Search

In Modern Icelandic the verb líka ‘like’ occurs with a subject in the dative case and an object in the nominative case. It has been argued that this was also the case in Old Icelandic. In this paper we argue that in contrast to Modern Icelandic, the nominative argument of líka could also constitute the subject during the Old Icelandic period and the dative argument the object. More specifically, we maintain that the verb líka was an alternating (or symmetric) verb where the nominative and the dative argument could raise to the subject position, whereas in Modern Icelandic only the dative is able to raise to the subject position. In other words, we argue that a change in the argument structure of the verb has taken place such that líka has changed from being an alternating (symmetric) verb to an asymmetric oblique subject verb. The main argument that is used to substantiate this claim comes from control infinitives in Old Icelandic, taking on the form in (i): (i) girntiz meirr at líka einum guði en mönnum desired.mid more to PRO.nom like.inf alone.dat god.dat than men.dat ‘(He) desired more to please God alone than men.’ (Æv 150.15) Based on a generative analysis of syntactic structure, we present evidence that reveals that the dative argument functions syntactically as the object, in addition to discussing other potential evidence based on word order. When the nominative argument is the subject, the meaning of 'líka' is sometimes closer to that of English 'please' than 'like'. We also discuss how this might be accounted for.

This article deals with Icelandic polysyllabic nouns of Greek-Latin origin that end in –ík, for example epík ‘epic’, keramík ‘ceramic’, and klassík ‘classic’. The oldest loan words were borrowed from Danish via German, but in recent decades they have most likely entered Icelandic through English. The main research question in this article concerns declension: how are these nouns declined in the genitive form? As feminine nouns, the words in question follow the same pattern as the monosyllabic, feminine noun vík. Thus, as vík, polysyllabic -ík nouns have the ending -ur in genitive singular. However, the ending -ar is also possible in many instances. In this paper, it is argued that the -ík ending has triggered the gender and consequently the declension of the words in question. Finally, the paper addresses the question whether -ík should be understood as an ending or as a part of the stem. As the ending -ík is not productive in the formation of new Icelandic words it is concluded that the latter is more likely.

This study focuses on a particular use of the interrogative pronoun hvað ‘what’ in Icelandic conversation. Besides occurring in open questions (e.g. hvað er þetta ‘what is this’), hvað can also be used as a discourse particle in repair sequences. Such occurrences typically occur in turns that contain either numeral information (time, number or quantity) or names and other specific labels. The following two examples are drawn from the the spoken corpus ÍSTAL: (1) en ég hef einmitt er með hvað tuttuguogeinstommu skjá niðri í vinnu ‘but I have just have hvað twenty one inch screen down at work’, and (2) það heitir (þa-) (m-) eða þarna (niðr-) (það) sem var niðri í bæ hvað þarna Mjölnisholt ‘it is called (i-) (m-) or there (do-) (it) which was downtown hvað there Mjölnisholt’. In (1) and (2), hvað is used to structure a repair sequence that aims at solving problems that have arisen in the flow of the conversation. To be more specific, hvað functions as a repair initiator in self-initiated self-repairs. It is argued, on one hand, that the main role of the particle is to mark a minor inconsistency that may exist between what is said and what is actually the case (1), and, on the other, that the speaker is doing a word-search (2). The empirical data comprises around 20 hours of naturally occurring conversation from the ÍSTAL database recorded in 2000. In total, there are 25 sequences that contain an occurance of hvað as a discourse particle. The theoretical and methodological framework is conversation analysis and interactional linguistics.

