Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.1981, Side 171

Ritdómar
169
T also argues that sentences of the form (2) frequently have another source as well,
in which the extraposed clause is extracted from an NP whose head is það:
(3) Það [að málvísindamenn skuli ekki fá vinnu] er óþolandi
Although Extrapositions from (1) and (3) produce sentences with the same
superficicial appearance, that of (2), the syntactic properties of the two types of
extraposed clauses are quite different. Extraposition from object position is also
considered, and shown to work like Extraposition from an NP with það head.
Extraposition from headless NP was first proposed by Kiparsky and Kiparsky
(1970), while Rosenbaum (1967) had all Extraposition be from underlyingly headed
NP. T thus supports the Kiparsky proposal for some instances of Icelandic Extra-
position, Rosenbaum’s for others.
In chapter 5, T establishes a rule of Complement Subject Deletion (‘Equi’)
wich deletes the subjects from clauses such those of the (a) examples of (4-5),
producing the infinitives of the (b) examples:
(4) a Ég vonast til [að ég fari til Ástralíu]
b Ég vonast til [að fara til Ástralíu]
(5) a ?Ég skipaði henni [að hún færi]
b Ég skipaði henni [að fara]
In chapter 6 are motivated rules raising a complement subject into the main
(matrix) clause. Subject-to-Object Raising (‘SOR’) derives structures like (6b) from
ones like (6a), while Subject-to-Subject Raising (‘SSR’) derives structures like (7b)
from those like (7a):
(6) a Ég tel [að Jón hafi étið hákarlinn]
b Ég tel Jón [hafa étið hákarlinn]
(7) a ??Það virðist [að Jón hafi farið heim] (or 0 virðist...)
b Jón virðist [hafa farið heim]
T here adopts Kiparsky and Kiparsky’s (1970) treatment of SOR, and Bresnan’s
(1973) version of SSR over those of Rosenbaum.
In the course of motivating these rules and derivations, T explores many areas
of Icelandic syntax, such as pronominalization (including reflexive and reciprocal
pronouns), and agreement.
In part III, T considers preverbal oblique NP, such as mig in (8), and concludes
that they are non-nominative subjects:
(8) Mig vantar efni í ritgerðina
He also examines various uses of ‘dummy’ það, such as those in (2) and (9):
(9) Það eru mýs í baðkerinu
He does not, however, reach any firm conclusions about them.
The analyses that T settles on are for the most part conventional, within tradi-
tional grammar, generative grammar, or both. But they are buttressed with a great
deal of supporting evidence and argumentation, which frequently provides a more