1887
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2772-3720
  • E-ISSN: 2772-3739
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper contributes another round in the debate over how to analyze object agreement in Hungarian, a form of differential object marking that is found among other Uralic languages as well. I have previously argued that the choice of conjugation is determined not by the syntactic category of the object, but rather on the basis of semantic factors, primarily: on the Lexical Familiarity Hypothesis (LFH), selected lexical items are assigned a definiteness feature in virtue of a certain type of familiarity presupposition that they carry. Subsequent work has raised challenges for the LFH. This paper considers what would be necessary in order for these challenges to be met. I conclude that the LFH can be defended, if supplemented by a certain set of independently-motivated assumptions. In fact, this theory enjoys certain advantages over the most recent alternative.

This work is currently available as a sample.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00005.cop
2022-06-13
2024-03-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abbott, Barbara
    2010Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aissen, Judith
    2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory21. 435–483. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bárány, András
    2013 What triggers the Hungarian objective paradigm? A structural and feature-based account. InMartin Kohlberger, Kate Bellamy & Eleanor Dutton (eds.), Con-SOLE XXI: Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, 21–44. Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2015a Differential object marking in Hungarian and the morphosyntax of case and agreement. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.
  5. 2015b Inverse agreement and Hungarian verb paradigms. InKatalin É Kiss, Balázs Surányi & Éva Dékány (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba Conference, 37–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/atoh.14.02bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.14.02bar [Google Scholar]
  6. 2018Person, case, and agreement: The morphosyntax of inverse agreement and global case splits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bárány, András & Ádám Szalontai
    2015 Agreement with possessed direct objects in Hungarian. Slides presented atSinFolJA 8, Ljubljana, 25 September 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Barker, Chris
    1992 Group terms in English: representing groups as atoms. Journal of Semantics9(1). 69–93. 10.1093/jos/9.1.69
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.1.69 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bartos, Huba
    1999 Morfoszintaxis és interpretáció: A magyar inflexiós jeleségek szintaktikai háttere [Morphosyntax and interpretation: The syntactic background to inflectional phenomena in Hungarian.]. Budapest: ELTE dissertation.
  10. 2001 Object agreement in Hungarian: A case for Minimalism. InGalina M. Alexandrova & Olga Arnaudova (eds.), The Minimalist Parameter: Selected papers from the Open Linguistics Forum, Ottawa, 21–23 March 1997, 311–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.192.25bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.192.25bar [Google Scholar]
  11. Bassi, Itai
    2019 Fake indexicals and their sensitivity to focus. InProceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society (NELS)49, 111–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Beaver, David & Henk Zeevat
    2007 Accommodation. InGillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 503–539. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0017 [Google Scholar]
  13. Béjar, Susana
    2008 Conditions on phi-agree. InDaniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bossong, Georg
    1983–1984 Animacy and markedness in universal grammar. Glossologia2–3. 7–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Coppock, Elizabeth
    2013 A semantic solution to the problem of object agreement in Hungarian. Natural Language Semantics21(4). 345–371. 10.1007/s11050‑013‑9096‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-013-9096-7 [Google Scholar]
  16. Coppock, Elizabeth & Stephen Wechsler
    2010 Less-travelled paths from pronoun to agreement: The case of the Uralic objective conjugations. InTracy Holloway King (ed.), The proceedings of the LFG ’10 conference, 165–85. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2012 The objective conjugation in Hungarian: Agreement without phi-features. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory30. 699–740. 10.1007/s11049‑012‑9165‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9165-5 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva
    2011Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511993473
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511993473 [Google Scholar]
  19. den Dikken, Marcel
    2018Dependency and directionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316822821
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316822821 [Google Scholar]
  20. den Dikken, Marcel
    . To appear. Ordinals, reflexives and unaccusatives: Unification by predication. Journal of Uralic Linguistics2.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. den Dikken, Marcel, Anikó Lipták & Zsófia Zvolenszky
    2001 On inclusive reference anaphora: New perspectives from Hungarian. InKarine Megerdoomian & Leora Anne Bar-el (eds.), WCCFL 20: Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 137–149. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. É. Kiss, Katalin
    2000 The Hungarian noun phrase is like the English noun phrase. InGábor Alberti & István Kenesei (eds.), Papers from the Pécs conference, vol.7Approaches to Hungarian, 121–49. Szeged: JATE Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2002The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511755088
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755088 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2005 The inverse agreement constraint in Hungarian: A relic of a Uralic-Siberian Sprachbund?InHans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Klein-henz & Jan Koster (eds.), Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2013 The inverse agreement constraint in Uralic languages. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics2. 2–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2017 The Person-Case Constraint and the Inverse Agreement Constraint are manifestations of the same Inverse Topicality Constraint. The Linguistic Review34. 365–395. 10.1515/tlr‑2017‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2017-0004 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2018 Possessive agreement turned into a derivational suffix. InHuba Bartos, Marcel den Dikken, Zoltán Bánréti & Tamás Váradi (eds.), Boundaries crossed, at the interfaces of morphosyntax, phonology, pragmatics and semantics, 87–105. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑90710‑9_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90710-9_6 [Google Scholar]
  28. É. Kiss, Katalin & Orsolya Tánczos
    2018 From possessor agreement to object marking in the evolution of the Udmurt -jez suffix: A grammaticalization approach to morpheme syncretism. Language94(4). 733–757. 10.1353/lan.2018.0052
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0052 [Google Scholar]
  29. Elbourne, Paul
    2013Definite descriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660193.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660193.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Fiengo, Robert & Robert May
    1994Indices and identity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gerland, Doris & Albert Ortmann
    2009 Alienability splits in Hungarian. Paper presented at‘Verbal and Nominal Possession’ workshop, January 29, 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Geurts, Bart
    2007 Existential import. InIleana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax, 253–71. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gulya, János
    1966Eastern Ostyak chrestomathy. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hajdú, Péter
    1968Chrestomathia Samojedica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Haspelmath, Martin
    2009 The best-supported language universals refer to scalar patterns deriving from processing cost. Behavioral and Brain Sciences32(5). 457–458. 10.1017/S0140525X09990689
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09990689 [Google Scholar]
  36. Heim, Irene
    1983 On the projection problem for presuppositions. InDaniel Flickinger, Michael Barlow & Michael Westcoat (eds.), Proceedings of the second west coast conference on formal linguistics, 114–125. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Honti, László
    1984Chrestomathia ostiacica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Horn, Laurence R.
    1997 All John’s children are as bald as the king of France. InCLS 33: Papers from the main session, 155–179.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Iemmolo, Giogio & Gerson Klumpp
    (eds.) 2014Differential object marking: theoretical and empirical issues. Special issue ofLinguistics52.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Jacobson, Pauline
    2012 Direct compositionality and ‘uninterpretability’: The case of (sometimes) ‘uninterpretable’ features on pronouns. Journal of Semantics29. 305–343. 10.1093/jos/ffs005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffs005 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kálmán, Béla
    1965Vogul chresomathy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle
    1993From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Kenesei, István
    1994 Subordinate clauses. InFerenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian, 275–354. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Keresztes, László
    1989Chrestomathia Mordvinica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kiparsky, Paul
    2012 Greek anaphora in cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Greek Linguistics12. 84–117. 10.1163/156658412X649977
    https://doi.org/10.1163/156658412X649977 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kratzer, Angelika
    2009 Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry40(2). 593–634. 10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.187
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.187 [Google Scholar]
  47. Landman, Fred
    1989 Groups I and II. Linguistics and Philosophy12. 559–606, 723–744. 10.1007/BF00627774
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627774 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lappin, Shalom & Tanya Reinhart
    1988 Presuppositional effects of strong determiners: A processing account. Linguistics26. 1021–37. 10.1515/ling.1988.26.6.1021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1988.26.6.1021 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lasnik, Howard
    1989Essays on anaphora. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2542‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2542-7 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mardale, Alexandru & Petros Karatsareas
    (eds.) 2020Differential object marking and language contact. Special issue ofJournal of Language Contact. 10.1075/tilar.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.26 [Google Scholar]
  51. Nikolaeva, Irina
    1999 Object agreement, grammatical relations, and information structure. Studies in Language23. 331–76. 10.1075/sl.23.2.05nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23.2.05nik [Google Scholar]
  52. Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland
    1993 Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry24(4). 657–720.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Roberts, Craige
    2003 Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy26. 287–350. 10.1023/A:1024157132393
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157132393 [Google Scholar]
  54. Rothstein, Susan
    2017Semantics for counting and measuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9780511734830
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511734830 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sauerland, Uli
    2013 Presuppositions and the alternative tier. InTodd Snider (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT)23, 156–173. 10.3765/salt.v23i0.2673
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v23i0.2673 [Google Scholar]
  56. Schwarz, Florian
    2009 Two types of definites in natural language. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst dissertation.
  57. Seržant, Ilja A. & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
    (eds.) 2018Diachrony of differential argument marking. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Szabolcsi, Anna
    1986 From the definiteness effect to lexical integrity. InSjaak de Meij & Werner Abraham (eds.), Topic, focus and configurationality, 321–348. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.4.15sza
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.4.15sza [Google Scholar]
  59. 1994 The noun phrase. InFerenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian (Syntax and Semantics vol. 27), 179–274. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. van der Sandt, Rob A.
    1992 Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics9. 333–377. 10.1093/jos/9.4.333
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.333 [Google Scholar]
  61. Virtanen, Susanna
    2015 Transitivity in Eastern Mansi: An information structural approach. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00005.cop
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00005.cop
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error