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.