Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.1983, Side 30

28
Eiríkur Rögnvaldsson
—. 1972b. The VP-Constituent of SVO Languages. John P. Kimball (ritstj.):
Syntax and Semantics. Volume 1, bls. 213-235. Seminar Press, New York.
SUMMARY
The purpose of this paper is to argue for the nonexistence of a special VP-constitu-
ent in Icelandic, and to come up with a new analysis of the Icelandic complement
system.
In the beginning, it is demonstrated that there is in fact very little concrete
evidence for VP in English, but even less in Icelandic. Then it is shown that
„indefinite" subjects in Icelandic can easily be inserted into the traditional VP with
finite verbs, even between an indirect (first) object and a direct (second) object,
which appears to violate Chomsky’s condition that a moved element must c-com-
mand its trace. In the light of other facts, e. g. that a finite verb and its object(s)
can never be moved as a whole, it is then concluded that there is no reason to
assume that VP exists in Icelandic. Then it is observed that nonfinite verbs and
their complements seem to behave like a constituent into which nothing can be
inserted.
In section three, Þráinsson’s (1982, 1983) analysis of these facts is summarized
(he proposes a special Aux-node into which the main verb must be moved when
there is no auxiliary verb); several facts are brought forth that appear to diminish
the value of Þráinsson’s arguments for his analysis. Especially his arguments con-
cerning the position of certain adverbs are shown to be invalid.
In section four, it is proposed that all verbal complements which contain a
nonfinite verb be analyzed as an S. It is argued that in D-structure the verbs which
take such complements are of only two different types; subject-to-subject
raising verbs (like seem in English) and equi-verbs (like try in English). Þráins-
son (1983) has argued for four different types of verbs taking nonfinite comple-
ments, and he has also argued that some of these complements should be analyzed
as VPs in D-structure, but others as Ss; but it is shown here that his arguments are
not strong enough to make the case.
Finally, it is admitted that there are certain difficulties with the present analysis,
especially concerning the possibilities of inserting something between a verb and
an adverbial phrase in a nonfinite complement. It is proposed that this may be
handled by some restructuring principles; but this must be investigated further.
Háskóla íslands,
Reykjavík