Sigurússon, Einar F.
Email Address
ORCID
Disciplines
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Publication Building Deverbal Ability Adjectives in Icelandic(2014-01-01) Wood, Jim; Sigurðsson, Einar F.This paper discusses two ways of forming Icelandic ability predicates: one with the present participle (Ability Participles, APs) and the other with an adjectivizing affix (Ability Adjectives, AAs). We show that they each share distinct properties with passives and with middles (and differ from both). We compare the meaning of the different ability predicates; in APs, the ability relates to properties of the understood subject or the event process, whereas in AAs, the ability relates to propertes of the object. On our analysis, the adjectivizing head of AAs attaches on top of a participial structure which both APs and AAs share.Publication ‘By’-Phrases in the Icelandic New Impersonal Passive(2014-01-01) Sigurðsson, Einar F.; Stefánsdóttir, BrynhildurThis paper focuses on the grammaticality of ‘by’-phrases in the Icelandic New Impersonal Passive (NIP), a construction that exhibits both passive morphology and properties that are characteristic of the active. The analysis of the NIP is debated, including whether or not ‘by’-phrases are grammatical, which is one of the most important questions for the syntactic analysis of the NIP. In the paper, we focus on this particular question and compare the NIP to the Low Canonical Passive (LCP). We review two judgment tasks in which the NIP was extensively studied, one conducted by Joan Maling and Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir and another conducted in the Variation in Syntax project at the University of Iceland. As Jónsson (2009) argues, the results indicate that ‘by’-phrases are indeed grammatical in the NIP but the results are not clear-cut. To gain a better understanding of the problem, we conducted a different kind of a study among 12-16-year-olds (n=309) and adults (n=38). We used fragment answers to the question ‘What language is spoken in Norway?’ to categorize NIP speakers (the construction is ungrammatical for many speakers) and Other speakers. The wh-phrase is syncretic for nominative and accusative and here a Canonical Passive participle is identical to a NIP participle. The answer (Norwegian) is not syncretic for both cases and therefore reveals the speaker’s analysis of the question. We compared these results to how speakers answered a similar question that contained a ‘by’-phrase, ‘What language is spoken by Finns?’ If the NIP were an active construction, we would not expect any speakers to produce accusative when answering the latter question. Still, a few speakers did, indicating that ‘by’-phrases are grammatical in the NIP. Accusative was, however, produced significantly more often when speakers answered the first question. We also tested a) how NIP speakers understood a NIP sentence with a PP that should be ambiguous between meaning ‘by’ and ‘from’, and b) how LCP speakers understand an identical LCP sentence. Our results suggest that ‘by’-phrases are grammatical in the NIP but the possibility remains that they are only grammatical for some NIP speakers but ungrammatical for other NIP speakers.Publication Deriving Case, Agreement And Voice Phenomena In Syntax(2017-01-01) Sigurdsson, Einar FreyrThis dissertation places case, agreement and Voice phenomena in syntax. It argues that the derivation is driven by so-called derivational features, that is, structure-building features (Merge) and probe features (Agree) (Heck and Müller 2007 and Müller 2010; see also Chomsky 2000, 2001). Both types are essential in deriving case and agreement in the clausal domain and DP-internally. Feature values assigned by Merge take effect immediately whereas feature values assigned via Agree take effect at Spell-Out. This has the effect that Merge can overwrite Agree relations. I argue for a clear boundary between the syntactic and the morphological component regarding how case is assigned and agreement derived, placing Agree, Merge and case assignment in syntax whereas a translation of case assignment into morphological case and agreement takes place in the morphological component. Case morphology is the result of a three-step process: (i) A syntactic relationship with a functional head (e.g., Agree with Voice); (ii) a morphological translation of that relationship into a case feature (e.g., from syntactic STR to morphological ACC); and (iii) a morphological realization of that feature at Vocabulary Insertion. I argue that there are three types of syntactic case: structural, inherent and quirky case. Structural nominative case is either the result of structural case assignment or the realization of unassigned case. If a DP has not been assigned case by Spell-Out, its syntactic case is determined as STR. Structural and quirky case is often assigned by Voice via Agree but inherent case is assigned by Appl via Merge. Furthermore, the dissertation studies the interaction of Voice, case and implicit arguments. It provides new analyses for various constructions in Icelandic where the dichotomy between active and passive breaks down. As I demonstrate, passive and active are labels for a collection of properties of VoiceP, where these properties may vary partially independently, yielding constructions that do not fit the traditional labels. I refine and improve our understanding of the nature of implicit arguments and how they interact with different Voice types. Following Landau’s (2010) distinction between Weak and Strong Implicit Arguments (WIA and SIA), I extend Legate’s (2014) analysis of the New Impersonal Construction to other constructions. I propose that WIAs are not always projected but when they are, they bear case. Furthermore, I propose that weak implicit arguments have an overtly realized counterpart, which I call Weak Explicit Arguments.