DOCSLIB.ORG

Differential Object Marking in Hungarian and the Morphosyntax of Case and Agreement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Differential Object Marking in Hungarian and the Morphosyntax of Case and Agreement Differential object marking in Hungarian and the morphosyntax of case and agreement András Bárány Downing College, University of Cambridge November 2015 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Voor ⴰⵎⵓⵛⵛ Contents Declaration ix Acknowledgements xi Abbreviations xiii List of Tables xv List of Figures xvii 1 DOM, case and agreement 1 1.1 Introduction .................................... 1 1.2 Differential object marking ........................... 2 1.3 Person features and hierarchies ........................ 5 1.3.1 Hierarchies and functional approaches to DOM ......... 9 1.4 Case and agreement ............................... 10 1.5 Theoretical assumptions ............................. 14 1.5.1 Cyclic Agree ............................... 14 1.5.2 Agree can fail .............................. 17 1.5.3 Syntax and morphology ........................ 18 1.6 The sample of languages ............................ 21 Part I Differential object marking in Hungarian 23 2 DOM in Hungarian 25 2.1 Introduction: Hungarian object agreement ................. 25 v Contents 2.2 The distribution of object agreement ..................... 27 2.2.1 Direct objects and subject agreement ................ 28 2.2.2 Direct objects that trigger object agreement ............ 33 2.2.3 “Unexpected” object agreement ................... 43 2.3 Summary ...................................... 45 3 A hybrid analysis of object agreement: syntactic structure and π-features 47 3.1 Introduction .................................... 47 3.2 Towards an analysis ............................... 48 3.2.1 Problems for semantic approaches ................. 48 3.2.2 Problems for syntactic approaches ................. 50 3.2.3 Syntactic structure and person features .............. 53 3.3 Evidence from possessive noun phrases in Hungarian .......... 58 3.3.1 Types of possessors: nominative, dative, pronominal ...... 58 3.3.2 Non-specific possessives and dative possessors .......... 61 3.3.3 Possessed noun phrases and object agreement .......... 63 3.3.4 The structure of possessed noun phrases .............. 65 3.3.5 Possessed direct objects in Standard Hungarian ......... 69 3.3.6 Conclusions: syntactic structure and person features ...... 75 3.4 An implementation of object agreement ................... 76 3.4.1 Object agreement and person features ............... 76 3.4.2 Deriving agreement .......................... 79 3.4.3 Putting the pieces together: agreement in the clause ...... 91 3.4.4 Interim summary ............................ 93 3.5 Conclusions .................................... 94 4 Agreement with personal pronouns 97 4.1 Introduction .................................... 97 4.2 Object agreement with personal pronouns ................. 98 4.2.1 The distribution of object agreement with personal pronouns . 101 4.3 Deriving inverse agreement in Hungarian .................. 106 4.3.1 Arguments for covert agreement .................. 115 4.3.2 Third person arguments ........................ 119 vi Contents 4.3.3 Interim summary ............................ 121 4.4 Spelling out agreement ............................. 122 4.4.1 Hungarian verb morphology and spell-out rules ......... 123 4.4.2 Revised spell-out rules ......................... 130 4.4.3 Verbal agreement and possessive suffixes ............. 132 4.4.4 Further issues in verb morphology ................. 136 4.4.5 Interim summary ............................ 139 4.5 Comparison to other analyses of object agreement ............ 139 4.5.1 Agreement with third person objects ................ 140 4.5.2 Agreement with first, second, and third person objects ..... 141 4.5.3 Inclusive reference, again ....................... 146 4.5.4 Interim summary ............................ 151 4.6 Summary and conclusions ........................... 151 4.A Appendix: Full derivations ........................... 152 4.A.1 Direct configuration .......................... 152 4.A.2 Inverse configuration ......................... 154 4.A.3 Two third person arguments ..................... 155 Part II Case and agreement in the grammar 159 5 Inverse agreement and global case splits 161 5.1 Introduction .................................... 161 5.2 Case studies: Inverse agreement and global case splits .......... 164 5.2.1 Kashmiri ................................. 164 5.2.2 Sahaptin ................................. 167 5.3 Case assignment and cyclicity ......................... 168 5.3.1 case features, Case assignment and impoverishment ...... 174 5.4 Analysis ...................................... 177 5.4.1 Global case splits on subject and object .............. 178 5.4.2 Global case splits and animacy .................... 189 5.4.3 Crossing the distinction between direct and inverse ....... 199 5.5 Discussion and conclusions ........................... 211 5.5.1 Other approaches to global case splits ............... 211 vii Contents 5.5.2 Functional heads and probes ..................... 215 5.5.3 Conclusions ............................... 216 6 Case and agreement in the grammar 217 6.1 Introduction .................................... 217 6.2 Case, agreement and Bobaljik’s generalisations .............. 218 6.2.1 Hindi and Nepali ............................ 219 6.2.2 Bobalijk’s generalisations ....................... 220 6.2.3 Marathi .................................. 223 6.3 Analysis ...................................... 225 6.3.1 Theoretical assumptions ........................ 226 6.3.2 Case and case features ........................ 227 6.3.3 Deriving agreement in Hindi, Nepali and Marathi ........ 230 6.3.4 Languages with two φ-probes .................... 243 6.3.5 Splits between one and two probes ................. 252 6.3.6 A language with three φ-probes: Kashmiri ............ 257 6.4 Conclusions .................................... 262 7 Parameters of DOM 265 7.1 A hierarchical approach to parameters .................... 265 7.2 Cross-linguistic variation in DOM ...................... 267 7.2.1 Modelling dependencies ........................ 269 7.3 Conclusions — Parameters of DOM? ..................... 272 8 Conclusions 275 Bibliography 277 Author index 297 viii Declaration This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is theout- come of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University ofCambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and spe- cified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation hasalready been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diplomaor other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University ofsimilar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. ix Acknowledgements The research reported in this dissertation was funded by the European Research Coun- cil Advanced Grant No. 269752 “Rethinking Comparative Syntax” (ReCoS). My deep- est gratitude goes to my fellow members on this project. First, to my supervisors Ian Roberts, Theresa Biberauer and Michelle Sheehan. I have learned an incredible amount from each one of you and I am very grateful for everything — I could not have had a better team of supervisors. Other members of ReCoS might not have read, commented on and re-read all parts of this dissertation, but I have received a great amount of support from everyone. Thanks to Jenneke van der Wal, for always being helpful, uplifting, motivating, fun and a little bit crazy. Thanks to Georg Höhn for many, many conversations and for listening toand commenting on many of my half-baked ideas. Thanks to Alison Biggs and Tim Bazal- gette for sharing their wisdom when I started in Cambridge and for being excellent role-models in many ways. And thanks to Anders Holmberg for further inspiration, and bringing another Finno-Ugric language to ReCoS. I am very happy to have been able to work with all of you over the past three years. Dora Alexopoulou and Adam Ledgeway helped me get on track in my first year in Cambridge, and Adam has been an encouraging and motivating advisor since. Visitors and part-time members of ReCoS whose company and input over the years I appreci- ated a lot are Sten Vikner, Maia Duguine, Aritz Irurtzun, and Gereon Müller, who were guests at one time or another (or at one time and another, like Sten). ReCoS also generously allowed me to spend time away from Cambridge, travelling to conferences and summer schools. I want to thank Katalin É. Kiss, Anna Szabolcsi, Laura Kalin, and Jaklin Kornfilt for valuable discussions at various places. Iamalso grateful to Klaus von Heusinger for welcoming me at the University of Cologne for a few months, and to Martine Grice, who let me work in her department. And thanks to Umut Özge, who was a great office mate. xi Acknowledgements But what’s writing a dissertation without the company of other PhD students? I am grateful to Eleni Savva for countless linguistic and non-linguistic conversations and for organising a Christmas party with me that some would call legendary (others would call it something else), and to Anna Jespersen, because we talked about the things that really matter, like rodent vocalisation, hangovers and cats in party hats doing Praat. I’ll miss you guys!
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Genitive Constructions in Coptic Barbara Egedi
    Genitive constructions in Coptic Barbara Egedi 1. Introduction 1.1. Definition of ‘Coptic’ Coptic is the language of Christian Egypt (4th to 14th century) written in a specific version of the Greek alphabet. It was gradually superseded by Ara- bic from the ninth century onward, but it survived to the present time as the liturgical language of the Christian church of Egypt. In this paper I examine only one of its main dialects, the Sahidic Coptic and I use a transcription which simply reflects the Coptic letters irrespectively of phonological de- tails.1 1.2. UG in the reconstruction of dead languages Natural languages are claimed to have universal properties or principles which constitute what is referred to as Universal Grammar. Accepting cer- tain universal principles and observing the corresponding parameters in Coptic, we can also analyse a language without living native speakers, and explain its structural relations with the help of coherent models. For example, it is considered a universal principle that the projections of lexical heads are extended by one or more functional projections. If we assume that it can be demonstrated in many languages, why could not we suppose the same in the case of Coptic? Indeed, as it will be shown in chap- ter 4, there are at least two functional projections above Coptic lexical noun phrase as well. The aim of this paper is to provide an adequate account of the basic structure of the Coptic NP within the theoretical framework of the Mini- malist Program (a short summary of which will be found in the following section); at the same time, I intend to find the answer to unsolved questions related to genitive constructions.
    [Show full text]
  • Orthographies in Grammar Books
    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0565.v1 Tomislav Stojanov, [email protected], [email protected] Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistic Republike Austrije 16, 10.000 Zagreb, Croatia Orthographies in Grammar Books – Antiquity and Humanism Summary This paper researches the as yet unstudied topic of orthographic content in antique, medieval, and Renaissance grammar books in European languages, as part of a wider research of the origin of orthographic standards in European languages. As a central place for teachings about language, grammar books contained orthographic instructions from the very beginning, and such practice continued also in later periods. Understanding the function, content, and orthographic forms in the past provides for a better description of the nature of the orthographic standard in the present. The evolution of grammatographic practice clearly shows the continuity of development of orthographic content from a constituent of grammar studies through the littera unit gradually to an independent unit, then into annexed orthographic sections, and later into separate orthographic manuals. 5 antique, 22 Latin, and 17 vernacular grammars were analyzed, describing 19 European languages. The research methodology is based on distinguishing orthographic content in the narrower sense (grapheme to meaning) from the broader sense (grapheme to phoneme). In this way, the function of orthographic description was established separately from the study of spelling. As for the traditional description of orthographic content in the broader sense in old grammar books, it is shown that orthographic content can also be studied within the grammatographic framework of a specific period, similar to the description of morphology or syntax.
    [Show full text]
  • Positions for Oblique Case-Marked Arguments in Hungarian Noun Phrases1
    17.1-2 (2016): 295-319 UDC 811.511.141'367.4=111 UDC 811.511.411'367.622=111 Original scientific article Received on 10. 07. 2015 Accepted for publication on 12. 04. 2016 Judit Farkas1 Gábor Alberti2 1Hungarian Academy of Sciences 2University of Pécs Positions for oblique case-marked arguments in Hungarian noun phrases1 We argue that there are four positions open to oblique case-marked arguments within the Hungarian noun phrase structure, of which certain ones have never been mentioned in the literature while even the others have been discussed very scarcely (for different reasons, which are also pointed out in the paper). In order to formally account for these four positions and the data “legitimizing” them, we provide a new DP structure integrating the basically morphology-based Hungarian traditions with the cartographic Split-DP Hypothesis (Giusti 1996; Ihsane and Puskás 2001). We point out that, chiefly by means of the four posi- tions for oblique case-marked arguments in Hungarian noun phrases and the operator layers based upon them, this language makes it possible for its speakers to explicitly express every possible scopal order of arguments of verbs, even if the given verbs are deeply embedded in complements of deverbal nominalizers. Key words: Hungarian noun phrase; generative syntax; Split-DP Hypothesis; oblique case-marked arguments; possessive construction. 1 We are grateful to OTKA NK 100804 (Comprehensive Grammar Resources: Hungarian) for their financial support. The present scientific contribution is dedicated to the 650th anniversary of the foundation of the University of Pécs, Hungary. 295 Judit Farkas – Gábor Alberti: Positions for obliques case-marked arguments in Hungarian noun phrases 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 the Distribution of Quantifiers in Old and Modern
    Word Order Change Edited by ANA MARIA MARTINS and ADRIANA CARDOSO 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OXDP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © editorial matter and organization Ana Maria Martins and Adriana Cardoso © the chapters their several authors The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in Impression: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press Madison Avenue, New York, NY , United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: ISBN –––– Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CRYY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
    [Show full text]
  • The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages a Comparative Study Delsing, Lars-Olof
    The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages A Comparative Study Delsing, Lars-Olof 1993 Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Delsing, L-O. (1993). The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages: A Comparative Study. Institutionen för nordiska språk, Lunds universitet. Total number of authors: 1 Creative Commons License: CC BY-NC-ND General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 Tun INrnnN¡¡ SrnucruRn oF NouN Pnnasns IN THE Sc.lNnrNAvrAN Lr¡¡cuacBs A ConrpaRATrvE Sruoy Lars-Olof Delsing Departrnent of Scandinavian Languages University of Lund 1993 O Lars-Olof Delsing 1993 ISBN 91-628-0988-1 Printed in Sweden Team Offset Malmri, 1993 Acknowledgements Six years ago, I asked my supervisor, Christer Platzack, if he could think of a sub¡ect within generative grammar, which would be suit- able for a paper that should be done in five weeks.
    [Show full text]
  • Hungarian Style Guide
    Hungarian Style Guide Published: February, 2019 Microsoft Hungarian Style Guide Contents 1 About this style guide............................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Recommended style references .............................................................................................................. 4 2 Microsoft voice .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Choices that reflect Microsoft voice ..................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Flexibility ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1.2 Word choice................................................................................................................................................. 8 2.1.3 Word-to-word translation.................................................................................................................. 9 2.1.4 Words and phrases to avoid ......................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Sample Microsoft voice text.................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.1 Address the user to take action .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Syntax of Hungarian. Nouns and Noun Phrases, Volume 2
    Comprehensive Grammar Resources Series editors: Henk van Riemsdijk, István Kenesei and Hans Broekhuis Syntax of Hungarian Nouns and Noun Phrases Volume 2 Edited by Gábor Alberti and Tibor Laczkó Syntax of Hungarian Nouns and Noun Phrases Volume II Comprehensive Grammar Resources With the rapid development of linguistic theory, the art of grammar writing has changed. Modern research on grammatical structures has tended to uncover many constructions, many in depth properties, many insights that are generally not found in the type of grammar books that are used in schools and in fields related to linguistics. The new factual and analytical body of knowledge that is being built up for many languages is, unfortunately, often buried in articles and books that concentrate on theoretical issues and are, therefore, not available in a systematized way. The Comprehensive Grammar Resources (CGR) series intends to make up for this lacuna by publishing extensive grammars that are solidly based on recent theoretical and empirical advances. They intend to present the facts as completely as possible and in a way that will “speak” to modern linguists but will also and increasingly become a new type of grammatical resource for the semi- and non- specialist. Such grammar works are, of necessity, quite voluminous. And compiling them is a huge task. Furthermore, no grammar can ever be complete. Instead new subdomains can always come under scientific scrutiny and lead to additional volumes. We therefore intend to build up these grammars incrementally, volume by volume. In view of the encyclopaedic nature of grammars, and in view of the size of the works, adequate search facilities must be provided in the form of good indices and extensive cross-referencing.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation of a Corpus with Semantic Role Labels for Hungarian
    Creation of a corpus with semantic role labels for Hungarian Attila Novák1;2, László János Laki1;2, Borbála Novák1;2 Andrea Dömötör1;3, Noémi Ligeti-Nagy1;3, Ágnes Kalivoda1;3 1MTA-PPKE Hungarian Language Technology Research Group, 2Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Faculty of Information Technology and Bionics Práter u. 50/a, 1083 Budapest, Hungary 3Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Egyetem u. 1, 2087 Piliscsaba, Hungary {surname.firstname}@itk.ppke.hu Abstract the given text, and this ability is closely related to the ability to answer questions. Therefore, our In this article, an ongoing research is pre- aim is to create a system that is actually capable sented, the immediate goal of which is to cre- ate a corpus annotated with semantic role la- of formulating relevant questions about the text it bels for Hungarian that can be used to train processes. To do this, many distinctions need to a parser-based system capable of formulat- be made that are not present in syntactic annota- ing relevant questions about the text it pro- tion currently available for Hungarian. This article cesses. We briefly describe the objectives of presents the first phase of this work, which aims to our research, our efforts at eliminating errors create an annotated corpus where the annotation in the Hungarian Universal Dependencies cor- contains all the features needed to generate ques- pus, which we use as the base of our an- notation effort, at creating a Hungarian ver- tions concerning the text. bal argument database annotated with thematic roles, at classifying adjuncts, and at match- 2 Shortcomings of the traditional ing verbal argument frames to specific occur- analysis rences of verbs and participles in the corpus.
    [Show full text]
  • Grammar Overview / Nyelvtani Összefoglaló
    Szita Szilvia – Pelcz Katalin: MagyarOK 1. kötet Grammar overview / Nyelvtani összefoglaló GRAMMAR OVERVIEW Nyelvtani összefoglaló a MagyarOK c. tankönyv 1. kötetéhez Szita Szilvia – Pelcz Katalin - All rights reserved. Minden jog fenntartva. 1 Szita Szilvia – Pelcz Katalin: MagyarOK 1. kötet Grammar overview / Nyelvtani összefoglaló TABLE OF CONTENTS The vowel harmony p. 3 The verb tenses p. 4 Verb forms in the present tense: Indefinite conjugation p. 5 Verb forms in the present tense: Definite conjugation p. 10 The verb van (lenni): Conjugation, negation, all tenses p. 12 The past tense: Past tense in the first person singular p. 15 Modal verbs I: tud, akar, szeret, szeretne p. 16 Modal verbs II: lehet, kell p. 17 The infinitive p. 18 Prefixes indicating directions p. 19 The article I: The definite article p. 21 The article II: The indefinite article p. 21 The plural of nouns p. 22 The direct object I: Meaning p. 24 The noun as direct object II: Types of the indefinite direct object p. 27 The noun as direct object III: Types of the definite direct object p. 26 The indirect object p. 27 Prepositional phrases: With whom? With what? By what? p. 27 Possessive endings p. 29 Possessive structures p. 32 More than one ending p. 33 Adverbs of place: Endings and postpositions p. 34 Adverbs of time p. 37 The adjective p. 40 Plural of the adjective p. 41 Suffixing adjectives p. 42 The numeral p. 43 Personal pronouns p. 46 The demonstrative pronoun p. 48 Conjunctions p. 49 Question words p. 50 The word order p.
    [Show full text]
  • Hungarian Object Agreement with Personal Pronouns
    HungarianObjectAgreementwithPersonalPronouns AndrásBárány 1. Introduction Hungarian has subject agreement in person and number in finite clauses with all subjects and object agreement with a proper subset of direct objects. Agreement and accusative case marking are dissociated, as direct objects generally have overt accusative marking while agreement is triggered only by direct objects with a certain property. Recently, Coppock & Wechsler (2012); Coppock (2013) have argued that some lexical items are specified for a feature [def] that triggers agreement, while other researchers argue that the syntactic structure of the direct object determines agreement: when it projects a DP, there is object agreement (Bartos, 1999, 2001). (1) illustrates the basic contrast between an indefinite direct object and a definite one. The definite determiner is taken to be specified for the feature [def] (Coppock &Wechsler, 2012; Coppock, 2013) or to turn the noun phrase into a DP (Bartos, 1999, 2001); these properties trigger agreement according to the respective authors (object agreement is glossed as obj). (1) a. Lát-ok egy sajtburger-t. b. Lát-om a sajtburger-t. see-1sg.subj a cheeseburger-acc see-1sg.obj the cheeseburger-acc ‘I see a cheeseburger.’ ‘I see the cheeseburger.’ The topic of this paper is the distribution of agreement with personal pronoun direct objects. While third person personal pronouns always trigger agreement, first and second person pronouns do so only partially, as shown in (2), where there is object agreement in (2a), but only subject agreement in (2b). (2) a. Lát-om ő-t. b. Lát-; engem. see-1sg.obj s/he-acc see.3sg.subj I.acc ‘I see him/her.’ ‘S/he sees me.’ While there is no object agreement in (2b), I will argue that all personal pronouns trigger agreement in principle, but that it is not spelled out in all cases.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hungarian Language a Short Descriptive Grammar
    The Hungarian Language A Short Descriptive Grammar Beáta Megyesi Hungarian, also called Magyar, traditionally belongs to the Ob-Ugric languages (e.g. Khanty and Mansi) of the Finno-Ugric branch of Uralic. Hungarian is the official language of the Republic of Hungary, and has approximately fifteen million speakers, of which four million reside outside of Hungary. In this paper a description of Hungarian phonology, morphology and syntax follows. The sections are based on Benkö & Imre (1972), Rácz (1968), Olsson (1992) and Abondolo (1992). 1.1 Phonology Hungarian has a rich system of vowels and consonants. The vowel inventory consists of 14 phonemes of which one can distinguish 5 pairs, consisting of short and long counterparts; these are i - í, o - ó, ö - ö, u - ú, ü - ü. The remaining four are e - é and a - á. Short vowels, if they are marked, take an umlaut (¨), while long vowels are indicated by an acute (´) or with a double acute accent (´´) which is a diacritic unique to Hungarian. Long vowels are usually somewhat tenser than their short counterparts with two exceptions; e is low while é is higher mid and á is low whereas a is lower mid and slightly rounded (Abondolo, 1992). Vowel length is independent of prosodic factors such as stress. The vowels may be interconnected through the laws of vowel harmony which means that suffixes, which may assume two or three different forms, usually agree in backness with the last vowel of the stem. In other words, front vs. back alternatives of suffixes are selected according to which vowel(s) the stem contain(s) (Benkö & Imre, 1972).
    [Show full text]
  • A Contrastive Study of the English and Hungarian Article. the Hungarian-English Contrastive Linguistics Project, Working Papers No
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 121 072 EL 007 535 AUTHOR stephanides* Eva TITLE A Contrastive Study of the English and Hungarian Article. The Hungarian-English Contrastive Linguistics Project, Working Papers No. 5. INSTITUTION Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.; Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest. Linguistics I nst. SPONS AGENCY Ford Foundation, New York* N.Y.; Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest. PUB DATE 71$ . NOTE 132p. AVAILABLE PROM Dorothy Rapp, Center for Applied Linguistics, 1611 N. Kent St., Arlington* Virginia 22209 ($3.00) EDRS PRICE ME-$0.83 HC-$7.35 Plus Postage DESCRIPTORS Applied Linguistics; *contrastive Linguistics; *Determiners (Languages); *English; *Form Classes (Languages); *Hungarian; Interference (Language Learning); Language Instruction; Morphology (Languages); Second Language Learning; Synchronic Linguistics; Syntax ABSTRACT This is a two-may contrastive analysis of the use of the article in English and Hungarian. The study works in both theoretical and applied contrastive linguistics by stating the rules governing determination and developing a methodology for analysis, and by noting language acquisition difficulties to reduce language learning interfe,.ence. Part One deals with means for expressing determination in English and Hungarian noun phrases* contrasted from the standpoint of article use. The main differences concerning the relation of demonstratives and possessive determiners to articles are discussed. In noun classification, the system of English countable and uncountable nouns is contrasted with Hungarian. The distinction between English quantifiers "much" and "little" and numericals "many" and "few" is analyzed. Individual and non-individual features of Hungarian countable common nouns are observed. Part Two gives a contrastive analysis of English and Hungarian articles showing usage rules and examples.
    [Show full text]