Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 699–740 | Cite as

The objective conjugation in Hungarian: agreement without phi-features

Article

Abstract

Verbal agreement is normally in person, number and gender, but Hungarian verbs agree with their objects in definiteness instead: a Hungarian verb appears in the objective conjugation when it governs a definite object. The sensitivity of the objective conjugation suffixes to the definiteness of the object has been attributed to the supposition that they function as incorporated object pronouns (Szamosi 1974; den Dikken 2006), but we argue instead that they are agreement markers registering the object’s formal, not semantic, definiteness. Evidence comes from anaphoric binding, null anaphora (pro-drop), extraction islands, and the insensitivity of the objective conjugation to any of the factors known to condition the use of affixal and clitic pronominals. We propose that the objective conjugation is triggered by a formal definiteness feature and offer a grammar that determines, for a given complement of a verb, whether it triggers the objective conjugation on the verb. Although the objective conjugation suffixes are not pronominal, they are thought to derive historically from incorporated pronouns (Hajdú 1972), and we suggest that while referentiality and ϕ-features were largely lost, an association with topicality led to a formal condition of object definiteness. The result is an agreement marker that lacks ϕ-features.

Keywords

Object agreement Pronoun incorporation Clitics Definiteness 

References

  1. Abaffy, Erszébet E. 1991. Az ikes ragozás kialakulása: A határozott és az általános ragozás elkülönülése [The emergence of the -ik conjugation: The separation of the definite and general conjugations]. In A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana. 1 kötet: A korai ómagyar kor és előzményei [A historical grammar of Hungarian. Volume 1: Early Old Hungarian and its antecedents], eds. Loránd Benkő, Erszébet E. Abaffy, and Endre Rácz, 125–139. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Google Scholar
  2. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1994. Clitic dependencies in modern Greek. PhD diss., Salzburg University. Google Scholar
  3. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  4. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2005. Clitic doubling. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 519–581. Malden: Blackwell. Chap. 14. Google Scholar
  5. Andrews, Avery D. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8: 507–557. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Austin, Peter, and Joan Bresnan. 1996. Non-configurationality in Australian aboriginal languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14: 215–268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, Mark C. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  8. Bartos, Huba. 1997. On “subjective” and “objective” agreement in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44: 363–384. Google Scholar
  9. Bartos, Huba. 1999. Morfoszintaxis és interpretáció: A magyar inflexiós jeleségek szintaktikai háttere [Morphosyntax and interpretation: The syntactic background to inflectional phenomena in Hungarian.]. PhD diss., ELTE, Budapest. Google Scholar
  10. Bartos, Huba. 2001. Object agreement in Hungarian: A case for Minimalism. In The minimalist parameter: Selected papers from the Open Linguistics Forum, Ottawa, 21–23 March 1997, eds. Galina M. Alexandrova and Olga Arnaudova, 311–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  11. Barwise, John, and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Aspects of the syntax of agreement. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  13. Bopp, Franz. 1842. Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, griechischen, lateinischen, litthauischen, gothischen und detschen [Comparative grammar of Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Old Slavic, Gothic, and German]. Berlin: F. Dümmer. Google Scholar
  14. Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  15. Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  16. Bresnan, Joan, and Sam Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63: 741–782. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bresnan, Joan, and Lioba Moshi. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21 (2): 147–185. Google Scholar
  18. Budenz, József. 1890. Az ugor nyelvek szóragozása I. Igeragozás [The inflectional morphology of Ugric languages I. Verbs]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 22: 417–440. Google Scholar
  19. Camacho, José Antonio. 1997. The syntax of NP coordination. PhD diss., University of Southern California. Google Scholar
  20. Chisarik, Erika. 2002. Partitive noun phrases in Hungarian. In The proceedings of the LFG’02 conference, eds. Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, 96–115. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  21. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  22. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  23. Cinque, Gugliemo. 1990. Types of A-dependencies. Vol. 17 of Linguistic inquiry monographs. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  24. Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Subjects and direct objects in Uralic languages: A functional explanation of case-marking systems. Études Finno-Ourgriennes 12: 5–17. Google Scholar
  25. Coppock, Elizabeth. 2012. Focus as a case position in Hungarian. Ms., Heinrich Heine University. Google Scholar
  26. Coppock, Elizabeth, and Stephen Wechsler. 2010. Less-travelled paths from pronoun to agreement: The case of the Uralic objective conjugations. In The proceedings of the LFG’10 conference, ed. Tracy Holloway King, 165–185. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  27. Corbett, Greville. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  28. Dalrymple, Mary, and Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  29. Den Dikken, Marcel. 1999. On the structural representation of possession and agreement. In Crossing boundaries: Advances in the theory of Central and Eastern European languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  30. Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. When Hungarians agree (to disagree): The fine art of ‘phi’ and ‘art’. Ms., CUNY Graduate Center. Google Scholar
  31. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  32. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1990. Clitic doubling, wh-movement, and quantification in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 351–397. Google Scholar
  33. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiado. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1990. Why noun-complement clauses are barriers. In Grammar in progress, eds. J. Mascaró and M. Nespor, 265–277. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. É. Kiss, Katalin. 2000. The Hungarian noun phrase is like the English noun phrase. In Papers from the Pécs conference, eds. Gábor Alberti and István Kenesei. Vol. 7 of Approaches to Hungarian, 121–149. Szeged: JATE Press. Google Scholar
  36. É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. É. Kiss, Katalin. 2005. The inverse agreement constraint in Hungarian: A relic of a Uralic-Siberian Sprachbund? In Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, eds. Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz, and Jan Koster. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  38. Enç, Müvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25. Google Scholar
  39. Evans, Nicholas. 1999. Why argument affixes in polysynthetic languages are not pronouns: Evidence from Bininj Gun-Wok. Sprachtypologie and Universalienforschung 52: 255–281. Google Scholar
  40. Farkas, Donka. 2002. Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19 (3): 213–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In Proceedings of the 12th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Vassiliki Nikiforidou, 95–107. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar
  42. Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles N. Li, 149–188. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  43. Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projection. Ms., Brandeis University, Waltham, MA. Google Scholar
  44. Gulya, János. 1966. Eastern Ostyak chrestomathy. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. Google Scholar
  45. Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 2000. The formal semantics of clitic doubling. Journal of Semantics 16: 315–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hajdú, Péter. 1968. Chrestomathia Samojedica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Google Scholar
  47. Hajdú, Péter. 1972. The origins of Hungarian. In The Hungarian language, eds. Loránd Benkő and Samu Imre, 15–48. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  48. Hale, Kenneth L. 2003. On the significance of Eloise Jelinek’s Pronominal Argument Hypothesis. In Formal approaches to function in grammar: In honor of Eloise Jelinek, eds. Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and MaryAnn Willie, 11–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  49. Havas, Ferenc. 2004. Objective conjugation and medialisation. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 51: 95–141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  51. Helimski, Eugen A. 1982. Vengersko-samodijskije lexičeskije paralleli [Hungarian-Samoyedik lexical parallels]. Moscow: Nauka. Google Scholar
  52. Honti, László. 1984. Chrestomathia ostiacica [Ostyak chrestomathy]. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Google Scholar
  53. Honti, László. 1996. Az uráli nyelvek tárgyas ragozású igealakjainak történeti előzményéről [On the history of objective verb forms in Uralic languages]. In Ünnepi könyv Domokos Péter tiszteletére [Festschrift for Péter Domokos], eds. András Bereczki and Lásló Klima, 127–132. Budapest: ELTE BTK Finnugor Tanszék. Google Scholar
  54. Honti, László. 1998. Gondolatok a mordvin tárgyas igeragozás uráli alapnyelvi hátteréről [On the Uralic background of the Mordvinian objective conjugation]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 96: 106–119. Google Scholar
  55. Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  56. Hunfalvy, Pál. 1862. A szmélyragok viszonyáról a birtokra és a tárgyra a magyar nyelvben [On the relation between personal endings in possessives and objects]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 1: 434–467. Google Scholar
  57. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  58. Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case and configurationality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2 (1): 39–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kallulli, Dalina. 2000. Direct object clitic doubling in Albanian and Greek. In Clitic phenomena in European languages, 209–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  60. Kálman, Béla. 1965. Vogul chresomathy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Google Scholar
  61. Kameyama, Megumi. 1985. Zero anaphora: The case of Japanese. PhD diss., Stanford University. Google Scholar
  62. Kayne, Richard S. 2008. Expletives, datives, and the tension between morphology and syntax. In The limits of syntactic variation, ed. Teresa Biberauer, 175–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  63. Kenesei, István. 1994. Subordinate clauses. In The syntactic structure of Hungarian, eds. Ferenc Kiefer and Katalin É. Kiss, 275–354. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  64. Kortvély, Erika. 2005. Verb conjugation in Tundra Nenets. Szeged: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  65. Laczkó, Tibor. 2000. On oblique arguments and adjuncts of Hungarian event nominals—A comprehensive LFG account. In The proceedings of the LFG ’00 conference, eds. Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King. Stanford: CSLI Publications. http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/5/lfg00laczko.pdf. Google Scholar
  66. Legate, Julie Anne. 2002. Warlpiri: Theoretical implications. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  67. Lommel, Arle R. 1998. An ergative-absolutive distinction in the Hungarian verbal complex. LACUS Forum 24: 90–99. Google Scholar
  68. López, Luis. 2009. A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Marcantonio, Angela. 1985. On the definite vs. indefinite conjugation in Hungarian: A typological and diachronic analysis. Acta Linguistica Scientiarum Hungaricae 35: 267–298. Google Scholar
  70. Melich, János. 1913. A magyar tárgyas igeragozás [The Hungarian objective conjugation]. Magyar Nyelv 9: 1–14. Google Scholar
  71. Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29. Google Scholar
  72. Mithun, Marianne. 2003. Pronouns and agreement: The information status of pronominal afixes. Transactions of the Philological Society 101: 235–278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nevins, Andrew. 2008. Phi-Interactions between Subject and Object Clitics. Presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. January, 2008. Google Scholar
  74. Nichols, Joanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  75. Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. Object agreement, grammatical relations, and information structure. Studies in Language 23: 331–376. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics 39: 1–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rédei, Károly. 1962. A tárgyas igeragozás kialakulása [The development of the objective conjugation]. Magyar Nyelv 58: 421–435. Google Scholar
  78. Rédei, Károly. 1989. A finnugor igeragozásról, különös tekintettel a magyar igei személyragok eredetére [On Finno-Ugric verbal conjugation with respect to the origin of the Hungarian personal endings]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 90: 143–160. Google Scholar
  79. Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–557. Google Scholar
  80. Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  81. Rounds, Carol. 2001. Hungarian: An essential grammar. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  82. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1990. En et y: Deux clitiques pronominaux anti-logophoriques [En and y: Two anti-logophoric pronominal clitics]. Langages 97: 51–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Siewierska, Anna. 1999. From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement marker: Why objects don’t make it. Folia Linguistica 33 (2): 225–251. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  86. Steele, Susan. 1978. Word order variation: A typological study. In Syntax, eds. Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, and Edith A. Morovcsik, 585–624. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  87. Suñer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6: 391–434. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The noun phrase. In The syntactic structure of Hungarian, eds. Ferenc Kiefer and Katalin É. Kiss, Vol. 27, 179–274. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  89. Szamosi, Michael. 1974. Verb-object agreement in Hungarian. In Papers from the tenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. Michael W. La Galy, Robert A. Fox, and Anthony Bruck, 701–711. Google Scholar
  90. Thomsen, Vilhelm. 1912. A magyar tárgyas ragozásról néhany megjegyzés [Remarks on the Hungarian objective conjugation]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 41: 26–29. Google Scholar
  91. Torrego, Esther. 1995a. From argumental to non-argumental pronouns: Spanish doubled reflexives. Probus 7: 221–241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Torrego, Esther. 1995b. On the nature of clitic doubling. In Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory, eds. Hector Campos and Paula Kemchinsky, 399–418. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Google Scholar
  93. Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. On government. PhD diss., University of Connecticut. Google Scholar
  94. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–124. Google Scholar
  95. Wald, Benji. 1979. The development of the Swahili object marker: A study of the interaction of syntax and discourse. In Discourse and syntax, ed. Talmy Givón. Vol. 12 of Syntax and semantics, 505–524. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General LinguisticsHeinrich Heine UniversityDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations