Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.1991, Page 78

76 Halldór Armatin Sigurðsson
—. 1990. Setningafrœði. Fyrri hluti, 5. útgáfa. Málvísindastofnun Háskóla íslands,
Reykjavík.
Jón Friðjónsson. 1982. Um lýsingarhátt nútíðar. íslenskt mál og almenn málfrœði
4:191-219.
—. 1989. Samsettar myndir sagna. Málvísindastofnun Háskóla íslands, Reykjavík.
Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Foris, Dordrecht.
KÁB = Könnun á beygingarsamræmi og fleiri atriðum í máli 9 einstaklinga, fram-
kvæmd í febrúar 1990.
Kjartan G. Ottósson. 1989. VP-Specifier Subjects and the CP/IP Distinction in Icelandic
and Mainland Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44:89-100.
Kress, Bruno. 1982. Islandische Grammatik. VEB Verlag Enzyklopadie, Leipzig.
Maling, Joan. 1990. The Hierarchical Assignment of Grammatical Cases. Væntanl. í
íslenskt mál og almenn málfrœði.
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. The MIT Press, Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts.
Platzack, Christer. 1987. The Scandianvian Languages and the Null-Subject Parameter.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5:377-401.
Platzack, Christer og Anders Holmberg. 1989. The Role of AGR and Finiteness in
Germanic VO Languages. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43:51-76.
Reuland, Eric J. 1983. Goveming -ing. Linguistic Inquiry 14:101-136.
van Riemsdijk, Henk og Edwin Williams. 1986. Introduction to the Theory of Gram-
mar. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Yip, Moira, Joan Maling og Ray Jackendoff. 1987. Case in Tiers. Language 63:217-
250.
Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling og Höskuldur Þráinsson. 1985. Case and Grammati-
cal Functions: The Icelandic Passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
3:441-483.
SUMMARY
In this article agreement in Icelandic finite clauses is studied. The central claim
of the article is that both finite verb agreement and nominative predicate agreement
(of adjectives and past participles) are independent of grammatical functions, that is,
neither type of agreement is in any way conditioned by subjecthood of the agreement
controller (and hence not by a Spec-head agreement relation between Infl and the
agreement controller). Instead, agreement in finite clauses is conditioned by both the
content and the case of the NP controlling the agreement. First, the NP must have
either semantic content (i.e. not be purely deictic) or some marked inflectional feature
(Oplural], etc.). Second, it must be nominative, agreement thus sometimes being
controlled by nominative objects and nominative NP predicates (in the absence of a
subject that is capable of controlling agreement). More specifically, it is claimed that
agreement is conditioned by a nominative case path between Infl and the NP controlling
the agreement (and an agreeing nominative predicate, if it is present), the agreement