Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 583–622 | Cite as

A new look at information structure in Hungarian

Syntax

Abstract

It is a commonly accepted view in the Hungarian linguistic literature that sentence structure is determined by information structure, viewed as a phrase structure theoretic interpretation of the topic–comment articulation of the sentence. There is a designated topic position at the left edge of the sentence, namely SpecTopP, hosting constituents that are claimed to be in a predicative relation with the rest of the sentence. On this view, topic–comment and logical subject–logical predicate are considered to be synonymous notions. We argue that the notion of topic as used in the Hungarian literature poses some serious problems, which can only be eliminated if the pragmatic aspects of topichood are separated from its semantic function entailing the development of a two-level approach to information structure. Topic and logical subject belong to two different levels with topic being an essentially pragmatic notion and logical subject being a syntactico-semantic notion. On this analysis the basic syntactic structure of the Hungarian sentence is determined by the articulation “logical subject–logical predicate” rather than by the articulation “topic-comment”. The proposed analysis has important typological consequences.

Keywords

Information structure Logical subject Logical predicate Topic Categorical judgment Thetic judgment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alberti, Gábor. 1997. Restrictions on the degree of referentiality of arguments in Hungarian sentences. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44(3–4): 341–362. Google Scholar
  2. Arregi, Karlos. 2003. Clitic left dislocation is contrastive topicalization. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 31–44. Google Scholar
  3. Brentano, Franz. [1874]1924. Psychology from an empirical point of view. [Translated by A.C. Rancurello, D.B. Terrell, and L. McAlister from Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt (1874)]. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  4. Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional syntax. Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  5. Brody, Michael. 1990. Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. UCL Working Papers 2: 201–225. Google Scholar
  6. Brody, Michael. 1995. Focus and checking theory. Approaches to Hungarian 5: 29–43. Google Scholar
  7. Cadiot, Pierre. 1988. Le thème comme synecdoque. Langue Française 78: 9–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chafe, Wallace L. 1987. Cognitive constraints of information flow. In Coherence and grounding in discourse, ed. Russell S. Tomlin, 21–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam, and Maurice Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Google Scholar
  10. Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahl, Östen. 1974. Topic-comment structure revisited. In Contextual boundness and focus, ed. Östen Dahl, 1–24. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Google Scholar
  12. Daneš, František. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In Papers on functional sentence perspective, ed. František Daneš, 106–128. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  13. de Cat, Cécile. 2002. French dislocation. PhD dissertation, University of York. Google Scholar
  14. de Cat, Cécile. 2005. French subject clitics are not agreement markers. Lingua 115: 1195–1219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Kuthy, Kordula. 2002. Discontinuous NPs in German: a case study of the interaction of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  16. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, and Claire Beyssade. 2005. Définir les indéfinis. Paris: CNRS Éditions. Google Scholar
  17. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar
  18. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1994. Sentence structure and word order. In The syntactic structure of Hungarian, eds. Ferenc Kiefer and Katalin É. Kiss, 1–90. San Diego/London: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  19. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Discourse–configurationality in the languages of Europe. In Constituent order in the languages of Europe, ed. Anna Siewierska, 681–729. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  20. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1999. Mondattan [syntax]. In Új magyar nyelvtan [New Hungarian grammar], eds. Katalin É. Kiss, Ferenc Kiefer, and Péter Siptár, 17–184. Budapest: Osiris. Google Scholar
  21. É. Kiss, Katalin. 2000. A [+referáló] és [+specifikus] jegyek ellenőrzése a kontrasztív topik esetében [The checking of [+referential] and [+specific] features in the case of contrastive topic]. In Vol. 4 of A mai magyar nyelv leírásának újabb módszerei [Recent methods in the description of contemporary Hungarian], eds. László Büky and Márta Maleczki, 85–96. Szeged: JATE Press. Google Scholar
  22. É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  23. É. Kiss, Katalin. 2006. Apparent or real? On the complementary distribution of identificational focus and the verbal particle. In Event structure and the left periphery. Studies in natural language and linguistic theory, ed. Katalin É. Kiss, 201–225. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  24. É. Kiss, Katalin, and Beáta Gyuris. 2003. Apparent scope inversion under the rise fall contour. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50: 371–404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25. Google Scholar
  26. Engdahl, Elisabet, and Enric Vallduví. 1996. Information packing in HPSG. Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science 12: 1–32. Google Scholar
  27. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  28. Farkas, Donka. 1994. Specificity and scope. Langues et grammaires 1: 119–137. Google Scholar
  29. Farkas, Donka. 2002. Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19(3): 213–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fuller, Judith, and Jeanette K. Gundel. 1987. Topic-prominence in interlanguage. Language Learning 37: 1–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Galmiche, Michel. 1983. Les ambiguïtés référentielles ou les pièges de la référence. Langue Française 57: 60–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gécseg, Zsuzsanna. 2003. Quantification et focalization dans le hongrois. Scolia 16: 117–133. Google Scholar
  33. Gécseg, Zsuzsanna. 2007. Les principes de l’articulation de la phrase assertive dans le hongrois et dans le français parlé. In Structure informationnelle de la phrase, ed. Ilona Kassai, 64–100. Budapest: L’Harmattan/Tinta Kiadó. Google Scholar
  34. Givón, Talmy. 1988. The pragmatics of word-order: predictability, importance and attention. In Studies in syntactic typology, eds. Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik, and Jessica R. Wirth, 243–284. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  35. Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Studies in syntactic typology, eds. Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik, and Jessica R. Wirth, 209–239. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  36. Gundel, Jeanette K., and Thorsten Fretheim. 2004. Topic and focus. In Handbook of pragmatic theory, eds. Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 175–196. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  37. Gyuris, Beáta. 2003. The semantics of contrastive topic in Hungarian. PhD dissertation, ELTE, Budapest. Google Scholar
  38. Halliday, Michael A.K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Halliday, Michael A.K., and Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Edward Arnold. Google Scholar
  40. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  41. Hulk, Aafke. 1996. L’“autre” de: une tête quantificationnelle? Langue Française 109: 44–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hunyadi, László. 2002. Hungarian sentence prosody and Universal Grammar. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Google Scholar
  43. Kálmán, László. 2001. Magyar leíró nyelvtan: Mondattan I. [Hungarian Descriptive Grammar: Syntax I]. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó. Google Scholar
  44. Kamp, Hans, and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic: Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  45. Kawamura, Michihiko. 2002. Topical contrast and ‘contrastive topics’ in Japanese. Paper presented at the workshop on information structure in context, University of Stuttgart, 15–16 November 2002. Google Scholar
  46. Kiefer, Ferenc. 1977. Functional sentence perspective and presuppositions. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 27(1–2): 83–109. Google Scholar
  47. Kuno, Susumo. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320. Google Scholar
  48. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categoric and thetic judgment: evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185. Google Scholar
  49. Ladusaw, William. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In Vol. 4 of Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory, eds. Mandy Harvey and Lynn Santelmann, 220–229. Ithaca: Cornell University, CLC Publications. Google Scholar
  50. Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  51. Leong, Ping A. 2004. Delimiting the theme of the English clause: an inference–boundary account. SKY Journal of Linguistics 17: 167–187. Google Scholar
  52. Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles N. Li, 457–489. London/New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  53. Maleczki, Márta. 2001. Indefinite arguments in Hungarian. In Argument structure in Hungarian, ed. István Kenesei, 151–193. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Google Scholar
  54. Maleczki, Márta. 2002. A thetikus ítéletek szemantikai szerkezetéről [On the semantic structure of thetic judgments]. A Mai Nyelv Leírásának Újabb Módszerei 5: 389–404. Google Scholar
  55. Maleczki, Márta. 2003. Information structure, argument structure, and typological variation. In Meaning through language contrast, eds. Katarzyna Jaszczolt and Ken Turner, 223–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  56. Marty, Anton. 1918. Gesammelte Schriften. Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Google Scholar
  57. McNally, Louise. 1998. On recent formal analyses of topic. In The Tbilisi symposium on logic, language and computation: selected papers, eds. Jonathan Ginzburg, Zurab Khasidashvili, Carl Vogel, Jean-Jacques Lévy, and Enric Vallduví, 147–160. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  58. Nádasdy, Ádám, and László Kálmán. 1994. A hangsúly [Stress]. In Vol. 2 of Strukturális magyar nyelvtan: fonológia [Structural Grammar of Hungarian 2: Phonology], ed. Ferenc Kiefer, 393–467. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Google Scholar
  59. Östman, Jan-Ola, and Tuija Virtanen. 1999. Theme, comment, and newness as figures in information structuring. In Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics, eds. Karen van Hoek, Andrej A. Kibrik, and Leo Noordman, 91–110. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  60. Prince, Ellen. 1985. Fancy syntax and shared knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 9.1: 65–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Puskás, Genovéva. 1998. A split CP approach: evidence from Hungarian. In Vol. 6 of Approaches to Hungarian, 183–208. Szeged: JATE. Google Scholar
  62. Puskás, Genovéva. 2000. Word order in Hungarian. The syntax of A-positions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  63. Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94. Google Scholar
  64. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  65. Sgall, Petr, Hajičová Eva, and Eva Benešová. 1973. Topic, focus and generative semantics. Kronberg/Taunus: Scriptor. Google Scholar
  66. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Ways of scope taking, ed. Anna Szabolcsi, 109–154. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  67. Szabolcsi, Anna, and Michael Brody. 2003. Overt scope in Hungarian. Syntax 6: 19–52. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Varga, László. 1985. Intonation in the Hungarian sentence. In Vol. 1 of Approaches to Hungarian, 205–224. Szeged: JATE. Google Scholar
  69. von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19(3): 245–274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RomanceSzeged UniversitySzegedHungary
  2. 2.Research Institute for LinguisticsHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations