Cover not available

In:Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 16: Papers from the 2017 Budapest Conference
Edited by Veronika Hegedűs and Irene Vogel
[Approaches to Hungarian 16] 2020
► pp. 165–186

Get fulltext
PDF logo with download linkDownload Chapter PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Chapter EPUB

Object agreement and locality in Hungarian

Infinitival complement clauses, second person objects and accusative adjuncts

 | Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
 | University of Szeged
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 8 April 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.16.08sze
Abstract
The paper claims that the two types of object agreement in Hungarian, definiteness agreement and the special lak-agreement form used for the combination of first person singular subject and second person object arguments, are the result of different syntactic operations. The argumentation is based on the different distribution of the two agreement types. To diagnose the nature of the conditions for agreement we use infinitival embedded clauses, at times with multiple embedded constructions. Six different patterns are discussed showing sensitivity to locality. Definiteness agreement turns out to be more restricted than lak-agreement. While the condition for definiteness agreement is the availability of a position where accusative case can be checked, we claim that no such condition holds for lak-agreement.
Article outline
  • 1.Object agreement: Preliminaries
  • 2.The data: Six patterns of agreement
    • 2.1Transitive verbs with a DP object: [+def +lak]
    • 2.2Intransitive verbs with an accusative adjunct: [+def ?lak]
    • 2.3Verbs with an infinitival complement alternating with an object DP: [+def +lak]
    • 2.4Verbs with a non-object infinitival complement: [−def ±lak]
    • 2.5Non-agreeing patterns with infinitival complements: [−def −lak]
    • 2.6Verbs with an infinitival adjunct: [−def −lak]
    • 2.7Speaker variation
  • 3.The proposal
    • 3.1A locality-based hierarchy of verbs based on patterns of object agreement
    • 3.2What multiple infinitival constructions show us
      • 3.2.1Definiteness agreement in multiple infinitival constructions
      • 3.2.2lak-agreement in multiple infinitival constructions
    • 3.3What is responsible for the blocking effect in type 5 verbs?
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (15)
References
Bárány, András. 2015. Differential object marking in Hungarian and the morphosyntax of case and agreement. PhD Dissertation. University of Cambridge.
. 2017. Budapestet készülöm meglátogatni: Issues in Hungarian long-distance agreement. Presented at 13th International Conference on the Structure of Hungarian. Budapest, 30 June 2017. [URL]
Bartos, Huba. 1999. Morfoszintaxis és interpretáció: A magyar inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere. [Morphosyntax and interpretation: The syntactic background of Hungarian inflectional phenomena]. PhD Dissertation. Budapest: ELTE.
Csirmaz, Anikó. 2008. Accusative case and aspect. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Event structures and the left periphery, 159–200. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2004. Agreement and ‘clause union’. In Katalin É. Kiss & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Verb clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch, 445–498. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grétsy, László. 2008. Anyanyelvi őrjárat. Szabad Föld Online. 1 August 2008. [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kálmán, C. György, László Kálmán, Ádám Nádasdy & Gábor Prószéky. 1989. A magyar segédigék rendszere. In Zsigmond Telegdi & Ferenc Kiefer (eds.), Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XVII, 49–103. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kálmán, László & Viktor Trón. 2000. A magyar igekötő egyeztetése. In László Büky & Márta Maleczki (eds.), A mai magyar nyelv leírásának újabb módszerei IV, 203–211. Szeged: SZTE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kenesei, István. 2001. Criteria for auxiliaries in Hungarian. In István Kenesei (ed.) Argument structure in Hungarian, 73–106. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Medová, Lucie. 2009. Reflexive clitics in Slavic and Romance. A comparative view from an antipassive perspective. PhD Dissertation. Princeton: Princeton University.
Szécsényi, Tibor & Krisztina Szécsényi. 2016. A tárgyi egyeztetés és a főnévi igeneves szerkezetek. In Bence Kas (ed.), “Szavad ne feledd!” Tanulmányok Bánréti Zoltán tiszteletére, 117–127. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szécsényi, Krisztina & Tibor Szécsényi. 2017. Definiteness agreement in Hungarian multiple infinitival constructions. In Joseph Emonds & Markéta Janebová (eds.), Language use and linguistic structure: Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2016, 75–89. Olomouc: Palacký University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. I agrees with you: Object agreement and permissive hagy in Hungarian. In Joseph Emonds, Markéta Janebová & Ludmila Veselovská (eds.), Language use and linguistic structure: Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2018, 79–97. Olomouc: Palacký University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tóth, Ildikó. 2000. Inflected infinitives in Hungarian. PhD Dissertation. Tilburg: University of Tilburg.
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue