Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.1997, Page 45

Sagnir með aukafallsfrumlagi
43
ing in Icelandic. Colin Phillips (ritstj.): Papers on Case and Agreement II, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 19:321-375.
—. 1997. Infl in Child and Adult Language: Agreement, Case and Licensing. Dokt-
orsritgerð, MIT, Cambridge.
Smith, Henry. 1994. Dative Sickness in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 12:675-736.
—. 1996. Restrictiveness in Case Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Van Valin, Robert D. 1991. Another Look at Icelandic Case Marking and Grammati-
cal Relations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:145-194.
Yip, Moira, Joan Maling & Ray Jackendoff. 1987. Case in Tiers. Language
63:217-250.
Zaenen, Annie, & Joan Maling. 1990. Unaccusative, Passive, and Quirky Case. Joan
Maling & Annie Zaenen (ritstj.): Modern Icelandic Syntax, bls. 137-152.
Academic Press, San Diego.
Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling & Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and Grammatical
Functions: The Icelandic Passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
3:441^-83. [Endurprentað 1990 hjá Maling & Zaenen (ritstj.), bls. 95-136.]
SUMMARY
This paper reports on the results of an investigation into the semantics of verbs and
idiomatic expressions that take non-nominative (quirky) subjects in Icelandic. It is
shown that subject case in Icelandic is semantically predictable to some degree. The
basic generalizations are as follows: Nominative subjects are thematically unrestric-
ted in that they can be Agents, Patients, Themes, Goals or Experiencers. By contrast,
quirky subjects are never Agents in Icelandic even if the term is understood in a broad
sense (including instruments, natural forces, causes, etc.). Moreover, an accusative
subject cannot be a Goal and some subclasses of Experiencer verbs never have
accusative subjects.
The paper also advances the hypothesis that lexical case on subjects in Icelandic
should be split into thematic case and idiosyncratic case (where dative Goals and Ex-
periencers are thematic but dative Themes and Patients and accusative subjects are
idiosyncratic). This distinction is supported by the fact that idiosyncratic case on sub-
jects is in the process of getting lost whereas thematic case is gaining ground, as wit-
nessed by the tendency of accusative Experiencer subjects to become dative (so-called
Dative Sickness) and quirky Patients and Themes to become nominative. A further
argument for this distinction comes from the ‘middle’ suffix -st. This suffix is com-
monly found on verbs whose dative subject is an Experiencer or Goal but never on
verbs with accusative subjects or dative subjects that are Patients orThemes. Thus, the
suffix -st is incompatible with idiosyncratic case on subjects and similar facts also
hold of idiomatic expressions.