Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 345–371 | Cite as

A semantic solution to the problem of Hungarian object agreement

  • Elizabeth Coppock


This paper offers a semantically-based solution to the problem of predicting whether a verb will display the subjective conjugation or the objective conjugation in Hungarian. This alternation correlates with the definiteness of the object, but definiteness is not a completely reliable indicator of the subjective/objective alternation, nor is specificity. A prominent view is that the subjective/objective alternation is conditioned by the syntactic category of the object, but this view has also been shown to be untenable. This paper offers a semantic solution: If the referential argument of a phrase is lexically specified as familiar/new, then the phrase bears the feature [+DEF]/[−DEF], and this feature governs the conjugations. The notions of novelty and familiarity are made precise using a compositional version of DRT in the context of a suitably large fragment of Hungarian, including local and non-local personal pronouns, demonstratives, definite and indefinite articles, quantifiers, wh-words, numerals, and possessives.


Hungarian Definiteness Compositional DRT Object agreement Presupposition 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abusch, D., and M. Rooth. 2002. Empty domain effects for presuppositional and non-presuppositional determiners. In Context dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning, ed. H. Kamp and B. Partee, 7–27. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Bartos, H. 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, ed. G.M. Alexandrova and O. Arnaudova, 311–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  3. Beaver, D. 2001. Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Bittner, M. 2001. Topical referents for individuals and possibilities. In Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11, ed. R. Hastings, B. Jackson, and Z. Zvolenszky, 33–55. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Bos, J. 2003. Implementing the binding and accommodation theory for anaphora resolution and presupposition projection. Computational Linguistics 29(2): 179–210.Google Scholar
  6. Brasoveanu, A. 2007. Structured nominal and modal reference. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  7. Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Chisarik, E. 2002. Partitive noun phrases in Hungarian. In The proceedings of the LFG ’02 conference, ed. M. Butt and T.H. King, 96–115. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Comrie B. (1977) Subjects and direct objects in Uralic languages: A functional explanation of case-marking systems. Études Finno-Ourgriennes 12: 5–17Google Scholar
  10. Coppock, E., and S. 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. T.H. King, 165–185. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Coppock, E., and S. Wechsler. 2012. The objective conjugation in Hungarian: Agreement without phi-features. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 699–740.Google Scholar
  12. É. Kiss, K. 2000. The Hungarian noun phrase is like the English noun phrase. In Papers from the Pécs conference, volume 7 of Approaches to Hungarian, ed. G. Alberti and I. Kenesei, 121–149. Szeged: JATE Press.Google Scholar
  13. É. Kiss, K. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. É. Kiss, K. 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, ed. H. Broekhuis, N. Corver, R. Huybregts, U. Kleinhenz, and J. Koster. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  15. Enç M. (1991) The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25Google Scholar
  16. Farkas D. (2002) Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19(3): 213–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerland, D., and A. Ortmann. 2009. Alienability splits in Hungarian. Paper presented at ‘Verbal and nominal possession’ workshop, January 29, 2009.Google Scholar
  18. Grimshaw, J. 1991. Extended projection. Ms., Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof. 1992. A note on interrogatives and adverbs of quantification. In Proceedings from the second conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, ed. C. Barker and D. Dowty, 99–124. Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  20. Haida, A. 2007. The indefiniteness and focusing of wh-words. PhD thesis, Humboldt University Berlin.Google Scholar
  21. Haida, A. 2008. The indefiniteness and focusing of question words. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 18, ed. T. Friedman and S. Ito, 376–393. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  22. Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  23. Heim, I. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of the second West Coast conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. D. Flickinger, M. Barlow, and M. Westcoat, 114–125. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Heim, I., and A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. i Girbau, N.M. 2010. The syntax of partitives. PhD thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  26. Kallulli, D. 2000. Direct object clitic doubling in Albanian and Greek. In Clitic phenomena in European languages, 209–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  27. Kamp, H. 2010. Discourse structure and the structure of contexts. Manuscript, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  28. Kamp, H. 2011. Representing de se thoughts and their reports. Ms., University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  29. Kamp, H., and U. Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  30. Kamp, H., J. van Genabith, and U. Reyle. 2011. Discourse representation theory. In Handbook of philosophical logic, ed. D.M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, vol. 15, 125–394. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Kaplan D. (1978) On the logic of demonstratives. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 81–98Google Scholar
  32. Kohlhase, M., S. Kuschert, and M. Pinkal. 1996. A type-theoretic semantics for λ-DRT. In Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam colloquium, ed. P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, 479–498. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  33. Lappin S., Reinhart T. (1988) Presuppositional effects of strong determiners: A processing account. Linguistics 26: 1021–1037Google Scholar
  34. Löbner, S. 2000. Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 213–308.Google Scholar
  35. López L. (2009) A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muskens R. (1996) Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Özge, U. 2012. On the “strength” of indefinites: A view from Turkish. Talk presented at Heinrich Heine University, February 9, 2012.Google Scholar
  38. Partee, B.H. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, ed. J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, and M. Stokhof, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  39. Partee, B., and V. Borschev. 2003. Genitives, relational nouns, and argument-modifier ambiguity. In Modifying adjuncts, ed. E. Lang, C. Maienborn, and C. Fabricius-Hansen, 67–112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  40. Pesetsky, D. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. A. ter Meulen and E. Reuland, 98–129. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pollard, C., and I.A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rizzi L. (1986) Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–157Google Scholar
  43. Roberts C. (2003) Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 287–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stone, M. 1997. The anaphoric parallel between modality and tense. Technical Report, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science (IRCS), 97-06, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  45. Szabolcsi, A. 1994. The noun phrase. In The syntactic structure of Hungarian, ed. F. Kiefer and K. É. Kiss, vol. 27, 179–274. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  46. van der Sandt, R.A. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377.Google Scholar
  47. van Leusen, N., and R. Muskens. 2003. Construction by description in discourse representation. In Meaning: The dynamic turn, ed. J. Peregrin, 33–65. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  48. Vikner, C., and P.A. Jensen. 2002. A semantic analysis of the English genitive: Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica 56: 191–226.Google Scholar
  49. Wechsler, S. 2010. What ‘you’ and ‘I’ mean to each other: Person marking, self-ascription, and theory of mind. Language 86 (2): 332–365.Google Scholar
  50. Yee, C.W.-J. 2011. A lexical approach to presupposition and meaning. PhD thesis, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations