Cover not available

In:Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba Conference
Edited by Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi and Éva Dékány
[Approaches to Hungarian 14] 2015
► pp. 37–64

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Inverse agreement and Hungarian verb paradigms

ORCiD logo with link
Published online: 3 June 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.14.02bar
I propose a solution for the lack of agreement with first and second person pronouns in the Hungarian objective paradigm. Following Béjar & Rezac (2009) and É. Kiss (2013), I suggest that Cyclic Agree gives rise to an Inverse Agreement system in Hungarian, in which the verb shows intransitive agreement in cases where the object has equally or more highly specified features than the subject. The appearance of the second person agreement suffix only with first person but not third person subjects is given a principled syntactic explanation. All personal pronouns are argued to trigger agreement in person, with some instances, namely inverse ones, not spelled out due to the interaction of Cyclic Agree and the feature specifications of Hungarian personal pronouns.
References (29)
References
Adger, David & Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint. Syntax 10(1). 2–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21. 435–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartos, Huba. 1999. Morfoszintaxis és interpretáció: A magyar inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere. Budapest: ELTE dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1). 35–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Phil Branigan. 2006. Eccentric agreement and multiple case-checking. In Alana Johns, Diane Massam & Juvenal Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 47–77. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1980. Inverse verb forms in Siberia: Evidence from Chukchee, Koryak and Kamchadal. Folia Linguistica Historica 1. 61–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth. 2013. A semantic solution to the problem of Hungarian object agreement. Natural Language Semantics 21. 345–371. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth & Stephen Wechsler. 2010. Less-travelled paths from pronoun to agreement: the case of the Uralic object conjugations. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG10 conference, 165–185. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. The objective conjugation in Hungarian: agreement without phi-features. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30. 699–740. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dékány, Éva. 2011. A profile of the Hungarian DP: the interaction of lexicalization, agreement and linearization with the functional sequence: University of Tromsø dissertation. [URL].
Dikken, Marcel den. 2004. Agreement and ‘clause union’, 445–498. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. When Hungarians agree (to disagree). Ms., CUNY Graduate Center. New York.
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2003. A szibériai kapcsolat — avagy miért nem tárgyasan ragozzuk az igét 1. és 2. személyű tárgy esetén. Magyar Nyelvjárások 41. 321–326.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. The inverse agreement constraint in Hungarian — a relic of a Uralic-Siberian sprachbund? In Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinheinz & Jan Koster (eds.), Organizing grammar — Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 108–116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Free Word Order, (Non)configurationality, and Phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3). 441–475. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. The inverse agreement constraint in Uralic languages. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 2(3). 2–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3). 482–526. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kozinsky, Isaac Š., Vladimir P. Nedjalkov & Maria S. Polinskaja. 1988. Antipassive in Chukchee: oblique object, object incorporation, zero object. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 651–706. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2). 187–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a Fallible Operation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Rebrus, Péter. 2000. Morfofonológiai jelenségek. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan, vol. 3. Morfológia, 763–947. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2008. Defective agree, case alternations, and the prominence of person (Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86), 137–161. Universität Leipzig.
Rocquet, Amélie. 2013. Splitting objects: a nanosyntactic account of direct object marking. Ghent: Ghent University dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rullman, Hotze. 2004. First and second person pronouns as bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 35(1). 159–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 2014. One true anaphor. Linguistic Inquiry 45(1). 91–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skorik, Piotr Ja. 1977. Грамматика чукотского языка, часть II: глагол, наречие, служебные слова [Grammar of Chukchi, vol II: verb, adverb and auxiliary words], Nauka.
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Coppock, Elizabeth
2022. Object agreement in Hungarian. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Dékány, Éva
2021. Pronouns. In The Hungarian Nominal Functional Sequence [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 100], ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Kiss, Katalin É.
2021. What determines the varying relation of case and agreement? Evidence from the Ugric languages. Acta Linguistica Academica 67:4 ► pp. 397 ff. DOI logo
Ruda, Marta
2018. Local Operations Deriving Long-Distance Relations: Object Agreement in Hungarian and the Genitive of Negation in Polish. In Boundaries Crossed, at the Interfaces of Morphosyntax, Phonology, Pragmatics and Semantics [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 94], ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. On the Syntax of Missing Objects [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 244], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. References. In On the Syntax of Missing Objects [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 244], ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue