Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 2020, Page 292

What is this linguistic evidence for the 19th century data under discussion, that
is, what is the evidence in the 19th century data for a distinct grammar where
Adv−Vfin is mainly to be found in operator contexts? Are we not reading back
into the historical record a distinction that we know about in Modern Icelandic?
Or is there really a clear signal of such a system in the 19th century data?
Question 7: A final question about normative pressure vs other explanations
The author adopts a “grammar competition” approach to the Adv−Vfin/
Vfin−Adv variation, and cites the 2013 paper by Heycock and Wallenberg on
the loss of the latter order in Mainland Scandinavian. One of the issues dis-
cussed in that paper is why Icelandic did not lose V-to-T (the movement of the
verb to a relatively high position that results in the Vfin–Adv order on both
their assumptions, shared by Heimir’s analysis). That paper made an argument
that — given a number of background assumptions — V-to-T is predicted to lose
out to “V-in-situ” over time if there is evidence for both in the input to children.
So then the question is why this has not in fact happened in Icelandic. One
hypothesis that Heycock and Wallenberg suggested was that the weak version of
the “Rich Agreement Hypothesis” is in fact correct, so that Icelandic simply can-
not lose V-to-T given its morphology. But the author argues strongly that the
Rich Agreement Hypothesis does not hold, so if the author is correct, that par-
ticular explanation is not available. Is there an explanation within this thesis for
the contrast between the fate of V-to-T in Icelandic, on the one hand, and in the
other Scandinavian language on the other? On p. 218 Heimir suggests that V-in-
situ in Icelandic might have taken over if there had been normative pressure in
that direction, and, further, that this is what happened in Faroese. But is there
evidence in Faroese that normative pressures were involved here? Or in earlier
Danish for that matter?
5. A final comment
This dissertation is in the notable and impressive tradition of works by Icelandic
linguists who have combined recent theoretical advances with detailed empirical
work on both the synchronic and diachronic study of this language. It stands out
for the depth and breadth of empirical evidence that is brought to bear on the
discussion. The distribution of the variants of the syntactic variables at issue is
investigated in a careful, well-documented, detailed, and theoretically informed
way. But in addition to this type of data and analysis, Heimir has also uncovered
and explored a rich seam of evidence concerning contemporaneous language
attitudes in the corrected essays that he has analysed — surely a marvellous
source of information for continued research. And finally, Heimir presents and
discusses these different types of linguistic data against a well-developed picture
Caroline Heycock292