I þessari grein er fjallað um hugtaksmyndhverfingar sem tengjast REIÐI i islensku. I kjolfar rannsokna Lakoff & Johnson (1980) hefur mikið verið raett um hvernig við skiljum ohlutstaeð fyrirbaeri eins og tilfinningar. I þvi samhengi hafa miklar umraeður um REIÐI att ser stað og almennt er viðurkennt að myndhverfingin REIÐI ER HEITUR VOKVI I ILATI fyrirfinnist i morgum olikum tungumalum. Litið hefur verið fjallað um slikar myndhverfingar i islensku. Her er þvi aetlunin að athuga hversu miðlaegar vissar myndhverfingar sem tengjast REIÐI eru. Notast er við MI-gildi (gagnkvaemar upplýsingar) fyrir tolfraeðilegar maelingar og er niðurstaðan su að miðlaegasta hugtaksmyndhverfingin er snýr að REIÐI er REIÐI ER HEITUR VOKVI I ILATI. Gognin sýna þo að blaebrigðamunur se a þessari hugtaksmyndhverfingu i islensku og ensku. Auk þess eru aðrar hugtaksmyndhverfingar eins og REIÐI ER BRUNI eða REIÐI ER HAETTULEGT DÝR ekki eins tengdar reiði eins og sambaerilegar myndhverfingar sem tengjast hugtakinu ANGER i ensku.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein), Greint er frá hugmyndum Haugens (1966 o.v.), Ammons (2003, 2015 o.v.) og Spolskys (2004, 2009, 2018) um málstöðlun, málstefnu og málstýringu þær bornar jafnharðan að íslenskum úrlausnarefnum og sýnt hvernig þær nýtast við athuganir á íslenskri málsögu, málstefnu og málstöðlun. Þá er rætt um kosti og annmarka greiningaraðferðanna og þær metnar í ljósi annarra hugmynda., Theoretical analyses and models by Haugen (1966), Ammon (2003, 2015) and Spolsky (2004, 2009, 2018) on language standardization, language policy and language man-agement are described and discussed, along with some detailed accounts on how these have been or may be used in the study of Icelandic language standardization and language policy at various points in the history of Icelandic. Furthermore, some advantages and shortcomings of these analyses are discussed in comparison with diff erent theoretical approaches.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein), Í beygingu nafnsins Þórarinn hafa á síðari öldum komið upp fjórar nýjungar í þágufalli við hlið hinnar hefðbundu myndar Þórarni. Þetta eru myndirnar Þórarin, Þórarini, Þórarinum og Þórarininum. Hér er reynt að leita skýringa á þessum nýjungum. Þórarin og Þórarini eiga sér fyrirmyndir í beygingu mannanafna (s.s. Benedikt (þgf.) og Auðuni) og eru því væntanlega til komnar við dæmigerðar áhrifsbreytingar. Þórarinum er óvænt mynd þar sem bæði dæmigerð áhrifsbreyting og ódæmigerð áhrifsbreyting (rímmyndun, rímbreyting) kunna að hafa komið við sögu, jafnvel báðar í einu. Þórarininum er einnig óvænt mynd en hún er að líkindum komin til við aðrar ódæmigerðar áhrifsbreytingar (blöndun eða alþýðuskýringu)., The male name Þórarinn is traditionally Þórarni in the dative. In addition to the usual dative form, four innovative forms have been used, Þórarin, Þórarini, Þórarinum and Þórarininum. Here, att empts are made to explain how these forms emerged. Þórarinand Þórarini have their counterparts in the infl ection of personal names, e.g. Benedikt(dat.) and Auðuni (dat.), and are apparently due to proportional analogy. Þórarinumis a surprising form and may be due to proportional analogy and non-proportional analogy (rhyming formation), the two types even working in harmony. Þórarininumis also unexpected and may be due to other non-proportional types of analogy (blending/contamination or folk etymology).

