 23, 24 Óskarsson, fi., 164 Ottósson K.G., 11, 58, 131, 157 OV-VO construction, 169, 171-174, 192 passive construction, 44-45, 103, 119, 156, 173 nominative, 156 dative, 156 Payne, J., 206 Petterson, G., 75 Pinker, S., 32, 106, 120, 133 Platzack, C., 15, 193 Plunkett, K., 106, 126, 200 predicate construction, 60 prefabs, see prefabricated material prefabricated material, 24 productivity, 32, Ch. 5 gradience, 126, 137 partial, 128, 135-136, 202-204

Maling, J., 12, 15, 35, 39, 45, 64, 102, 103, 119, 139, 141, 146, 148, 151, 152, 154, 155, 168, 169, 172, 173, 195, 199, 204, 211 Malmsten, S., 193 Marold, E., 15 Martinussen, B., 11 memory, 107, 120 Michaelis, L., 22 Moder, C., 126 Molnar, V., 104, 156, 157 Mørck, E., 15, 168

277

CASE IN ICELANDIC psycholinguistics, 22, 32-33, 126-127, 128 psych-verbs, 35-38, 60-62, 96, 122, 134, 159-160

subject-to-object raising construction, 42-44, 50-51, 65, 103, 104-105, 169-170 subject-to-subject raising construction, 42-44, 169, 170-171 subject-verb agreement, 13 substitution test, 12, 79 Sundman, M., 15 Svavarsdóttir, Á., 11, 15, 85, 135 Swedenmark, J., 15, 18, 192 Swedish, 17, 75, 190-191, 193, 196, 201-202, 203, 204 synonymy, 128, 132-133, 137, 139, 140, 142, 201 syntactic functions, 41-56, 78, 86-90, 92, 95-102, 103, 118-119, 168, 178-183, 184-188 syntax-lexicon continuum, 23 synthetic, 189-191

radical construction grammar, 29-30, 206 Ragnarsdóttir, H., 106, 126, 127, 200 real world level, 57-57, 97 Resultative construction, 28, 29 Ringgård, K., 15, Romance languages, 191 Russian, 85 Rögnvaldsson, E., 15, 102, 109, 118, 134, 167, 168, 169, 170, 170, 172 Sag, I., 23, 63 Sanskrit, 85 Sapir, E., 191 Scandinavian languages, 14, 15, 17, 18, 173, 189-193, 193-208, 201 Schultink, H., 125 Schwegler, A., 191, Seefranz-Montag, A.v., 202, 204 semantic level, see language encoding level Sigmundsson, S., 110 Sigurðardóttir, H., 106, 107 Sigurðsson, H.Á., 12, 15, 35, 39, 45, 119, 157, 195 similarity, 127, 130, 132-133, 137, 140, 141, 142, 145, 156, 197, 198, 206 clusters, 128, 129, 136 Simonsen, H., 106, 126, 200 slang, 110, 123 Slobin, D.I., 32, 126 Smith, H., 15, 135 Satorova, V., 152 source language, 133 speaker-affected, 59, 158 spoken Icelandic, see genre Starosta, S., 14 stimuli-experiencer construction, 96 strong verbs, 32 st-verbs, 131, 136 subject, definition of, 41-46 subject-affected, 59, 158

taxonomic links, 26-29 Teleman, U., 48 thematic roles, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 103, 105, 126, 145, 183-188 argument roles, 59 participant roles, 59 Agent, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 103, 145, 158, 183-188 Beneficiary, 47, 57-74, 78, 91102, 103, 105, 121, 145, 183188 Cause, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 103, 183-188 Cognizer, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 105, 183-188 Comitative, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 183-188 Content, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 103, 105, 145, 183-188 Experiencer, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 121, 122, 124, 158, 160, 183188 Goal, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 183188 Instrument, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 103, 145, 183-188 Location, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 183-188 Manner, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 183-188

278

CASE IN ICELANDIC Measure, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 183-188 Path, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 183188 Perceiver, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 105, 183-188 Source, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 183188 Station, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 103, 105, 183-188 Theme, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 103, 105, 122, 123, 124, 145, 160, 183-188 Time, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 183188 Reason, 57-74, 78, 91-102, 183188 Thorsson, Ö., 110, 164 Thráinsson, H., 12, 15, 35, 39, 45, 102, 103, 119, 172, 173 Tomasello, M., 21, 26 Tommola, H., 14 topicality, 84 topicalization construction, 41-42, 44 Torp, A., 16, 191 Tómasson, S., 164 transfer construction, 28, 29, 47, 119, 152-156 transitive construction, 29, 41-42, 45, 60, 127, 189 Turkish, 120

gain, 36 hindrance, 37 inclination, 36 intention, 36 motion, 149 movement, 138-139, 151-156 non-agentive, 200 obligation, 36 owning, 60 perception, 36, 60, 61, 61 permission, 36 property, 36 pushing, 152 putting, 152 saying, 37, 158-159 sending, 155 sitting, 60 standing, 60 stative, 60 vocabulary Old Icelandic, 167 replacement of, 203-208 Warren, B., 24 Wasow, T., 23, 63 weak verbs, 32 Weisberger, 127 Wessén, E., 197 Wierzbicka, A., 14, 33 Wilson, R., 133 word formation planned, 109-112, 121-125 spontaneous, 109-112, 121-125 written Icelandic, see genre

undirected-motion construction, 151 usage-based model, 19, 30-33, 125126, 128, 134, 136, 140, 142, 196-208

yes-no question construction, 42, 50 Yip, M., 195 Yli-Vakkuri, V., 14

Venneman, T., 191 verbs advancing, 37 agentive, 61, 73 alternating, 172-174 ballistic motion, 152 bodily states, 36 causative, 62, 73 changes in bodily states, 36 cognition, 36, 60, 61 completion, 37 deminishing, 37 emotive, 36, 60, 61, 159-160

Zaenen, A., 12, 15, 35, 39, 45, 102, 103, 119, 172, 173

279