Cover not available

In:Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 15: Papers from the 2015 Leiden Conference
Edited by Harry van der Hulst and Anikó Lipták
[Approaches to Hungarian 15] 2017
► pp. 35–63

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

Chapter 2
Structural ambiguity and case assignment in Hungarian clausal and phrasal comparatives

Published online: 24 August 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.15.02bac
Abstract
This paper presents a contrastive analysis of comparative degree complements in Germanic (English, German) and Hungarian, focussing on two particular types of constructions that are potentially ambiguous in isolation. I argue that Hungarian has both clausal and phrasal comparatives. In clausal comparatives, the morphological case of the single remnant always corresponds to its underlying function (subject or object), hence ambiguities arise only if both interpretations involve subjects, but there are no subject/object ambiguities. This differs from Germanic, where subject/object ambiguities arise due to case syncretism, and where subjects of small clauses can be marked by the accusative case. In Hungarian phrasal comparatives, case distinction does not play a role, and the interpretation is governed by semantic rules.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Ambiguity and case assignment with single predicates (Type I)
  • 3.Ambiguity and case assignment with two predicates (Type II)
  • 4.The proposal: Semantics and underlying syntactic structures
  • 5.Ellipsis
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (43)
References
Asbury, Anna. 2005. Adpositions as case realizations. Leiden Papers in Linguistics 2(3). 69–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008a. Marking of semantics roles in Hungarian morphosyntax. In Szilárd Szentgyörgyi et al. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 10: Papers from the Veszprém conference, 9–30. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008b. The morphosyntax of case and adpositions. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bacskai-Atkari, Julia. 2014a. The syntax of comparative constructions: Operators, ellipsis phenomena and functional left peripheries. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014b. Structural case and ambiguity in reduced comparative subclauses in English and German. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 61(4). 363–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015a. A kérdő modalitás jelölése a beágyazott poláris kérdésekben és viszonya a funkcionális bal perifériák történetéhez [The marking of modality in embedded polar questions and its relation to the history of functional left peripheries]. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Általános nyelvészeti tanulmányok XXVII: Diakrón mondattani kutatások [Papers in general linguistics XVII: Investigations in diachronic syntax], 13–45. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015b. Ambiguity and the internal structure of comparative complements in Greek. Paper presented at: 12th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (ICGL 12), Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, 16–19 September 2015. Handout available at: [URL] (21 April, 2016).
. 2015c. Syntactic features, overtness, and functional left peripheries. Paper presented at: Syntax-Semantics Colloquium, Potsdam, Universität Potsdam, 20 October 2015. Handout available at: [URL] (28 April, 2016).
Bacskai-Atkari, Julia & Gergely Kántor. 2011. Elliptical comparatives revisited. In Vadim Kimmelman et al. (eds.), Proceedings of MOSS 2: Moscow Syntax and Semantics, 19–34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Deletion in Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian comparatives. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 1(1–2). 44–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 591–656.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1973. The syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3). 275–343.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 1990. Remarks on the order of elements in the Hungarian focus field. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian 3: Structures and arguments, 95–112. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On WH-Movement. In Peter Culicover et al. (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van & Anikó Lipták. 2008. On the interaction between verb movement and ellipsis: New evidence from Hungarian. In Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 138–146. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008a. Free word order, (non)configurationality, and phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3). 441–475. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008b. The structure of the Hungarian VP revisited. In: Szilárd Szentgyörgyi et al. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 10: Papers from the Veszprém conference, 31–58. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. The evolution of functional left peripheries in the Hungarian sentence. In: Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), From head-final to head-initial: The evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax, 9–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gyuris, Beáta. 2004. A new approach to the scope of contrastive topics. In Benjamin Shaer et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, ZAS Berlin, November 2003, 133–156. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. The semantics and pragmatics of the contrastive topic in Hungarian. Budapest: The Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences & Lexica Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1973. Why there are two than’s in English. In Claudia Corum et al. (eds.), Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 179–191. Chicago, Ill.: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hegedűs, Veronika. 2013. Non-verbal predicates and predicate movement in Hungarian. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kenesei, István. 1989. Adjuncts and arguments in VP focus in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45(1–2). 61–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kenesei, István & Robert Michael Vago & Anna Fenyvesi. 1998. Hungarian. London & New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2002. Comparative Deletion and optimality in syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20. 553–621. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Jason Merchant. 2000. Attributive Comparative Deletion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18. 89–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin & Omer Preminger. 2015. Nominative as no case at all: An argument from raising-to-accusative in Sakha. In Andrew Joseph & Esra Predolac (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 9), 109–120. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried. 2004. Ellipsis in comparatives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lipták, Anikó. 2010. The structure of the topic field in Hungarian. In Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds.), Mapping the left periphery: The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 5, 163–198. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2012. On the internal structure of case in Finno-Ugric small clauses. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 1(1–2). 3–43.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas & Sandhya Sundaresan. 2011. Nominative case is independent of finiteness and agreement. Ms. Available at: [URL] (30 August, 2016).
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Kyle Johnson (ed.), Topics in ellipsis, 132–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Greek and the abstractness of syntax. Journal of Greek Linguistics 9. 134–164.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Molnár, Valéria. 1998. On the syntax, phonology, semantics and pragmatics of the so-called “contrastive topic” in Hungarian and German. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45(1–2). 89–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4(3). 205–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, avoid F and other constraints on the placement of focus. Natural Language Semantics 7(2). 141–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Surányi, Balázs. 2009. Verbal particles inside and outside vP. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 56(2–3). 201–249. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. An interface account of identificational focus movement. In Tibor Laczkó & Catherine O. Ringen (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 12: Papers from the 2009 Debrecen conference, 163–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. The semantics of Topic – Focus articulation. In Jeroen Antonius Gerardus Groenendijk et al. (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 513–541. Amsterdam: Matematisch Centrum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2001. Two comparatives. In István Kenesei & Robert M. Harnish (eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics, and discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer, 75–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Abu Helal, Abdel-Rahman
2024. A different kind of phrasal comparatives with a non-transformational Schönfinkelization in semantic composition: the case of Jordanian Arabic. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 60:4 ► pp. 379 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