This dissertation explores case and verbal agreement in Icelandic. Case and agreement generally pattern together, but there are exceptional instances in which case and agreement come apart. In Icelandic, verbs agree with Nominative DPs. However, in some constructions, agreement with a Nominative is optional. In the standard account of case and agreement (Chomsky 2000), both types of features are determined simultaneously via the same syntactic operation. The standard theory, therefore, predicts that case and agreement should pattern the same way, and that neither should be optional. Moreover, based on fieldwork conducted at the University of Iceland, I present data that has not heretofore been reported. I argue that the likelihood of agreement depends on the type of construction. My research builds on other work which addresses optionality in Icelandic agreement (e.g. Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008). This dissertation makes a substantial contribution to the literature on Icelandic agreement in that the rate of agreement across various types of constructions has not been examined. I illustrate that this type of optionality is not only robust, but also systematic. This dissertation contributes to the larger literature on case and agreement in several important ways. First, I argue for a departure from the standard proposal that case and agreement are established via the same syntactic operation. I propose that it is possible for the probe which assigns case to be in a relationship with a DP, even though the probe which establishes agreement is not in a relationship with that DP. Second, I provide empirical support for Multiple Agree. I argue that the survey findings reported in this dissertation provide evidence that a probe can enter into a relationship with more than one goal. Third, I provide empirical evidence for the optionality of Multiple Agree. I argue that agreement is optional only in constructions in which there is an item intervening between T and the Nominative, and Multiple Agree is, thereby, required in order for an agreement relationship to be established.

Religious groups are societies, which aims to transcendental realities, but are realized among particular people and in particular time and society. It is interesting to study the relationship between society as a whole and these sub societies. One way of how the main society expresses its relationship towards religious groups, in a broader sense, is the registration of these groups as a state recognized religion. This status is desired and appreciated by the religious groups as it can change their position in public eyes. This thesis is a reflection about how difficult, and maybe even deceptive, is looking for criterions for registration or not registration. It is simply about describing borders between the terms ``sect{\crqq} and ``church{\crqq}. Intuitively, this border is something quite clear, but when we need to decide for or against registration, intuitive criterions by themselves are not enough.

The Greater Hindukush is an area that stretches from northwestern–central Afghanistan, through Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Gilgit–Baltistan of Pakistan and to Kashmir in northwestern India. It is home to some fifty languages of various genera including Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Nuristani, Tibeto- Burman, Turkic and the isolate Burushaski. It has long been of interest in areal typology, and there has been some discussion of phonological and lexical features shared between the languages, presumed to have evolved due to language contiguity and contact. The purpose of the present study is to research a grammatical feature, namely the plural marking of common nouns, in a selection of languages spoken in the Greater Hindukush area, and to discuss its salience as an areal or sub-areal feature. Several grammars have been consulted in the extraction and analysis of all relevant information on nominal plurality in the languages. The results indicate a correlation between stem modification as a means of marking nouns for plural, as well as optionality in the overt plural marking, and the contiguity of some languages. Conclusively, stem change as a method of expression displays some moderate degree of areality, while optionality of nominal plural marking in particular is suggested as a sub-areal feature of the area. / Greater Hindukush är ett område som sträcker sig från nordvästra–centrala Afghanistan, genom Khyber Pakhtunkhwa och Gilgit–Baltistan i Pakistan, till Kashmir i nordvästra Indien. Ett femtiotal språk av olika språkfamiljer, inklusive de indoariska, iranska, nuristanska, tibetoburmanska och turkiska samt isolatspråket burushaski, talas i området. Området har länge forskats på i arealtypologiska sammanhang, i vilka ett antal fonologiska och lexikala drag som delas mellan språken har diskuterats och antagits ha utvecklats till följd av närbelägenhet och språkkontakt. Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka ett grammatiskt drag, nämligen pluralismarkering på substantiv, i ett urval av språk som talas i Greater Hindukush-området, samt att diskutera dess signifikans som arealt eller subarealt drag. All relevant information som berör nominal pluralitet i språken i samplet har extraherats från ett flertal grammatiska beskrivningar och analyserats för vidare jämförelse och diskussion. Resultaten indikerar en korrelation mellan mekanismen stamförändring som nominal pluralismarkör, liksom valfrihet i markeringen, och närbelägenhet mellan några av språken. Sammanfattningsvis visar stamförändring som pluralismarkör en mild grad av arealitet, och optionalitet i den nominala pluralismarkeringen föreslås som ett subarealt drag i området. / Språkkontakt och språksläktskap i Hindukushregionen, Vetenskapsrådet, Projektnummer: 421-2014-631

This paper concerns the issue of ignorance about values, and how to best deal with it.I try to find out what we ought to do when we are ignorant of what it is valuable topromote. The proposed solution is an indirect system of “provisional values”, builtaround three goals that are likely to increase our chances of achieving real value,should such a thing be possible.These three provisional goals the system gives us are as follows: knowledge,optionality, and diversity.Knowledge is the traditional way of trying to relieve our ignorance and has beenthe focus of most philosophizing about value.Optionality means having options, or the power to act differently. This is likelyto become important should we ever discover what it is actually valuable to do.Finally, diversity is simply the idea that, not knowing what truly is valuable, weshould do as much as possible of everything in the hope that some of it may bevaluable. / Denna uppsats handlar om problemet med vår brist på kunskap om värde och hur manbäst hanterar det. Jag försöker ta reda på vad vi borde göra i situationer där vi ärokunniga om vilka mål som är värdefulla att uppnå. Den lösning som föreslås är ettindirekt system av ”provisoriskt värde”. Detta system är uppbyggt kring tre mål somsannolikt kommer att öka våra chanser att uppnå direkta eller verkliga värden, om ensådan sak skulle vara möjlig. Dessa tre provisoriska mål som systemet ger oss ärföljande: kunskap, optionalitet och mångfald.Kunskap är det traditionella sättet att försöka lindra vår okunnighet, och harvarit fokus för det mesta filosoferandet om värde.Optionalitet innebär att ha alternativ eller makten att agera annorlunda. Dettakommer sannolikt att bli viktigt om vi någonsin upptäcker vad det är värdefullt attgöra.Slutligen är mångfald helt enkelt tanken att om vi inte vet vad som verkligen ärvärdefullt så bör vi göra så mycket som möjligt av allt i hopp om att något av det kanvisa sig värdefullt.