Brent Berlin and Paul Kay brought a sea change in semantic studies of colour terms when they published their book Basic Color Terms in 1969. Up to that point the dominant view was that each language represented a unique conceptual organisation of the world, a view supported by the fact that the colour spectrum is a continuum which provides not obvious breaks for the purposes of naming. Despite the many criticisms of their work which have followed, their methodology has proven extremely infl uential and been widely adopted. The project Evolution of Semantic Systems, 2011–2012, adopted their methodology for a study of colour terms in the Indo-European languages and the Colours in Context project applied the same methods to a study of Icelandic Sign Language. Signed languages diff er in many ways from spoken languages but the results of this study suggest the broad organisation of the colour space is the same in Icelandic Sign Language, Icelandic and British English. The colour space is organised by a few dominant terms, largely the same as Berlin and Kay ́s original basic colour terms. Yet within that broad patt ern is considerable microvariation, especially in the spaces between the dominant terms. There the characteristic patt erns of word formation in the language have a clear influence in colour naming strategies.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein), Íslensk nútímamálsorðabók er ný orðabók sem ætluð er til birtingar á vefnum. Orðabókin byggist að verulegu leyti á margmála veforðabókinni ISLEX (www.islex.is) og er m.a. flettiorðalistinn fenginn þaðan, svo og skipting í merkingarliði, framburður orða, myndefni, upplýsingar um fallstjórn sagna, málsnið o.fl. Við gerð orðabókarinnar var horft til þess að tungumálið er stöðugt í þróun / tekur breytingum, og hefur verið leitast við að láta uppflettiorðaforðann og notkunardæmin taka mið af því hvernig íslenska er raunverulega töluð og rituð af málnotendum nútímans, sem útheimtir reglulegar uppfærslur og viðbætur á orðaforðanum. Í greininni er í stórum fjallað um útgáfusögu íslenskra orðabóka frá upphafi og helsu áhrifavaldar verksins eru skoðaðir. Lýst er tilurð orðabókarinnar, innviðum hennar og helstu eiginleikum. Ennfremur er gerð grein fyrir ritstjórnarstefnunni og efnistökum eins og þau birtast í vali orðaforðans og orðskýringum, og er m.a. skýrt frá meðhöndlun á erlendum tökuorðum. Rætt er um hlutverk orðabóka í víðara samhengi og loks er fjallað um notkun á orðabókinni á tilteknu tímabili., Íslensk nútímamálsorðabók(A Dictionary of Contemporary Icelandic - islenskordabok.is) is a new dictionary designed for the web. It is largely modelled on the multilingual ISLEX project (www.islex.is), inheriting its lemmalist as well as its general structure, such as division into meanings, examples of use, information on the valency of verbs and prepositions, the use of labels, pronunciations, illustrations etc. The fact that a living language is always open to change has affected the work, so the dictionary’s lemma list and other contents reflect the spoken and written Icelandic of today, this also entails regular updates and additions to the material. The article first discusses the predecessors of Íslensk nútímamálsorðabók, it also briefly deals with the publishing history of Icelandic dictionaries. A description is given of the dictionary’s framework, linguistic approach, contents and its main features, as well as the editorial policy of the work as reflected in its vocabulary and definitions, and the way it deals with loan words and slang. Three important aspects of the dictionary come into focus which all can be said to be groundbreaking in Icelandic lexicography. These are: the processing of all articles according to the lemma’s semantic fields, a heavy use of corpora, and the dictionary’s original design for the web. Finally, some information is given on the use of the dictionary since its opening in late 2016.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein), Síaukin áhrif ensku á íslenskt málsamfélag hafa valdið mörgum áhyggjum af stöðu og framtíðarhorfum íslensku og hafa nýlegar rannsóknir sýnt að slíkar áhyggjur eru sennilega ekki tilefnislausar. Mikilvægt þykir fyrir lífvænleika íslensku að hún sé bæði nothæf og notuð á öllum sviðum samfélagsins og þá skipta viðhorf málhafa og afstaða þeirra til ýmissa þátta málsambýlis íslensku og ensku miklu máli. Í greininni eru birtar niðurstöður úr nýlegri rannsókn á viðhorfum u.þ.b. 350 Íslendinga til nýyrðamyndunar og notkun þeirra á nokkrum tæknitengdum nýyrðum. Farið er stuttlega yfir hugtakanotkun, mögulegar ástæður fyrir mismikilli velgengni ólíkra nýyrða, fyrri rannsóknir á þessu sviði sem og möguleg áhrif nýyrðamyndunar og –notkunar á lífvænleika íslensku. Sú umfjöllun er svo tengd við niðurstöður rannsóknarinnar sem benda m.a. til þess að almennur samhljómur sé, á meðal allra aldursflokka, um að mynda eigi íslensk nýyrði fyrir erlend hugtök þótt hlutfall jákvæðra lækki aðeins með lækkandi aldri. Þegar kemur að vali á milli íslenskra nýyrða og samsvarandi aðkomuorða höfðu nýyrðin vinninginn í fleiri tilvikum en þó má greina augljósan mun á vali eftir því um hvaða nýyrði er að ræða og eru tekin fyrir nokkur dæmi um mögulegar skýringar, s.s. tegund nýyrðis, útbreiðsla, aldur o.fl., English is increasingly influencing the Icelandic language community, raising concerns about the state and prospects of the Icelandic language. Recent studies indicate that such concerns are probably justified. The viability of the language depends on it being used in all areas of daily communication and the attitudes of speakers toward the contact between Icelandic and English is important in this respect. This paper describes the results of a recent study of the attitudes of about 350 Icelandic speakers toward neologisms and their use of a few technology-related neologisms. The paper discusses possible reasons for why some neologisms are received more positively than others and the relationship between neologisms and language viability in the context of Icelandic. The general discussion is then related to the fi ndings of the study which indicate that there is a general consensus among all age groups that Icelandic neologisms should be created and adopted instead of foreign loanwords, although the proportion of such responses is lower in the younger age groups. Icelandic neologisms were viewed more favorably than loanwords in most cases but it is nevertheless clear that not all neologisms are equally well received. We consider some possible explanations for such differences., Rannís: 162991