DOCSLIB.ORG

The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages a Comparative Study Delsing, Lars-Olof

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. He suggested that I write about the lack of adjectival agreement in certain generic constructions in Swedish. From the beginning it became clear that the structure of the noun phrase could have something to do with the matter, so I started to study noun phrase structure. The five weeks have long passed. All the time Christer has been guiding and encouraging me. I thank him for all his comments, suggeitions and criticism over these years. Christer has always been a good listener and a careful reviewer, who has always had time to discuss noun phrases. Next, I thank my good friend and colleague at Sölvegatan, Cecilia Falk. Sharing an office with Cecilia has made linguistics quite a lot of fun. During the constant coffee and smoke break that has been going on for the last four years at the south wing of Sölvegatan, Cecilia has been a good discussion partner and a critical reviewer of my work. I also thank those of my colleagues who have read all or parts of this book in draft: Lena Ekberg, Gunlög Josefsson, Lynn Santel- mann and Ulf Teleman. Gunlög and Lena have been insightful and encouraging discussion partners at Sölvegatan. I am especially in- debted to Lynn who has also corrected my English. If my English deteriorates in parts of this work, this is probably due to the fact that Lynn left Sweden in the middle of the summer, before the final re- visions. Finally, I am grateful that Ulf, with his great knowledge of noun phrases, has taken time to comment on my work. I also thank all my informants on all the Scandinavian lan- guages and on English and German. I am especially thankful to Hall- ãór-Ármann Sigurðsson, Reykjavík, for his assistance with the lce- landic data, and Hans Jul Nielsen, Copenhagen, for helping me out with Western Jutlandic. This summer has not at all been an as I expected. I have often missed Ribban, Svarttjärn and other places where I like to go. While I have been occupied with the dissertation, my friends'and family, not least my parents, have assisted me in all imaginable ways. Many thanks! Malmö, August 1993 Lars-Olof Delsing CoNrBNrs nv Bnrpr 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. The Scandinavian Languages l.2.T}:te Scandinavian Noun Phrase 1.3. The Principles-and-Parameters-Based Theory 1.4. The Organisation of this Work 2. THE FUNCTION OF DETERMINERS 2.1. Predicatives 2.2.Yocatives and Other Isolated Noun Phrases 2.3. Uncountables 2.4. Proper Names 2.5. Various Bare Nouns 2.6. Types of Determiners 2.7. Conclusions 3. BASIC NOUN PHRASE STRUCTURE 3.1. Determiner Phrases (DPs) 3.2. Attributive Adjectives 3.3. Degree Phrases (DegPs) 3.4. Quantifiers 3.5. Consequences 3.6. Conclusions 4. DEFINITE AND INDEFINITE ARTICLES 4.1. Single and Double Definiteness 4.2. Adjectival Double Definiteness 4.3. Demonstrative Constructions 4.4. Postadjectival Indefinite Articles 4.5. Conclusions 5. POSSESSION 5. 1. Possessive Constructions 5.2. Previous Analyses 5.3. The Proposed Analysis 5.4. Conclusions 6. QUANTIFICATION 6. 1. Pronominal Quantification 6.2. Phrasal Quantification 6.3. Pronominal and Phrasal Quantification 6.4. Conclusions 7. CONCLUSIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS l.INTRODUCTION I 1.1. The Scandinavian Languages ,, 1.2. The Scandinavian Nouñ Phrase 4 I .2.1 . Gender Svstem 5 1.2.2. Morphológical Case 7 1.2.3. Agreement within the Noun Phrase 8 1 .2.4. Adiectival Momholo ev 9 1.3. The Printiples-an¿-Éararñéters-Based Theory 10 1.3.1. Levels of Representation 10 1.3.2. X-bar-Theory t2 1.3.3. Theta-Theory l7 1.3.4. Case-Theory 19 1.3.5. Bindine Theory 