Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 2020, Síða 145

an unergative can be merged in Spec,vP, but it tends to raise to IP when
the agentivity is emphasized. In both languages, presentational sentences
with VP-pivots are typically used to introduce and locate a situation or a
scene as a whole, without drawing attention to the intentions, attitudes
or degree of involvement of the pivot. This situation must in addition be
perceivable in some way, as pointed out by Sveen (1996:86ff.), Åfarli
(1992:89) and Lødrup (1999:207).
3.7 Summary
Our investigation has shown that the same thematic restrictions apply to
VP-pivots in Icelandic and Swedish. Theme, Path and Performer pivots
are in general possible whereas Experiencers and Goals are infelicitous,
generally in Swedish and with some marked exceptions in Icelandic.
Since Swedish only allows VP-pivots, this means that some intended
messages cannot be expressed as presentational sentences, see e.g. (27a)
and (32). In Icelandic, which has the option of IP-pivots, the correspond-
ing sentences are acceptable with IP-pivots, see (28a) and (33).
Another generalization that holds for both languages is that a VP-
pivot has to be the last argument in the vP. We have seen this in examples
like (30) and (31), where there is more than one DP in the vP, but only
the versions with Theme pivots are acceptable. We find the same pattern
with Performer pivots which cannot be followed by a Path argument, see
(43b) and (44c), or a cognate Theme argument, see (47b) and (48c), while
it is possible for the Performer argument to be followed by an adjunct,
see (43a), (44b), (47c) and (48d). The restriction that VP-pivots have to be
the last argument in the vP also explains why we do not find Goal pivots
in the vP since these verbs also take a Theme as their final argument. The
same explanation applies to two-place Experiencer taking verbs like
hända, henda ‘happen’ but does not explain why Experiencer pivots with
intransitive verbs are impossible in Swedish, see (27a), or why IP-pivots
are preferred in Icelandic, see (28a).
At present we do not have an explanation for the restriction that a
VP-pivot has to be the last argument in the vP. We suspect that this may
in some way reflect the information structure of presentational sen-
tences. In both Swedish and Icelandic, the last argument in the vP often
carries the main sentence accent, especially in utterances with wide focus
(Dehé 2009, Riad 2014). Presentational sentences typically involve wide
focus and the main accent thus normally falls on the pivot.
Thematic constraints on presentational sentences in Icelandic and Swedish 145