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 ............................... 16 2.2.3 Interimsummaryandoutlook. .... 18 2.3 Lexicalization algorithms using non-terminal spellout................. 18 2.4 The lexicalization algorithm of Nanosyntax . ............ 21 2.4.1 Two ways to do non-terminal spellout in Nanosyntax . .......... 21 2.4.2 General assumptions about lexicalization . .......... 22 2.4.3 Competitionbetweenlexicalentries . ........ 26 2.4.4 Sizematters................................... 28 2.5 Summary ......................................... 31 3 From N to Num 33 3.1 Abird’seyeviewoftheHungarianDP. ....... 33 3.2 ThelandscapeoftheDPuptonumerals. ....... 35 3.2.1 Abasicstructure............................... .. 35 3.2.2 Theoptionalityofprojections . ....... 37 3.3 Fine-tuning the position of classifiers . ............ 40 3.3.1 Multipleclassifierpositions . ....... 40 3.3.2 Adjectives and the Svenonius hierarchy . ........ 41 3.3.3 Thepositionofspecificclassifiers . ........ 42 3.3.4 Evidence fromcompositionalsemantics . ........ 43 iii iv CONTENTS 3.3.5 Earlier work on the interaction of adjectives and the count/mass distinction 44 3.3.6 Thepositionofthegeneralclassifier . ........ 45 3.3.7 Interimsummary................................ 47 3.4 Count adjectives: position and interpretation . .............. 47 3.4.1 Tokenreadings ................................. 47 3.4.2 Typeinterpretations . .... 49 3.4.3 Representing the flexibility . ...... 50 3.5 TheSpuriousNPEllipsis .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... 51 3.5.1 NPellipsisinHungarian. .... 51 3.5.2 TheSNPEphenomenon ............................. 53 3.5.3 TheSNPEdoesnotinvolvefocus. .... 54 3.5.4 The SNPE via the Superset Principle . ..... 56 3.5.5 The SNPE and darab .............................. 58 3.5.6 The SNPE and the Exhaustive Lexicalization Principle ........... 60 3.6 Conclusions ..................................... ... 62 3.7 AppendixI ....................................... 64 3.8 AppendixII...................................... .. 65 3.8.1 The order of specific classifiers and adjectives . ........... 65 3.8.2 The order of the general classifier and adjectives . ........... 66 4 From Num to D 69 4.1 The landscapeofthe DP betweennumeralsandD . ........ 69 4.1.1 Quantifiers have their own projection . ....... 69 4.1.2 Demonstratives................................ .. 71 4.1.3 Possessors.................................... 77 4.1.4 Non-finiterelativeclauses . ...... 80 4.1.5 Interimsummary................................ 81 4.2 LexicalizingtheDposition . ....... 81 4.2.1 Thedata ..................................... 81 4.2.2 A spanning account of non-inflecting demonstratives and -ik quantifiers . 83 4.2.3 Previoustreatments . ... 90 4.2.4 Extending the analysis to proper names . ....... 93 4.2.5 Revisiting haplology vs. spanning . ....... 95 4.2.6 The article that wouldn’t go away . ..... 101 4.3 Summary ......................................... 102 5 Case and PPs 105 5.1 Elements of the extended nominal projection above DP . ............ 105 5.1.1 TheinventoryofHungariancasemarkers . ....... 106 5.1.2 The inventory of Hungarian postpositions . ......... 107 5.2 Thedistributionofpostpositions . .......... 110 5.2.1 Case-markingofthecomplement . ..... 110 5.2.2 Adjacencyeffects............................... 111 5.2.3 Morphologicaleffects. .... 112 5.2.4 Sharedpropertiesofpostpositions . ........ 114 5.2.5 Interimsummary................................ 116 5.3 LexicalizingthepositionsaboveD . ......... 116 5.3.1 Recapitulation: disruption effects and Underassociation ........... 116 5.3.2 DressedPsspancase,nakedPsdon’t . ..... 117 5.4 Capturing the distribution via size . .......... 119 5.4.1 Accountingfortheadjacencyeffects . ....... 119 5.4.2 Potential counter-examples: can dressed PPs be separated from their com- plement? ..................................... 125 5.4.3 Accounting for the morphological effects . ......... 128 5.4.4 WhyallnakedPsarenotequal. ... 130 5.4.5 Interimsummary................................ 131 CONTENTS v 5.5 What this analysis tells us about the case vs. adposition debate.. .. .. .. .. 132 5.5.1 ThedecompositionofPP . 132 5.5.2 The problem of distinguishing case markers from postpositions . 133 5.5.3 Integrating the proposal into the Path > Place decomposition. 135 5.5.4 Refiningthestructure . ... 138 5.5.5 Spatial case markers with and without naked Ps . ........ 142 5.5.6 Against an adjunction analysis of naked Ps . ........ 145 5.5.7 Against naked Ps being higher than dressed Ps . ........ 146 5.5.8 Tyingintemporalandnon-spatialPs . ...... 147 5.6 Summary ......................................... 148 II The agreement problem 151 6 The functional sequence meets the agreement problem 153 6.1 The problem of deciding whether a morpheme is agreement ornot ......... 153 6.2 The syntactic representationof agreement . ............ 157 6.2.1 TheriseandfallofAgrP . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 157 6.2.2 ProblemswithAgrP .............................. 157 6.2.3 AgreementmorphemeswithoutAgrP . .... 160 6.2.4 Against treating agreement on a par with negation . .......... 161 6.3 The approach to Agreement adopted in this thesis . ........... 162 6.3.1 Thepositionofagreementingrammar . ...... 162 6.3.2 The representation of agreement morphemes . ........ 163 6.3.3 The linearizationof agreementmorphemes . ........ 163 6.3.4 ThetechnicalitiesofAgree . ..... 166 6.3.5 Agreementvs.concord. ... 167 7 Possessive agreement and appositives 169 7.1 Featureco-varianceintheHungarianKP . ......... 169 7.2 Possessor-possesseeagreement. .......... 170 7.2.1 Themorphologyofpossession. ..... 170 7.2.2 The representation of possessive morphology in f-seq ............. 172 7.3 Possessive agreement defies the Mirror Principle . ............. 175 7.3.1 Agreementandthepluralonthepossessee . ....... 175 7.3.2 Agreement and the plural on possessor pronouns . ......... 178 7.3.3 Agreement and case on postpositions (non-standard) . ............ 180 7.3.4 Anorderthatdoesn’tlookMirror,butitis . ........ 181 7.4 Appositives ..................................... ... 185 7.5 Summary ......................................... 187 8 Demonstrative concord 189 8.1 Introduction.................................... .... 189 8.2 Demonstrativesarenotappositives . .......... 190 8.3 Suffixes participating in demonstrative concord . ............. 193 8.4 DemonstrativeconcordinvolvesAgree . .......... 195 8.4.1 Theinsidesofdemonstratives . ...... 197 8.4.2 Case concord as KP, plural concord as an agreement feature......... 201 8.5 DemonstrativeconcordviaReverseAgree . .......... 203 8.6 Cross-linguistic evidence for Reverse Agree . ............. 205 8.7 Demonstrative concord with -´e ............................. 207 8.7.1 The meaning and distribution of -´e ....................... 207 8.7.2 Previous analyses of -´e .............................. 209 8.7.3 -E´ istheGenitivecase.............................. 212 8.7.4 Co-occurrence restrictions in the context of -´e ................. 215 8.7.5 The merge-in position of -´e possessors ..................... 218 vi CONTENTS 8.7.6 Suffixaufnahme with -´e possessors ....................... 221 8.7.7 Further research: the associative plural . .......... 226 8.8 Summaryandconclusion .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 228 8.9 Appendix ........................................ 228 9 The plural suffix 231 9.1 Introduction.................................... .... 231 9.2 Plural versus classifier cross-linguistically . ................ 232 9.2.1 Aclaimaboutcomplementarity. ..... 232 9.2.2 Counter-examples .............................. 233 9.2.3 Approaches to the (non)-complementarity . ......... 234 9.3 The complementarity with classifiers in Hungarian . ............. 235 9.3.1 Thedata ..................................... 235 9.3.2 The Hungarian plural as a ‘pluralclassifier’ . 237 9.4 Excursusontheassociativeplural . ......... 239 9.4.1 The associative plural in the functional sequence . ............ 240 9.4.2 -´ek = -´e+-k ...................................