22 1.3.6. Moverñent 23 1.4. The Organisation of this Work 24 2. THE FI.]NCTION OF DETERMINERS 26 2.1. Predicatives 31 2.1.1. Predicatives with Indefinite Articles 31 2.1.2. Predicatives with Other Determiners st 2.2.Yocatives and Other Isolated Noun Phrases 38 2.3. Uncountables 40 2.3.1. Standard Swedish 42 2.3.2. Northern Swedish 49 2.3.3. Conclusions 52 2.4. Proper Names 53 2.5. Various Bare äouns 2.5.1. Subiects and Obiects 51 2.5.2. CorÄplernents of Preposirions 60 2.6. Types of D'etermlners 64 2.6.1. Arguments and Determiners 64 2.6.2. Tv oes of Articles 66 2.7. Conclusíons 68 3. BASIC NOUN PHRASE STRUCTURE 69 3.1. Determiner Phrases (DPs) 69 3.1.1. D-projections 10 - - 3.1.2. D-projections in the Scandinavian Languages 73 3.2. Attributive Ad.iectives 77 3.2.1. Phrasal Structure 82 3.2.2. Adiectival Agreemenr 83 3.2.3. Independentfy Used Adjectives 85 3.2.4. Recúrsion 88 3.2.5.Head Movement 90 3.2.6. Bindine 92 3.2.7. Conclu"sions 93 3.3. e Phrases (DegPs) 93 3.4. lrers 100 3.5. 105 3.5.r 105 3.5.2 r06 3.5.3. Functional Lexical Categories 108 3.6. Conclusions 111 4. DEFINITE AND INDEFINITE ARTICLES 113 4.1. Single and Double DefTniteness rl4 4.1.1. Danish 115 4.1.2. Swedish, Norwegian and Faroese 116 4.1.3. Icelandic 120 4.1.4. Western Jutlandic l2r 4.1.5. Northern Swedish 122 4.1.6. Summarv r23 4.2. Adiectival Double Definiteness 124 4.2i1. Previous Analyses 124 4.2.2. The Proposed Analysis t21 4.2.3. Articles with Proper Names 132 4.3. Demonstrative Constructions L34 4.3. 1. Demonstrative Double Definiteness 135 4.3.2. The Demonstrativ e de nna 137 4.4. Postad.iectival Indefinite Articles 138 4.4.1. Too bie a house 139 4 4.2. Doublí Indefiniteness 142 4.5. Conclusions 145 5. POSSESSION r47 5.1. Possessive Constructions 149 5 .1. Danish and Standard Swedish 152 5 .2. Northern Swedish 153 5 .3. Norwegian r54 5 .4. Faroese 155 5 .5. Icelandic t57 158 5.2. 160 5.3. 166 val rossesslves loð 5.3.2. Possessive Pronouns as Heads 170 5.3.3. Prenominal Genitival Possessives t7t 5.3.4. Pronominal Possessives t't3 5.3.5. Possessives with Personal Names 115 5.3.6. Typological Implications 179 5.3.7. Residual Problems 182 5.4. Conclusions 183 6. OUANTIFICATION 185 6-. l. Pronominal Quantification 187 6.1.1. Ouantifvins Pronouns 188 6. 1 .2. P-seudopartítive Pronominal Constructions r93 6.1.3. Partitivè Pronominal Constn¡ctions 195 6.2. Phrasal Quantification 200 6.2.1. Ouantifvine Nouns 203 6. 2.2. P-seudo¡íartitives w i th lndefi ni te Quanti fi ers 201 6.2.3. Conseauences 211 6.2.4. Countabilitv in Pseudopartitives 213 6.2.5. Pseudopartiiives with Definite Quantifiers 2t5 6.2,6. Genuinè Partitive Constructions 218 6.3. Pronominal and Phrasal Quantification 220 6.4. Conclusions 223 7. CONCLUSIONS 225 Anoendix: Scandinavian Morphology 229 Rèferences 23r General Index 239 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This book is concerned with the intemal structure of the noun phrase in the Scandinavian languages. The work is comparative, and tries to present and discuss data from all the Scandinavian languages includ- ing some of the dialects. The analysis that I elaborate in this work is formulated within the principles-and-parameters-based framework. The noun phrase has not been investigated to any great extent in generative literature until quite recently (one exception for Scandi- navian is Teleman 1969). Earlier work concentrated on nominalisa- tion, where there are genitival attributes and adjectives that seem to be parallel to arguments and adverbs of the clause (e.g. Chomsky 1970). Other parts of the noun phrase have not been studied in any detail within the theory until the middle of the 80's.
Recommended publications
  • Genitive Constructions in Coptic Barbara Egedi

    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.
  • Positions for Oblique Case-Marked Arguments in Hungarian Noun Phrases1

    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.
  • 2018 the Distribution of Quantifiers in Old and Modern

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

    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 .........
  • Syntax of Hungarian. Nouns and Noun Phrases, Volume 2

    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.
  • A Profile of the Hungarian DP the Interaction of Lexicalization, Agreement and Linearization with the Functional Sequence

    A Profile of the Hungarian DP the Interaction of Lexicalization, Agreement and Linearization with the Functional Sequence

    Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics A profile of the Hungarian DP The interaction of lexicalization, agreement and linearization with the functional sequence A dissertation for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor December 2011 A profile of the Hungarian DP The interaction of lexicalization, agreement and linearization with the functional sequence Eva´ Katalin D´ek´any A thesis submitted for the degree Philosophiae Doctor University of Tromsø Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics December 2011 ii Contents Acknowledgements ix Abbreviations xi Letter-to-sound correspondences xiii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Thedomainofinquiryandaimofthethesis . ......... 1 1.2 Whythisempiricalbasis. ...... 1 1.2.1 Motivating the domain of inquiry . ...... 1 1.2.2 ProblemareasintheHungarianxNP . .... 2 1.2.3 Interimsummary................................ 6 1.3 Howtosetupthefunctionalsequence . ........ 6 1.3.1 Lexicalization................................ ... 8 1.3.2 Agreement .................................... 8 1.3.3 Linearization ................................. .. 9 1.4 Theoutlineofthethesis . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... 9 I The lexicalization problem 11 2 The functional sequence meets the lexicalization problem 13 2.1 Introducing the lexicalization problem . ............ 13 2.2 Polysemy in the lexicalization of the functional sequence............... 13 2.2.1 Polysemyofphrasalmodifiers. ..... 13 2.2.2 Polysemyofheads

  • From Possessor Agreement to Object Marking: the Functional Evolution of the Udmurt -Jez Suffix1

    From possessor agreement to object marking: the functional evolution of the Udmurt -jez suffix1 Katalin É. Kiss, Orsolya Tánczos 1. Introduction A characteristic feature of Uralic languages is the use of possessive agreement in non- possessive – mainly determiner-like – functions (Collinder 1960; Schlachter 1960; Hajdú 1966; Sinor 1978; Rédei 1988; Csúcs 1980; Leinonen 1998; Winkler 2001, 2011; Fraurud 2001; Nikolaeva 2003; Gerland 2014; Janda 2015, etc.). The 3SG possessive agreement suffix appears to have obtained the widest range of roles in Udmurt, where it is also said to function as a nominalizer, to mark contrast, to function as a kind of definite determiner, and to mark accusative case. This paper claims that these seemingly different roles are manifestations of three major functions (cross-referencing a possessor; encoding partitivity; marking specific objects), which, in turn, represent subsequent stages of a grammaticalization path. Evidence for the hypothesized changes will be provided by parallel developments in the sister languages, primarily Hungarian, the sister language with the longest documented history. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2.1. introduces the various functions of the Udmurt -jez suffix, and Section 2.2. summarizes the previous accounts of similar Uralic data. Section 3 contains our own proposal. Section 3.1. reconstructs a grammaticalization path from possessor agreement to partitivity marking, first documenting the process from the history of Hungarian, and then arguing that the Udmurt -jez has followed a parallel path. Section 3.2. reconstructs the grammaticalization process from partitivity marking to differential accusative marking, relying on the analyses of differential object marking and its developments in various Uralic languages.

  • What Counts As Relational in Hungarian, Uralic and Beyond?

    CTF 2012, Düsseldorf, 23.08.2012 What counts as relational in Hungarian, Uralic and beyond? Doris Gerland & Albert Ortmann HHU Düsseldorf, {gerland, ortmann}@phil.uni-duesseldorf.de 1. Introduction Goals of the talk: • connect inflectional asymmetries in verbal agreement and in possessor agreement • draw on the close morphological parallels between the split • explain them against the typological background of cross-linguistic generalizations and theoretical notions such as alienability, D-linking, DOM, markedness, and transitivity • give the two splits a common rationale: the exponence of a pragmatic relation • introduce and define the notion of ‘robustness’ of a transitive scenario 2. A split in the possessor agreement morphology 2.1 Typological context: the morphosyntax of alienability (i) inalienable possession involves an inherent affiliation. (ii) alienable possession involves temporary affiliation, where the p’or typically has control over the p’um. Some ways of expressing an (in)alienability distinction in contexts of possession: (1) Jamul Tiipay (Yuman < Hokan, Mexico; Miller 2001: 145ff) a. me-ntaly b. me-shally c. me-ny -a’naak 2-mother 2-hand 2-POSS -chair ‘your mother’ ‘your hand’ ‘your chair’ (2) Udihe (Tungus < Altaic; Siewierska 2004: 138f) a. bi anda-i b. nuani ja:-ΝΝΝi-ni PRON 1SG friend-1SG cow-POSS -3SG ‘my friend’ ‘his cow’ We construe the conceptual basis of the alienability dichotomy as the opposition of semantic possession and pragmatic possession, parallel to that of semantic and pragmatic definiteness in the sense of Löbner (2011) and Ortmann (submitted). ⇒ Less conceptual distance is mirrored by less morphosyntactic complexity ⇒ Morphological markers of alienability (especially ‘connectives’) are interpreted as establishing a non-inherent, contextual POSS relation, thus denoting a type-shift <e,t> → <e <e,t>> What counts as relational in Hungarian, Uralic and beyond? 2.2 Adnominal Possession in Hungarian Lexical possessors can either be in the nominative or in the dative: (3) a.
  • Dative Experiencer Predicates in Hungarian

    Dative Experiencer Predicates in Hungarian

    Dative experiencer predicates in Hungarian Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6006 Janskerkhof 13 fax: +31 30 253 6406 3512 BL Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://wwwlot.let.uu.nl./ Cover illustration: Bird. Photograph taken by the author. ISBN-10: 90-78328-16-9 ISBN-13: 978-90-78328-16-2 NUR 632 Copyright @ 2006: György Rákosi. All rights reserved. Dative experiencer predicates in Hungarian Datieve experiencer-predikaten in het Hongaars (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. W.H. Gispen, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 11 december 2006 des middags te 12:45 uur door György Rákosi geboren op 2 januari 1977 te Hajdúszoboszló, Hongarije Promotores: Prof. dr. M.B.H. Everaert Prof. dr. T. Reinhart Co-promotor: Dr. T. Laczkó Table of contents List of abbreviations ix Acknowledgments xi 1. Introduction . 1 1.1. The problem of dative experiencers, as it arises from a historical perspective 1 1.2. Aims and claims: the structure of the dissertation 9 1.2.1 Experiencers and thematic theory (Chapter 2) 9 1.2.2. Dative experiencers in Hungarian (Chapter 3) 9 1.2.3. Three types of dative experiencers (Chapter 4) 10 1.2.4 Dative experiencer predicates are not quirky (Chapter 5) 12 1.2.5. Datives and agreement-marked infinitives (Chapter 6) 13 1.3. A brief glance at the structure of the Hungarian clause 14 2.
  • Pps Used As Arguments

    Pps Used As Arguments

    Chapter 5 PPs used as arguments György Rákosi 5.1. Introduction 287 5.2. PPs and verbal particles 287 5.2.1. Introductory remarks 287 5.2.2. PPs directly selected by the verb 288 5.2.3. PP complements in particle verb constructions 294 5.2.3.1. Particle verbs and verbal particles 294 5.2.3.2. Particle verb constructions: adverbial particles 298 5.2.3.3. Case-assigning postpositions as particles 299 5.2.3.4. Case-like postpositions as particles 300 5.2.3.5. Case suffixes as duplicating particles 302 5.3. Core and non-core PP arguments 305 5.3.1. Two types of participant PPs: an overview 305 5.3.2. Dative case and its competitors: recipients and experiencers 308 5.3.2.1. Recipients 308 5.3.2.2. Dative experiencers 312 5.3.3. Instrumental case: comitatives and instruments 315 5.3.3.1. Comitatives 315 5.3.3.2. Instrument PPs 319 5.3.4. Ablative case and the coding of causes 322 5.3.5. Spatiotemporal PPs in the argument domain 325 5.4. Core and non-core PP arguments of adjectives 328 5.4.1. Introduction 328 5.4.2. Complementation in the AP 328 5.4.2.1. Core and non-core PP arguments of adjectives 328 5.4.2.2. On the syntax of PP complements in APs 333 5.4.3. Core and non-core PP arguments of adjectives: an inventory of the most frequent patterns 334 5.4.3.1. Agentive adjectives 334 5.4.3.2.
  • A Quantitative Analysis of Four Linguistic Variables in the Language Use of Hungarians in the United Kingdom and Ireland Alkalmazott Nyelvtudomány, XXI

    A Quantitative Analysis of Four Linguistic Variables in the Language Use of Hungarians in the United Kingdom and Ireland Alkalmazott Nyelvtudomány, XXI

    TANULMÁNY ZSOLT PÁL DELI University of Szeged [email protected] [email protected] Zsolt Pál Deli: A quantitative analysis of four linguistic variables in the language use of Hungarians in the United Kingdom and Ireland Alkalmazott Nyelvtudomány, XXI. évfolyam, 2021/1. szám, 18–40. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.18460/ANY.2021.1.002 A quantitative analysis of four linguistic variables in the language use of Hungarians in the United Kingdom and Ireland Britain has always been a target of immigration. It has been proven that migration causes language contact. The objective of the present paper is to investigate the language contact situation resulting from the bilingualism of Hungarians living in the United Kingdom and Ireland to observe how contact with English influences their Hungarian. The present study conducted in the United Kingdom and Ireland, involving 200 participants, explores the use of some linguistic variables by the Hungarian immigrant community resulting from bilingualism. In order to observe the effects of English on the Hungarian language use of the participants, two groups were formed. Group 1. involved people having lived there for a shorter period of time, and Group 2. involved people having lived there for a longer period of time. A modified and digitized version of a questionnaire was administered, previously used in the project called the Sociolinguistics of Hungarian Outside Hungary. It is hypothesized that English exerts a detectable effect on the Hungarian language use of the immigrant community. Keywords: bilingualism, language contact, language use, migration, word order 1. Introduction Britain has always been a target of immigration, and it has been proven that migration causes language contact.
  • The Distribution of Case Edith A

    The Distribution of Case Edith A

    The distribution of case Edith A. Moravcsik University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [email protected] In Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds.) 2009. The Oxford handbook of case. 231-245. Oxford University Press. 1. Introduction Case markers will be defined as follows: (1) A case marker is a formal device associated with a noun phrase that signals the grammatical role of that noun phrase. Let us clarify the terms used in this definition. “Formal device” includes any form of expression that case markers take across languages: segmental morphemes (affixes, clitics, stem modification, suppletion), suprasegmentals (stress, pitch), and linear order patterns. The term “noun phrase” refers both to constituents overtly labeled as such in constituency grammars and to unlabeled units consisting of noun heads and their dependents in dependency grammars. “Grammatical role” refers to both semantic functions, such as Agent and Theme, and their morphosyntactic reflections, such as subject and direct object. Grammatical roles may be more broadly classed as complement, adjunct, modifier, and determiner. The aspect of case marking that forms the topic of this article is its distribution. “Distribution” refers to the conditions under which something occurs. We will focus on the syntagmatic distribution of case markers within individual languages. Most of the discussion will pertain to segmental case markers. The distribution of an element within a linguistic structure consists of two components: conditions for occurrence and conditions for linear ordering. As an initial working assumption, we will hypothesize that the distribution of case markers is simple. If so, certain predictions follow. SELECTION (a) All case markers are associated with noun phrases that have grammatical roles.