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. 209–238

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

Chapter 8
Focus and quantifier scope

An experimental study of Hungarian

Published online: 24 August 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.15.08sur
Abstract
The scope interpretation of doubly quantified sentences is known to be influenced by a variety of contextual factors, among them, Information Structure. While the topic status of an NP has been recurrently argued to give rise to wide scope, the effect of focus status remains controversial: in the literature it has been linked both to narrow scope and to wide scope. This paper presents an empirical study designed to explore whether the focus status of a quantified NP affects its scope-taking options by biasing its interpretation either towards narrow scope or towards wide scope with regard to another, non-focal and non-topical quantified NP in its background. The experiment is based on a rating task using contextualized target sentences accompanied by visual stimuli. While the study detects a mild advantage of linear scope over inverse scope, as well as a markedness effect of the post-verbal placement of focus, the focus status of quantified NPs is not found to interact with their scope interpretation. From a broader perspective, the finding that focus sharply differs from topic in terms of (the lack of) its effect on scope corroborates approaches that view topic and focus as belonging to two distinct dimensions of Information Structure.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background and research questions
    • 2.1Quantifier scope in Hungarian
    • 2.2Research questions
  • 3.The experiment
    • 3.1Method and material
    • 3.2Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (57)
References
Anderson, Catherine. 2004. The Structure and Real-time Comprehension of Quantifier Scope Ambiguity. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beghelli, Filippo & Tim Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and Negation: the Syntax of Each and Every. In Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, 71–107. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bott, Oliver & Janina Radó. 2007. Quantifying Quantifier Scope: a Cross-methodological Comparison. In Sam Featherson & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Roots – Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base, 53–74. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brody, Michael & Anna Szabolcsi. 2003. Overt scope in Hungarian. Syntax 6. 19–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carifio, James & Rocco J. Perla. 2007. Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and Urban Legends about Likert Scales and Likert Response Formats and their Antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences 3 (3). 106–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel & Nomi Erteschik-Shir. 2002. Topic, Focus and the Interpretation of Bare Plurals. Natural Language Semantics 10. 125–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cresti, Diana. 1995. Indefinite Topics. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deguchi, Masanori & Yoshihisma Kitagawa. 2002. Prosody and Wh-questions. In Masako Hirotani (ed.), Proceedings of the Thirty-second Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 73–92. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge – Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ebert, Christian & Cornelia Endriss. 2004. Topic Interpretation and Wide Scope Indefinites. In Keir Moulton & Matthew Wolf (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-four Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 203–214. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1992. Az egyszerű mondat szerkezete. [The structure of the simple sentence]. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 1. Mondattan. [Structural Grammar of Hungarian 1. Syntax], 79–177. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1994. Sentence Structure and Word Order. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian, 1–90. New York – San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Hungarian Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. An Adjunction Analysis of Quantifiers and Adverbials in the Hungarian sentence. Lingua 120. 506–526. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet D. 1982. The Mental Representation of Quantifiers. In Stanly Peters & Esa Saarinen (eds.), Processes, Beliefs and Questions, 129–164. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In Masako Hirotani (ed.), Proceedings of the Thirty-second Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 113–32. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gyuris, Beáta. 2006. Esettanulmány a hatókör és az információs szerkezet kapcsolatáról [A Case Study about the Relation of Between Scope and Information Sturcture]. In Kálmán László (ed.), KB 120 – A titkos kötet. Nyelvészeti tanulmányok Bánréti Zoltán és Komlósy András tiszteletére [KB 120 – The Secret Volume. Lingusitic Studies in Honour of Bánréti Zoltán & Komlósy András], 103–116. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet – Tinta Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Stylistic postposing or something else? In Christopher Piñón & Szilárd Szentgyörgyi (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 10, 187–216. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gyuris, Beáta & Jackson Scott (submitted). Factors Affecting Scope in Hungarian. Glossa.
Hunyadi, László. 1981. Remarks on the syntax and Semantics of Topic and Focus in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 31. 107–136.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. Hungarian Sentence Structure and Metrical Prosody. Language Sciences 18. 139–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. The Outlines of a Metrical Syntax of Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 46. 69–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Hungarian Sentence Prodosdy and Universal Grammar. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ioup, Georgette. 1975. Some Universals for Quantifier Scope. In John Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 4, 37–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2002. Invisible but Audible Wh-scope Marking: Wh constructions and deaccenting in Japanese. In Line Mikkelsen & Chris Potts (eds.), Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 21, 180–193. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kemp, Simon & Randolf C. Grace. 2010. When Can Information from Ordinal Scale Variables Be Integrated? Psychological Methods 15 (4). 398–412. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M. & Annabel Cormack. 1981. Ambiguity and Quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 259–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1990. Anti-scrambling. Ms., University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Shells, Yolks, and Scrambled Eggs. In Merce González (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 221–239. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa & Janet D. Fodor. 2006. Prosodic Influence on Syntactic Judgments. In Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry, Matthias Schlesewsky & Ralf Vogel (eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives, 336–358. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and Individual-level Predicates. Papers on Quantification. Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1991. A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constractions. In Steven K. Moore & Adam Z. Wyner (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory I, 257–280. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Quantifiying into Question Acts. Natural Language Semantics 9. 1–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Basic Notions of Information Structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 243–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1982. The Focus of the Question and the Focus of the Answer. In Robert Chametzky, Robinson Schneider & Kevin Tuite (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Nondeclaratives, 134–157. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. Remarks on Quantifier Scope. In Heizo Nakajima (ed.), Current English Linguistics in Japan, 261–287, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurtzman, Howard S. & Maryellen C. MacDonald. 1993. Resolution of Quantifier Scope ambiguities. Cognition 48. 243–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 2: Descriptive Application (Chapter 3: Nominals: Grounding and Quantification). 96–141. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Feng-Hsi. 1990. Scope and Specificity. PhD dissertation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1988. Ambiguities of Quantification and Wh: A reply to Williams. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 118–135.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pafel, Jürgen. 2006. Quantifier Scope in German. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1991. Topic Focus and Quantification. In Steven K. Moore & Adam Z. Wyner (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory I, 257–280. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999. Focus, Quantification and Semantics-pragmatics Issues. In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistics, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, 213–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Portner, Paul & Katsuhiko Yabushita 2001. Specific Indefinites and the Information Structure Theory of Topics. Journal of Semantics 18(3). 271–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. & Jon Sprouse. 2013. Judgment Data. In Robert J. Podesva & Devyani Sharma (eds.), Research Methods in Linguistics, 27–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Surányi, Balázs. 2002. Multiple Operator Movements in Hungarian. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. The Semantics of Topic – focus Articulation. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 513–541. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Szabolcsi Anna (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking. 108–154. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta. 2003. A Stress-based Approach to the Syntax of Hungarian Focus. The Linguistic Review 20(1). 37–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tunstall, Susanne Lynn. 1998. The Interpretation of Quantifiers: Semantics and Processing. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1988. Is LF Distinct from S-structure? A reply to May. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 135–146.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Kenesei, István & Anna Szeteli
2022. Surprise: Nonfinite Clause with Finite Complementizer. In A Life in Cognition [Language, Cognition, and Mind, 11], ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Surányi, Balázs & Gergő Turi
2018. Quantifier scope in sentence prosody?. Acta Linguistica Academica 65:2-3 ► pp. 385 ff. DOI logo
Szabolcsi, Anna
2018. Strict and Non-strict Negative Concord in Hungarian: A Unified Analysis. In Boundaries Crossed, at the Interfaces of Morphosyntax, Phonology, Pragmatics and Semantics [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 94], ► pp. 227 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