Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.1985, Qupperneq 130

128
Christer Platzack
Holm (1967) and Rieger (1968) consider the stylistic effects of this con-
struction, whereas Hallberg (1965) uses it as a factor in his attempt to
determine the authors of different Sagas. Pragmatical and textual
aspects are highlighted e.g. by Rieger (1968), Kossuth (1980) and Hall-
dór Ármann Sigurðsson (1983); the latter, as well as Kossuth (1978),
also studies the construction from a typological perspective.
Since Greenberg (1966), there has been an increasing interest in
classifying languages according to their word-order type. Languages are
claimed to have basic word orders like SVO (Subject-Verb-Object),
SOV, VSO, OVS and so on. In the spirit of this tradition, Haiman
(1974) claims that Old Icelandic was a FS'O-language, basing his con-
clusion on the following passage in Heusler(1967:173):
Der Aussagesatz gibt dem Verbum nicht nur da die Spitze, wo es,
zumal in Reden, lebhaft hervorspringt [...], sondern auch im
ruhigen FluB der Erzáhlung oder Darlegung, und zwar so háufig,
daB man darin die aisl. Normalstellung des Verbums sehen
konnte.
Several scholars have objected to Heusler’s characterization, pointing
to the fact that the word order Subject — Finite Verb is more frequent
than the inverted word order. Consider e.g. Hallberg (1965), Kossuth
(1978), and Sigurðsson (1983). In an attempt to determine more
thoroughly to which word-order type Old Icelandic belongs, Kossuth
(1978) calculates the relative frequencies of different word order pat-
terns in four Sagas. According to her results, the finite verb occupies
first position in 16% of the clauses (conjunctions not counted), second
position in 64% of the clauses. Together with other things, this indi-
cates, she claims, that Old Icelandic was a SV- FS-language, a type first
introduced by Givón (1977) in a study of Hebrew. According to
Givón, this type is characterized as having both SV- and VS-syntax;
by VS-syntax, Givón means constructions where the verb precedes
the subject.
Kossuth’s investigation has been severely criticized in a recent
Master’s Thesis from the University of Iceland by Halldór Armann Sig-
urðsson (1983). Sigurðsson sets out to demonstrate that there are
several errors in Kossuth’s work. E.g., Kossuth does not restrict her
investigation to complete declarative clauses but includes subjectless
declaratives as well, together with questions, commands, exclamations