Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.2001, Page 179

Það var hrint mér á leiðinni í skólann
177
SUMMARY
‘Það var hrint mér á leiðinni í skólann ”: Passive or not passive? ’
Keywords: syntactic change, passive voice, active voice, impersonal passive,
impersonal subjects
This paper reports the results of a nationwide study of an innovative syntactic
construction, exemplified by Það var barið mig or Það var hrint mér, that is develop-
lng in the language of young Icelandic speakers. A questionnaire designed to test the
syntactic properties of this construction was distributed to 1731 tenth-grade students
throughout the country in the academic year 1999-2000. This number represents 45%
°f all children bom in 1984. The questionnaire was also distributed to 205 adults from
various parts of the country. Our results show that the construction is widespread
throughout Iceland except in inner Reykjavík, where the acceptance rates were only
about half of the acceptance rates elsewhere in the country. Acceptance of the new
c°nstruction is not correlated with gender, but is strongly correlated with the parents’
*evel of education. The more highly educated the parents, the less liklely the ado-
lcscents are to accept the new constmction as part of the language.
fn the new construction, the patient argument of a transitive verb like berja ‘hit’ or
hrinda ‘push’ remains in object position. If the verb does not govem either dative or
genitive, this patient argument is assigned accusative rather than the nominative case
fhat would be found in the canonical passive, and consequently fails to agree with
e*ther the finite auxiliary verb or the past participle of the main verb. Furthermore,
lhis postverbal NP may be definite, in apparent violation of the so-called “definiteness
effect” that holds for />a<3-sentences (expletive sentences) generally.
fhe new construction resembles the accusative-assigning participial constructions
'vhich have developed historically from a passive participle in such languages as
nsh, Polish, and Ukrainian. In Chapter 5, we outline two possible analyses for the
nevv constmction: that it is either (i) a variant of the canonical passive without
^ovement of the object to subject position, or (ii) a syntactically active constmction
'vith a phonologically null impersonal subject. We discuss four syntactic properties
^hich distinguish active from passive voice clauses: the occurrence of an agent in a
f'Phrase, the occurrence of bound anaphors in nonsubject positions, the control of
subject-oriented adjuncts and the occurrence of nonagentive verbs. These properties
3rc Used to contrast the syntactic behavior of the superficially similar -no/to constmct-
j°ns ln Polish and Ukrainian. This comparison shows that the Polish constmction has
e syntactic properties of an impersonal active constraction, whereas its Ukrainian
c°unterpart behaves like a canonical passive. We then discuss the results of our sur-
Vey °n the innovative constmction in Icelandic with respect to the various syntactic
Pr°perties which bear on its syntactic representation. The results of our survey sug-
§est that despite its apparently passive morphology, the new construction is acquiring