Cover not available

In:Thinking and Speaking About Time: A cognitive linguistic approach
Edited by Rita Brdar-Szabó and Mario Brdar
[Human Cognitive Processing 81] 2026
► pp. 326–350

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

Chapter 12
The temporal nature of the Hungarian infinitive and participles

 | Eötvös Loránd University | Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra
Published online: 27 January 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.81.12tol
Abstract
Hungarian participles and the infinitive have a temporal content. All of them are characterized by temporal dynamics and backgrounded sequential processing in the context of situated simulation, with the parallel scanning of processing time and conceived time. This processing varies with different degrees of prominence of component states and temporal boundedness. The infinitive and the participles are construed with grounded verbs in constructional schemas conceived in a temporal reference frame. The Hungarian infinitive is the least dynamic and sequential. In the adjective participle with -ó/-ő and the adverbial participle, dynamism and sequentiality are more direct and prominent due to the profiling of the continuous nature, while in the -t/-tt adjective participle, the end point evokes the completion of the process.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Reference frame and temporality
  • 3.The processing of intrinsic temporality
  • 4.The temporal content of the Hungarian infinitive and participles
    • 4.1The infinitive
      • 4.1.1Dynamicity and temporality in the infinitive
    • 4.2The adjectival participle
      • 4.2.1The -ó/-ő adjectival participle
      • 4.2.2The -t/-tt adjectival participle
      • 4.2.3The -andó/-endő adjective participle
      • 4.2.4The adverbial participle
  • 5.Summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (26)
References
Barsalou, L. W. 2003. Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 513–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brisard, Frank. 2021. Grounding. In X. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (344–358). New York & London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broccias, C., & Hollmann, W. B. 2007. Do we need summary and sequential scanning in (Cognitive) grammar? Cognitive Linguistics, 18, 487–522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 2005. Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Matlock, T. 2008. Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In Gibbs, R. W. Jr., (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (161–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax. An introduction. Volume I. Revised edition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 2011. The concept of time. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, B. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Husserl, E. 1966. Zur Phänomenologie des inneren Zeitbewusstseins. Husserliana X. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. & de Saussure, L. 2014. Introduction: time, temporality, and tense. In K. M. Jaszczolt & L. de Saussure, (Eds.), Time: Language, cognition, and reality (1–11). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kugler, N. & Palágyi, L. & Simon, G. 2024. From temporality to dynamicity: a data-based analysis of Hungarian verbal and participial constructions. See in the present volume.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladányi, M. 2017. Alaktan. In G. Tolcsvai Nagy (Ed.), Nyelvtan (503–660). Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2008a. Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008b. Sequential and summary scanning: A reply. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 571–584. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. Linguistic manifestations of the space-time (dis)analogy. In L. Filipovic & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures. Language, culture, and cognition (191–215). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lengyel, K. 2000. Az igenevek. In B. Keszler (Ed.), Magyar grammatika (223–251). Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1996. Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In: P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garret (Eds.), Language and space (109–170). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matlock, T. 2017. Metaphor, simulation, and fictive motion. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (477–489). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Modrián-Horváth, Bernadett. 2021. On some Hungarian means of expression of passive contents. A corpus-based study. Studia Linguistica Hungarica, 33, 18–37. [URL]
Pöppel, E. 1997. The brain’s way to create “nowness”. In H. Atmanspacher & E. Ruhnau, (Eds.), Time, temporality, now. Experiencing time and concepts of time in an interdisciplinary perspective (107–120). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Pre-semantically defined temporal windows for cognitive processing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 1887–1896. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, J., & Spooren, W. 1997. Perspective, subjectivity, and modality from a cognitive linguistic point of view. In W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (85–112). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tolcsvai Nagy, G. 2020. Dynamism in the Hungarian prefix: A cognitive linguistic approach. Studia Linguistica Hungarica, 32, 121–131.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. 2007. Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (48–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue