Skip to main content

A semantic solution to the problem of Hungarian object agreement


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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Beaver, D. 2001. Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  • 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.

  • Bos, J. 2003. Implementing the binding and accommodation theory for anaphora resolution and presupposition projection. Computational Linguistics 29(2): 179–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brasoveanu, A. 2007. Structured nominal and modal reference. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.

  • Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

  • 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.

  • Comrie B. (1977) Subjects and direct objects in Uralic languages: A functional explanation of case-marking systems. Études Finno-Ourgriennes 12: 5–17

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • É. Kiss, K. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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.

  • Enç M. (1991) The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas D. (2002) Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19(3): 213–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerland, D., and A. Ortmann. 2009. Alienability splits in Hungarian. Paper presented at ‘Verbal and nominal possession’ workshop, January 29, 2009.

  • Grimshaw, J. 1991. Extended projection. Ms., Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.

  • 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.

  • Haida, A. 2007. The indefiniteness and focusing of wh-words. PhD thesis, Humboldt University Berlin.

  • 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.

  • Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD thesis, MIT.

  • 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.

  • Heim, I., and A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • i Girbau, N.M. 2010. The syntax of partitives. PhD thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

  • Kallulli, D. 2000. Direct object clitic doubling in Albanian and Greek. In Clitic phenomena in European languages, 209–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Kamp, H. 2010. Discourse structure and the structure of contexts. Manuscript, University of Stuttgart.

  • Kamp, H. 2011. Representing de se thoughts and their reports. Ms., University of Stuttgart.

  • Kamp, H., and U. Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • 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.

  • Kaplan D. (1978) On the logic of demonstratives. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 81–98

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Lappin S., Reinhart T. (1988) Presuppositional effects of strong determiners: A processing account. Linguistics 26: 1021–1037

    Google Scholar 

  • Löbner, S. 2000. Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 213–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • López L. (2009) A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Muskens R. (1996) Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özge, U. 2012. On the “strength” of indefinites: A view from Turkish. Talk presented at Heinrich Heine University, February 9, 2012.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Pollard, C., and I.A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Rizzi L. (1986) Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts C. (2003) Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 287–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, M. 1997. The anaphoric parallel between modality and tense. Technical Report, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science (IRCS), 97-06, University of Pennsylvania.

  • 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.

  • van der Sandt, R.A. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Yee, C.W.-J. 2011. A lexical approach to presupposition and meaning. PhD thesis, Universität Stuttgart.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Coppock.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coppock, E. A semantic solution to the problem of Hungarian object agreement. Nat Lang Semantics 21, 345–371 (2013).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Hungarian
  • Definiteness
  • Compositional DRT
  • Object agreement
  • Presupposition