DOCSLIB.ORG

Dative Experiencer Predicates in Hungarian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. Experiencers and thematic theory . 21 2.1. The Theta System 21 2.1.1. The view on the lexicon and its role in grammar 21 2.1.2. Thematic features instead of thematic roles 25 2.1.3. Constraints on the co-occurrence and interpretation of theta clusters 29 2.1.3.1. Uniqueness and non-identity 29 2.1.3.2. The Principle of Full Interpretation (Marelj 2004) 32 2.1.3.3. The Cluster Distinctness Constraint 34 2.1.4. The mapping generalizations 35 2.1.5. Thematic Operations in the Theta System 38 2.1.5.1. Causativization 38 2.1.5.2. Saturation 39 2.1.5.3. Decausativization: The background to the unaccusative - unergative divide 41 2.2. Experiencers in the Theta System 46 2.2.1. An overview 46 2.2.2. Object experiencers: the worry-class 47 2.2.2.1. On the T/SM restriction of Pesetsky (1995) 47 2.2.2.2. The syntactic behaviour of worry-type predicates 51 2.2.2.3. Stative object experiencers are just object experiencers 55 2.2.2.4. The problem of elude and escape 61 2.2.3. Subject experiencers: the like-class 62 2.2.3.1. Subclasses and thematic encoding 62 2.2.3.2. The [+m] subject 63 2.2.3.3. The [−c−m] object of subject experiencers, and how it compares with hope for and the like 64 2.2.4. Dative experiencers 67 2.2.4.1. A small class that matters 67 2.2.4.2. Dative experiencers in the Theta System 67 2.2.4.3. The (non-)issue of lexical converses 69 3. Dative experiencers in Hungarian: the empirical background . 73 3.1. Introduction 73 3.2. Dative predicates with experiencer arguments 75 3.2.1. Core piacere-predicates 75 3.2.2. Verbs of mental appearance 77 3.3. Predicates licensing optional datives 78 3.3.1. Overview 78 3.3.2. Evaluative predicates 78 3.3.3. Modal predicates 80 3.3.4. Miscallaneous verbs with optional dative experiencers 84 3.3.4.1. Dative verbs licensing an optional secondary predicate 84 3.3.4.2. Seem-type raising predicates 86 3.3.4.3. Jelent ‘means’ and megér ‘is worth’ 87 3.3.4.4. Fáj ‘hurts’ and hiányzik ‘be missing’ 88 3.4. Summary 91 4. Three types of dative experiencers: 93 Arguments, adjuncts, and thematic adjuncts . 4.1. Introduction 93 4.2 Thematic adjuncts: the background 94 4.2.1. The non-core thematic domain 94 4.2.2. On the argument-adjunct distinction 100 4.2.2.1. Introduction 100 4.2.2.2. Optionality 100 4.2.2.3. Uniqueness and (non)-iterability 101 4.2.2.4. Morphological encoding 104 4.2.3. Diagnostics of thematic adjuncts 106 4.2.3.1. Introduction 106 4.2.3.2. Optionality 106 4.2.3.3. Uniqueness and (non)-iterability 106 4.2.3.4. Morphological encoding 107 4.2.3.5. Licensing by argument structure 109 4.2.4. Interim summary 114 4.3. Thematic adjuncts in the Theta System 115 4.3.1. Introducing thematic adjuncts 115 4.3.2. Constraints on co-occurrence and interpretation 116 4.3.2.1. On uniqueness again 116 4.3.2.2. Full interpretation and the Cluster Distinctness Constraint 120 4.3.3. The syntactic realization of thematic adjuncts 121 4.4. The diversity of dative experiencers 123 4.4.1. Two groups of dative experiencer predicates 123 4.4.2. The empirical background to the divide between dative arguments and dative thematic adjuncts 124 4.4.2.1. Introduction 124 4.4.2.2. Optionality 124 4.4.2.3. Morphological variation 128 4.4.2.4 Interpretive differences 131 4.4.2.5. Some syntactic differences 135 4.4.3. Datives without a thematic role 138 4.4.3.1. Not all dative adjuncts have a thematic role 138 4.4.3.2. Non-thematic dative adjuncts need no event-internal licensors 139 4.4.3.3. Non-thematic dative adjuncts are external to the predicate 140 4.4.3.4. Differences in anaphor licensing 141 4.4.3.5. Article loss in the non-thematic domain 142 4.4.3.6. Personally-modification 143 4.4.3.7. Rounding up: thematic dative adjuncts can be affected 144 4.5. The thematic structure of dative experiencer predicates 146 4.5.1. Dative arguments 146 4.5.2. Dative thematic adjuncts 149 5. Dative experiencers are not quirky in Hungarian . 153 5.1. An introduction into the quirky problem 153 5.2. The dative is not a subject, the nominative is 159 5.2.1. Some distributional considerations 159 5.2.2. Control, raising and ECM 160 5.2.3. Conjunction reduction 162 5.2.4. Participle formation 163 5.2.5. Agreement 164 5.2.6. Interim summary 166 5.3. Thematic indeterminacy and its consequences 166 5.3.1. Preliminaries 166 5.3.1.1. Dative predicate classes: a reminder 166 5.3.1.2. Thematic prominence and the Theta System 167 5.3.2. Dative experiencers in theta-sensitive constructions 170 5.3.2.1. Anaphors 170 5.3.2.2. Backward binding 172 5.3.2.3. Adjunct control 174 5.3.2.4. On word order 176 5.4. Subject clauses in Hungarian 179 5.4.1. Introduction 179 5.4.2. Extending the non-quirky analysis 180 5.4.3. Clauses targeted in subject-sensitive constructions 182 5.4.4. No expletives in Hungarian 184 5.4.5. Long focus-raising: what it tells us about subject clauses 186 5.4.6. Subject clauses do not have a DP-cap in Hungarian 189 5.4.7 Infinitival clauses cannot have pronoun associates 191 5.5. Summary 192 5.6. Appendix: The semi-auxiliary modals 193 6. Datives and agreement-marked infinitives . 205 6.1. Agreement-marked infinitives in Hungarian 205 6.2. Previous accounts 209 6.2.1. Introduction 209 6.2.2. Komlósy (1994) 209 6.2.3. Dalmi (1983, 1995, 2002, 2005) 210 6.2.4. Tóth (2000a, 2001, 2002, 2004) 210 6.2.5. É. Kiss (2001, 2002) 213 6.3. Revisiting infinitival agreement 216 6.3.1. Overview 216 6.3.2. Datives as subjects of infinitives 217 6.3.3. Evaluative predicates in the infinitival construction 220 6.3.4. Modal predicates in the infinitival construction 224 6.4. Summary 228 7. Conclusions . 229 Bibliography 233 Samenvatting in het Nederlands 247 ix List of abbreviations ACC accusative case ABL ablative case [≈‘from (the vicinity of)’] ACT active voice ADJ adjectival suffix ALL allative case [≈‘to (the vicinity of)’] BNDST bound stem CAUS causative suffix CL clitic pronoun COM comitative case [≈‘with’] COND conditional mood DAT dative case DEFOBJ definite object conjugation DEL delative case [≈‘about, from’] DIM diminuative suffix ELA elative case [≈‘from (the inside of), out of’] F feminine gender 1 FAC factive case ILL illative case [≈‘into’] INE inessive case [≈‘in’] INF infinitival suffix 2 INS instrumental case M masculine gender MID middle morphology NOM nominative case PART participle suffix PAST past tense PL plural number POSS possessive inflection POSSUF possibility suffix 1 Factive case is used typically to mark resultative change of state secondary predicates. 2 Instrumental case is formally equivalent with comitative case, I distinguish the two on functional grounds for expository purposes. x PRES present tense PTCL verbal particle SBJ subjunctive mood SBL sublative case [≈‘onto’] SOC sociative case [≈‘together with’] SUP superessive case [≈‘on’] SG singular number N neuter gender 1 first person 2 second person 3 third person I observe the following glossing conventions. (i) In the glosses, I do not, by default, indicate features that have zero morphology. This concerns nominative case on subject noun phrases, the singular number of non-plural count nouns, and third person subject agreement on verbs in present tense, indicative mood, as well as present tense in general. (ii) I add the abbreviation ‘lit.’ to English translations of Hungarian examples to render the Hungarian structure transparently.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Investigation of English Language Contact-Induced Features in Hungarian Cardiology Discharge Reports and Language Attitudes of Physicians and Patients
    University of Szeged, Faculty of Arts PhD School in Linguistics PhD Program in English Applied Linguistics Investigation of English language contact-induced features in Hungarian cardiology discharge reports and language attitudes of physicians and patients Summary of PhD Dissertation Csilla Keresztes Supervisor: Anna Fenyvesi, PhD associate professor Szeged 2010 1. Introduction Since the 1950s English has become not just an important language in the field of medicine, but the predominant language of health sciences. The aim of this study is to describe a field, namely, a subregister of the Hungarian language of medicine, to reveal the English contact-induced features in this specific purpose language, and to investigate the attitude of various discourse communities affected by it towards the English language. The impact of some major European languages, among them the English language, on Hungarian and its lexicon has already been investigated, however, it has been looked at mainly from a puristic aspect so far and little sociolinguistic or contact linguistic research has been done in the field yet. This research is focused on only one field of medicine, cardiology, which was selected for a closer investigation, on the one hand, as it is a technologically sophisticated, professionalized, institutionalized, and highly invasive medical discipline. On the other hand, heart diseases are the leading causes of death in several countries of the world including Hungary. Numerous studies have been published on medical English, but studies on medical Hungarian are limited in number, and very little has been published on the language of cardiology. Hospital discharge reports (or summaries) are written documents prepared when the patient is discharged from a health institution after receiving management.
    [Show full text]
  • The Term Declension, the Three Basic Qualities of Latin Nouns, That
    Chapter 2: First Declension Chapter 2 covers the following: the term declension, the three basic qualities of Latin nouns, that is, case, number and gender, basic sentence structure, subject, verb, direct object and so on, the six cases of Latin nouns and the uses of those cases, the formation of the different cases in Latin, and the way adjectives agree with nouns. At the end of this lesson we’ll review the vocabulary you should memorize in this chapter. Declension. As with conjugation, the term declension has two meanings in Latin. It means, first, the process of joining a case ending onto a noun base. Second, it is a term used to refer to one of the five categories of nouns distinguished by the sound ending the noun base: /a/, /ŏ/ or /ŭ/, a consonant or /ĭ/, /ū/, /ē/. First, let’s look at the three basic characteristics of every Latin noun: case, number and gender. All Latin nouns and adjectives have these three grammatical qualities. First, case: how the noun functions in a sentence, that is, is it the subject, the direct object, the object of a preposition or any of many other uses? Second, number: singular or plural. And third, gender: masculine, feminine or neuter. Every noun in Latin will have one case, one number and one gender, and only one of each of these qualities. In other words, a noun in a sentence cannot be both singular and plural, or masculine and feminine. Whenever asked ─ and I will ask ─ you should be able to give the correct answer for all three qualities.
    [Show full text]
  • Iso/Iec Jtc1/Sc2/Wg2 N4120 2011-07-05
    ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N4120 2011-07-05 Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set International Organization for Standardization Organisation Internationale de Normalisation Международная организация по стандартизации Doc Type: Working Group Document Title: Response to the Ad-hoc Report N4110 about the Rovas scripts Source: Gábor Hosszú (Hungarian National Body) Status: National Body Contribution Action: For consideration by JTC1/SC2/WG2 Date: 2011-07-05 This document gives the position of the Hungarian Standards Institution (Hungarian National Body) evaluation of the report of the ad-hoc committee on Hungarian met in Helsinki on 2011-06-08. Please send any response regarding to this document to Gábor Hosszú (email: [email protected]). Contents 1. Agreement..........................................................................................................................................................1 2. Disagreement .....................................................................................................................................................2 2.1. Naming of the script: barrier to the encoding.................................................................................................................. 2 2.2. Refused, but necessary Szekely-Hungarian Rovas characters......................................................................................... 3 2.3. Names of the characters .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Introduction to Gothic
    Introduction to Gothic By David Salo Organized to PDF by CommanderK Table of Contents 3..........................................................................................................INTRODUCTION 4...........................................................................................................I. Masculine 4...........................................................................................................II. Feminine 4..............................................................................................................III. Neuter 7........................................................................................................GOTHIC SOUNDS: 7............................................................................................................Consonants 8..................................................................................................................Vowels 9....................................................................................................................LESSON 1 9.................................................................................................Verbs: Strong verbs 9..........................................................................................................Present Stem 12.................................................................................................................Nouns 14...................................................................................................................LESSON 2 14...........................................................................................Strong
    [Show full text]
  • Nostratic Grammar: Synthetic Or Analytic?
    Nostratic grammar: synthetic or analytic? A. Dolgopolsky Haifa University § 1. The criteria determining the original analytic status of a gram- matical morpheme can be defined as follows. [1] Mobility: in the daughter languages the same morpheme some- times precedes autosemantic words and sometimes follows them (e. g. the pN *mA that forms participles and other deverbal nominals in daugh- ter-languages is found both before and after the verbal root). [2] In some daughter languages the morpheme is still analytic or has phonological evidence for its former analytic status [e. g. the N morpheme *bA (that forms animal names and other nouns of quality bearers) sur- vives in proto-Uralic *-pa; since the N intervocalic *-b- yields pFU *-w-, while the word-initial *b- yields U *p-, the Uralic suffix *pa must go back to a separate word]. [3] A grammatical morpheme of daughter-languages is etymologically identical with a separate word (e. g. the 1st person ending *-mi of the IE verb is identical with the N pronoun *mi that is preserved as a pronoun in daughter-languages). Sometimes other typological features (position in the word) may be taken into account. For instance, if in Semitic and Cushitic (Beja) verbs the feminine marker (*-ī) is used in the 2nd person only and is separated (as a suffix) from the person marker (prefix *t-), it is natural to suppose that it goes back to an address word (Hebrew tiħyī 'you' [f. sg.] will live' < N *t{u} 'thou' + *Хay{u} 'live' + *ʔ{a}yV 'mother'), which is typologically compara- ble with the gender distinction of a yes-word in spoken English: [yesз:] (< yes, sir) vs.
    [Show full text]
  • AN INTRODUCTORY GRAMMAR of OLD ENGLISH Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies
    AN INTRODUCTORY GRAMMAR OF OLD ENGLISH MEDievaL AND Renaissance Texts anD STUDies VOLUME 463 MRTS TEXTS FOR TEACHING VOLUme 8 An Introductory Grammar of Old English with an Anthology of Readings by R. D. Fulk Tempe, Arizona 2014 © Copyright 2020 R. D. Fulk This book was originally published in 2014 by the Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Arizona State University, Tempe Arizona. When the book went out of print, the press kindly allowed the copyright to revert to the author, so that this corrected reprint could be made freely available as an Open Access book. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE viii ABBREVIATIONS ix WORKS CITED xi I. GRAMMAR INTRODUCTION (§§1–8) 3 CHAP. I (§§9–24) Phonology and Orthography 8 CHAP. II (§§25–31) Grammatical Gender • Case Functions • Masculine a-Stems • Anglo-Frisian Brightening and Restoration of a 16 CHAP. III (§§32–8) Neuter a-Stems • Uses of Demonstratives • Dual-Case Prepositions • Strong and Weak Verbs • First and Second Person Pronouns 21 CHAP. IV (§§39–45) ō-Stems • Third Person and Reflexive Pronouns • Verbal Rection • Subjunctive Mood 26 CHAP. V (§§46–53) Weak Nouns • Tense and Aspect • Forms of bēon 31 CHAP. VI (§§54–8) Strong and Weak Adjectives • Infinitives 35 CHAP. VII (§§59–66) Numerals • Demonstrative þēs • Breaking • Final Fricatives • Degemination • Impersonal Verbs 40 CHAP. VIII (§§67–72) West Germanic Consonant Gemination and Loss of j • wa-, wō-, ja-, and jō-Stem Nouns • Dipthongization by Initial Palatal Consonants 44 CHAP. IX (§§73–8) Proto-Germanic e before i and j • Front Mutation • hwā • Verb-Second Syntax 48 CHAP.
    [Show full text]
  • Dative Case What Are the Main Contexts in Which the Dative Case Is Used? What Are the Forms of the Dative Case for Nouns in the Singular and Plural?
    Dative Case What are the main contexts in which the dative case is used? What are the forms of the dative case for nouns in the singular and plural? One of the most frequent uses of the dative is as the indirect object of a verb. The indirect object is usually a person or animate being that is the recipient in an agent-object-recipient transaction. We can think of a typical “giving” scenario in which someone (an agent or doer of an action) gives an object to someone else (the recipient). The Czech dative is used to mark the recipient of the object. We have indirect objects in all kinds of English sentences, but the most we do to mark them is put a preposition (to or for) in front of them: Jakub gave Honza a puppy (Jakub gave a puppy to Honza), David made tea for his friends, Lidka bought her mother flowers (She bought flowers for her mother), The teacher lent the student a book, Did you send a postcard also to your parents?… Czech datives overlap with many English indirect objects and are used in much the same way. Some examples: Jakub dal Honzovi pejska. nom: Honza gave puppy David uvařil kamarádům čaj. nom pl: kamarádi boiled tea Lidka koupila mamince květiny. nom: maminka bought flowers Učitelka půjčila žákyni knihu. nom: žákyně lent student Poslal jsi pohled i rodičům? nom pl: rodiče did-you-send postcard also parents When you learn a new verb in Czech, ask yourself (or your teacher, if you’re not sure) if it’s a verb that requires the dative case and add that information to your flashcard for that verb.
    [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]
  • The Special Datives
    The Special Datives To this point, the functions of the Dative Case have been 1. Indirect Object of give, tell, show verbs 2. Dative with Special Adjectives friendly to, unfriendly to, similar to, dissimilar to, equal to, suitable for, near to, dear to, pleasing to, etc. 3. Dative with Special Intransitive Verbs parco, mando, impero, noceo, resisto, studeo, etc. 4. Dative with Certain Compound Verbs praesum, praeficio, occurro, etc. (often verbs with prefixes of ob- and prae-) Two new Dative Case functions, sometimes called Special Datives, are explained in Unit XIII. These are the Dative of Purpose and the Dative of Reference. 1. Dative of Purpose. Sometimes, the idea of purpose can be stated in a single noun. In such a case, the Dative Case form of the noun is used. It answers the question, “For what purpose does something exist?” Note how we often ask, “What is that for?” The consul donated money for a reward. Consul pecuniam praemio donavit. Seven common Latin nouns are often used as (for?!) the Dative of Purpose: Principal Parts Dative Singular Form Meaning cura, -ae, f. curae for a concern auxilium, -I, n. auxilio for a help impedimentum, -I, n. impedimento for an obstacle praemium, -I, n. praemio for a reward praesidium, -I, n. praesidio for a guard subsidium, -I, n. subsidio for a support usus,, -us, m. usui for a use NOTA BENE: These are not the only nouns which may be used for purpose; they are only the most common. Sometimes a plural Dative Case form is used for purpose. Catullus poeta scripsit puellas esse curis.
    [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]
  • Comitative Adjuncts: Appositives and Non- Appositives1
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Repository of the Academy's Library Comitative adjuncts: appositives and non- appositives1 Dékány Éva 1. Introduction Expressions involving a comitative adverbial and a plural pronoun as its host DP are ambiguous in Hungarian. In the exclusive reading the comitative is added to the reference of the pronoun, thus in total at least three persons are referred to.2 In the inclusive reading, on the other hand, the referent of the comitative is not added to the referent of the pronoun, but included in it. Under this reading we with John, for instance, refers to two persons: John and me.3 (1) (Mi) Jánossal kisétáltunk a tóhoz.4 we.NOM John-COM PREV-walk-PAST-1PL the lake-ALLAT ‘We walked to the lake with John.’ (exclusive reading) ‘I walked to the lake with John.’ (inclusive reading) In the inclusive reading the most prominent member of the group denoted by the pronoun, whose person feature is the same as that of the pronoun, is termed focal referent. The focal referent in (1) is I. The group denoted by the plural pronoun comprises the focal referent and the referent of the comitative phrase (and nobody else), therefore the comitative is also known as completer phrase (Vassilieva 2005). The aim of this paper is to investigate whether the exclusive and inclusive readings in Hungarian display a strutural difference (cf. Skrabalova 2003 for Czech and Vassilieva 2005 for Russian) or whether non-structural phenomena contribute to their different interpretations (cf.
    [Show full text]