Advertisement

Quantification in Hungarian

  • Aniko CsirmazEmail author
  • Anna Szabolcsi
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 90)

Abstract

This chapter illustrates various semantic types of quantifiers, such as generalized existential, generalized universal, proportional, definite and partitive which are defined in the Quantifier Questionnaire in Chapter 1. It partitions the expression of the semantic types into morpho-syntactic classes: Adverbial type quantifiers and Nominal (or Determiner) type quantifiers. For the various semantic and morpho-syntactic types of quantifiers it also distinguishes syntactically simple and syntactically complex quantifiers, as well as issues of distributivity and scope interaction, classifiers and measure expressions, and existential constructions. The chapter describes structural properties of determiners and quantified noun phrases in Hungarian, both in terms of internal structure (morphological or syntactic) and distribution.

Keywords

Hungarian Semantic Morpho-syntactic Quantifiers Classifiers Determiners Quantified noun Phrases 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge our language consultants who provided judgements for some of the examples, especially Barbara Egedi, Beáta Gyuris and György Rákosi as well as an anonymous reviewer and the editors.

References

  1. Abrusán, Márta. 2007. Even and free choice any in Hungarian. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, eds. L. McNally and E. Puig-Walmüller, 1–15. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
  2. Balusu, Rahul. 2006. Distributive reduplication in Telugu. In Proceedings of NELS 36, eds. C. Davis, A.R. Deal and Y. Zabbal, 39–53. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  3. Beckwith, Christopher. 1992. Classifiers in Hungarian. In Approaches to Hungarian 4: The structure of Hungarian, eds. I. Kenesei and Cs. Pléh, 197–206. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
  4. Bernardi, Raffaella, and Anna Szabolcsi. 2008. Optionality, scope and licensing: An application of partially ordered categories. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brody, Michael, and Anna Szabolcsi. 2003. Overt scope in Hungarian. Syntax 6:19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Csirmaz, Aniko. 2009. Adverbs of counting, frequency and quantification: Flexibility and rigidity. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 56:131–168. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Csirmaz, Aniko, and Éva Dékány. in press. Hungarian is a classifier language. In Proceedings of the word classes 2010 conference, eds. R. Simone and F. Masini. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  8. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  9. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1994. Sentence structure and word order. In The syntactic structure of Hungarian. Syntax and semantics 27, eds. K.É. Kiss and F. Kiefer. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge Syntax Guides. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. É. Kiss, Katalin. 2009. Adverbs and adverbial adjuncts at the interfaces. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Eckardt, Regine. 2006. To be or not to be a determiner. In Meaning change in grammaticalization, 202–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Farkas, Donka, and Henriëtte de Swart. 2003. The semantics of incorporation. From argument structure to discourse transparency. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  14. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. Negative ... concord? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18:457–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hunyadi, László. 1999. The outlines of a metrical syntax of Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 46:69–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunyadi, László. 2002. Hungarian sentence prosody and universal grammar. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, Scott. 2008. The prosody – scope relation in Hungarian. In Papers from the Veszprém conference. Approaches to Hungarian 10, eds. C. Piñón and S. Szentgyörgyi, 83–102. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
  18. Kenesei, István, Robert Michael Vago, and Anna Fenyvesi. 1998. Hungarian. Descriptive grammars. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Kenesei, István (ed.). 1985–2011. Approaches to Hungarian. Vols. 1–7 published by University of Szeged Press, Szeged; Vols. 8–10 by Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest; Vols. 11–12 by John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Kiefer, Ferenc, and Katalin É. Kiss. 1994. The syntactic structure of Hungarian. Syntax and semantics 27. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nam, Seungho. 1994. Another type of negative polarity item. In Dynamics, polarity and quantification, eds. Makoto Kanazawa and Christopher Piñón. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  23. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1994. Positive and negative polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Puskás, Genovéva. 1998. On the neg-criterion in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45: 167–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Siptár, Péter, and Miklós Törkenczy. 2007. The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Surányi, Balázs. 2002. Negation and the negativity of n-words in Hungarian. In Approaches to Hungarian 8. Papers from the Budapest conference, eds. I. Kenesei and P. Siptár. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
  27. Surányi, Balázs. 2003. Multiple operator movement in Hungarian. PhD thesis, UiL OTS, Utrecht University, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  28. Surányi, Balázs. 2006. Quantification and focus in negative concord. Lingua 116:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. The semantics of topic-focus articulation. In Formal methods in the study of language, eds. J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, 53–541. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
  30. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The noun phrase. In The syntactic structure of Hungarian. Syntax and semantics 27, eds. K.É. Kiss and F. Kiefer, 179–275. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Ways of scope taking, ed. A. Szabolcsi, 109–154. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  32. Szabolcsi, Anna. 2010. Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Tóth, Ildikó. 1999. Negative polarity licensing in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 46:119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yoshimura, Keiko. 2007. Focus and polarity: ‘even’ and ‘only’ in Japanese. PhD dissertation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations