1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 45, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 45, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate empirical data that raise challenging issues with respect to focus sensitivity of the Hungarian additive particle ‘also, too’. In Hungarian, the additive particle is attached to a constituent, and the -phrase cannot occupy the structural focus position. This raises the issue how to capture the focus sensitivity of . We propose a primarily pragmatic, context-based analysis of the Hungarian additive particle, where the particle associates with the pragmatic focus (Lambrecht 1994) determined on basis of the immediate question under discussion (Roberts 2012). Important evidence for this claim is that the Hungarian additive particle can take different semantic associates, corresponding to the pragmatic focus of the sentence. After discussing the Hungarian data, we will present the analysis in the framework of Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997Van Valin 2005). To capture Hungarian and English data in a uniform way, important extensions of the framework will be proposed.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19034.bal
2020-10-22
2023-04-01

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.19034.bal
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alberti, Gábor & Anna Medve
    2000 Focus Constructions and the “Scope-inversion Puzzle” in Hungarian. In Gábor Alberti & István Kenesei (eds.), The structure of Hungarian VII, 93–117. Szeged: JATEPress.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides
    2003 Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Balogh, Kata
    2009 Theme with variations. A Context-based analysis of focus. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of AmsterdamPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Balogh, Kata & Corinna Langer
    . Forthcoming. Additive particles, focus sensitivity and prosody: the case of Hungarian. Submitted.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Barsalou, Lawrence W.
    1992 Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Feder Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, 21–74. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Beaver, David I. & Brady Z. Clark
    2002 The proper treatments of focus sensitivity. In Line Mikkelsen & Christopher Potts (eds.), WCCFL 21 Proceedings, 15–28. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 2008 Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning Explorations in Semantics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444304176
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304176 [Google Scholar]
  8. Collins, Suzanne
    2009 Az éhezők viadala [The hunger games]. Budapest: Agave Könyvek. Translated by Benedek Totth .
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Dowty, David
    1979 Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9473‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 [Google Scholar]
  10. É. Kiss, Katalin
    1978 A magyar mondatok egy szintaktikai modellje [A syntactic model of Hungarian sentences]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények80. 261–286.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. (ed.) 1995 Discourse configurational languages. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 1998 Identificational Focus versus Information Focus. Language74. 245i273. 10.1353/lan.1998.0211
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211 [Google Scholar]
  13. (ed.) 2002 The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511755088
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755088 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2015 Discourse functions: The case of Hungarian. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 663–685. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Forker, Diana
    2016 Toward a typology for additive markers. Lingua180. 69–100. 10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  16. Genzel, Susanne , Shinichiro Ishihara & Balázs Surányi
    2015 The prosodic expression of focus, contrast and givenness: A production study of Hungarian. Lingua165. 183–204. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gyuris, Beáta
    2009 The semantics and pragmatics of the contrastive topic in Hungarian. Budapest: Lexica Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2012 The information structure of Hungarian. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure, 159–186. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110261608.159
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261608.159 [Google Scholar]
  19. Horváth, Júlia
    2007 Separating “focus movement” from focus. In Simin Karimi , Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds . 108–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.101.07hor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.101.07hor [Google Scholar]
  20. 2010 “Discourse features”, Syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua120. 1346–1369. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kallmeyer, Laura & Rainer Osswald
    2013 Syntax-driven semantic frame composition in lexicalized tree adjoining grammars. Journal of Language Modelling1(2). 267–330. 10.15398/jlm.v1i2.61
     https://doi.org/10.15398/jlm.v1i2.61 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2017 Combining predicate-argument structure and operator projection: Clause structure in Role and Reference Grammar. In Marco Kuhlmann & Tatjana Scheffler (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+13), 61–70. Association for Computational Linguistics. Available at: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W17-6207/ (Last access: 13 May 2020).
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kallmeyer, Laura , Rainer Osswald & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.
    2013 Tree wrapping for Role and Reference Grammar. In Glyn Morrill & Mark-Jan Nederhof (eds.), Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2012 and 2013 Lecture Notes in Computer Science8036, 175–190. Berlin: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Kenesei, István
    1997 On the syntactic options of focus. Unpublished manuscript, University of Delaware, Newark and JATE, Szeged.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 1998 Adjuncts and arguments in VP-focus in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica45(1–2). 61–88. 10.1023/A:1009604924685
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009604924685 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2006 Focus as identification. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 137–168. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kiefer, Ference
    2005 On the information structure of the Hungarian sentence. Hungarian Studies19(2). 255–265. 10.1556/HStud.19.2005.2.6
     https://doi.org/10.1556/HStud.19.2005.2.6 [Google Scholar]
  28. König, Ekkehard
    1991 The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London/New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Krifka, Manfred
    1998 Additive particles under stress. In Devon Strolovitch & Aaron Lawson (eds.), Proceedings of SALT8, 111–128. Cornell University: CLC Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 2006 Association with focus phrases. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 105–136. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Krifka, Manfred & Renate Musan
    (eds.) 2012 The expression of information structure. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110261608
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261608 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kripke, Saul A.
    2009 Presupposition and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry40(3). 367–386. 10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.367
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.367 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994 Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  34. Langer, Corinna
    2019 Focus sensitivity and prosodic structure in Hungarian: A case study on the additive particle is. Düsseldorf: Henrich-Heine-UniversitätMA Thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Löbner, Sebastian
    2014 Evidence for frames from human language. In Thomas Gamerschlag , Doris Gerland , Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (eds.), Frames and concept types, 23–67. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑01541‑5_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5_2 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2017 Frame theory with first-order comparators: Modeling the lexical meaning of punctual verbs of change with frames. In Helle Hvid Hansen , Sarah E. Murray , Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh & Henk Zeevat (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Information LNCS 10148, 98–117. Heidelberg/New York: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Mayer, Mercer
    1967 A boy, a dog and a frog. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 1969 Frog, where are you?New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 1973 Frog on his own. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 1974 Frog goes to diner. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Mayer, Mercer & Marianna Mayer
    1971 A boy, a dog, a frog and a friend. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 1975 One frog too many. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Onea, Edgar
    2007 Exhaustivity, focus and incorporation in Hungarian. In Maria Aloni , Paul Dekker & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, 169–174. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Osswald, Rainer & Laura Kallmeyer
    2018 Towards a formalization of Role and Reference Grammar. In Rolf Kailuweit , Lisann Künkel & Eva Staudinger (eds.), Applying and expanding Role and Reference Grammar (NIHIN Studies), 355–378. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Universitätsbibliothek.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Petersen, Wiebke
    2015 Representation of concepts as frames. In Thomas Gamerschlag , Doris Gerland , Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (eds.), Meaning, frames, and conceptual representation (Studies in Language and Cognition 2), 43–67. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press. [Commented reprint: originally published 2007 In Jurģis Šķilters , Fiorenza Toccafondi & Gerhard Stemberger (eds.): Complex cognition and qualitative science (The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 2), 151–170. Riga: University of Latvia.]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Riester, Arndt
    2015 Analyzing Questions under Discussion and information structure in a Balinese narrative. In Atsuko Utsumi & Asako Shiohara (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Information Structure of Austronesian Languages, 1–26. Tokyo: Tokyo University ILCAA, TUFS.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 2019 Constructing QUD trees. In Malte Zimmermann , Klaus von Heusinger & Edgar Onea (eds.), Questions in discourse. Volume 2: Pragmatics, 164–193. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004378322_007
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378322_007 [Google Scholar]
  48. 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]
  49. 2012 Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics5(6). 1–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Rooth, Mats
    1985 Association with focus. Amherst: University of MassachusettsPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics1. 75–116. 10.1007/BF02342617
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  52. Selkirk, Elisabeth
    1996 Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In John A. Glodsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Skopeteas, Stavros , Ines Fiedler , Samantha Hellmuth , Anne Schwarz , Ruben Stoel , Gisbert Fanselow , Caroline Féry & Manfred Krifka
    2006 Questionnaire on Information Structure: Reference manual (Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 4). Potsdam: University of Potsdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Spencer, Andrew & Ana R. Luís
    2012 Clitics. An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139033763
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139033763 [Google Scholar]
  55. Stalnaker, Robert
    2002 Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy25(5–6). 701–721. 10.1023/A:1020867916902
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902 [Google Scholar]
  56. Surányi, Balázs
    2011 A szintaktikailag jelöletlen fókusz pragmatikája [On the pragmatics of the syntactically unmarked focus]. Általános Nyelvészeti TanulmányokXXIII. 281–313.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 2015 Discourse-configurationality. In Caroline Féry & Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 422–440. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Szabolcsi, Anna
    1981 The semantics of topic-focus articulation. In Jeroen Groenendijk , Theo Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language. Proceedings of the 3rd Amsterdam Colloquium, 513–540. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 1994 All quantifiers are not equal: the case of focus. Acta Linguistica Hungarica42(3/4). 171–187.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 1997 Strategies for Scope Taking. In Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, 109–154. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5814‑5_4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5814-5_4 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2013 Quantifier particles and compositionality. In Maria Aloni , Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 27–34. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 2017 Additive presuppositions are derived through activating focus alternatives. In Alexandre Cremers , Thom van Gessel & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium, 455–464. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Szabolcsi, Anna & Adrian Brasoveanu
    2013 Quantifier particles and compositionality. In Maria Aloni , Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of ψ,?ψ, and ◊ψ. A festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman, Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam. Available at: festschriften.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/ (Last access: 13 May 2020).
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Szendrői, Kriszta
    2001 Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. London: University College LondonPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 2003 A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review20. 37–78. 10.1515/tlir.2003.002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2003.002 [Google Scholar]
  66. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr.
    2005 Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2006 Semantic macroroles and language processing. In Ina Bornkessel , Matthias Schlesewsky , Bernard Comrie & Angela D. Friederici (eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking, 263–301. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & Randy LaPolla
    1997 Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  69. Vendler, Zeno
    1967 Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 10.7591/9781501743726
     https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501743726 [Google Scholar]
  70. Vilkuna, M.
    1989 Free word order in Finnish. Its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Wedgwood, Daniel
    2007 Identifying inferences in focus. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 207–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.100.13wed
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.13wed [Google Scholar]
  72. Zwicky, Arnold M.
    1985 Clitics and particles. Language61(2). 283–305. 10.2307/414146
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414146 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19034.bal
Loading
Additive particle uses in Hungarian
Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 45, 428 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19034.bal
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19034.bal
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19034.bal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): additive particles; Hungarian; Role and Reference Grammar

Most Cited

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