Arguments for arguments in the complement zone of the Hungarian nominal head
This paper argues that a Hungarian nominal head may have a phonetically non-empty complement zone — if certain “felicity conditions” are satisfied. Our approach relies on the introduction of two new constituency tests (based on certain properties of the contrastive topic and on the order of certain functional heads), instead of the earlier ones. Another crucial element to our solution is the reinterpretation of É. Kiss’s Constraint on Case Assignment as a Behaghel-type phonetic rule, which prevails in a graded way, instead of providing a black and white picture. Our approach can also be put into the cross-linguistic discussion of branchingness. It is claimed on the basis of our data that branchingness in Hungarian can be accounted for by a generalized version of Hinterhölzl’s (“Germanic”) weight condition; and the differences between Hungarian and, for instance, German in branchingness can simply be attributed to differences between these languages in the prosodic sensitivity of phases.
References (24)
References
Abeillé, Anne and Godard, Danièle. 2000 “French word order and lexical weight”. In The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, Syntax and Semantics, Robert Borsley (ed), 325–358. New York: Academic Press. 

Alberti, Gábor. 1997. “Restrictions on the Degree of Referentiality of Arguments in Hungarian Sentences”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44 (3-4): 341–362.
Alberti, Gábor. 2004. “Climbing for Aspect – with no Rucksack.” In Verb Clusters; A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. Linguistics Today 69, Katalin É. Kiss and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 253–289. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 

Alberti, Gábor, and Farkas, Judit. 2013. “Book review: Syntax of Dutch, Nouns and Noun Phrases”. Lingua 133: 375–384. 

Alberti Gábor and Medve Anna. 2000. “Focus Constructions and the “Scope–Inversion Puzzle” in Hungarian”. Approaches to Hungarian 7, Gábor Alberti and István Kenesei (eds), 93–118. Szeged: JATE Press.
Alberti Gábor and Medve Anna. 2002/2005. Generatív grammatikai gyakorlókönyv. Budapest: Janus Books / Gondolat.
Bartos Huba. 2000 “Az inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere.” In Strukturális magyar nyelvtan. I. Mondattan, Kiefer Ferenc (ed), 653–762. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Broekhuis, Hans and Keizer, Evelien and Dikken, Marcel den. 2012. Syntax of Dutch – Nouns and Noun Phrases, Vol I-II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001 “Derivation by phase.” In Ken Hale: a life in language, Michael Kenstowitz (ed), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
É. Kiss Katalin. 1992 “Az egyszerű mondat szerkezete”. In Strukturális magyar nyelvtan. I. Mondattan, Kiefer Ferenc (ed), 79–179. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
É. Kiss Katalin. 1998 “Mondattan”. In Új magyar nyelvtan, É. Kiss Katalin and Kiefer Ferenc and Siptár Péter (eds), 15–184. Budapest: Osiris.
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2000. “The Hungarian Noun Phrase is like the English Noun Phrase”. Approaches to Hungarian 7, Gábor Alberti and István Kenesei (eds), 119–149. Szeged: JATE Press.
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 119–149. 

É. Kiss, Katalin. 2009 “Is free postverbal order in Hungarian a syntactic or a PF phenomenon?” In: The Sound Pattern of Syntax, Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Lisa Rochman (eds), 53–71. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2010. “Collapsing the Head Final Filter and the Head Complement Parameter”. Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 35–65. Venice: University of Venice.
Kiefer, Ferenc(ed.). 1992. Strukturális magyar nyelvtan I. Mondattan. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Koopman, Hilda and Szabolcsi, Anna. 1998. Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Laczkó Tibor. 2000 “Az ige argumentumszerkezetét megőrző főnévképzés.” In Strukturális magyar nyelvtan. III. Morfológia, Kiefer Ferenc (ed), 293–452. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Lehmann, Christian. 1988 “On the Function of Agreement”. In Agreement in Natural Languages. Approaches, Theories, Descriptions, M. Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), 55–65. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Lipták, Anikó K. 2011. “A fragmentumok mondattana a magyarban”. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XXIII, Bartos Huba (ed), 317–349.
Rákosi, György. 2009. “Ablative causes in Hungarian”. Approaches to Hungarian 11, Marcel den Dikken and Robert M. Vago (eds.), 167–196. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 

Szabolcsi, Anna and Laczkó, Tibor. 1992 “A főnévi csoport szerkezete”. In Strukturális magyar nyelvtan. I. Mondattan, Kiefer Ferenc (ed), 179–298. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Szendrői, Kriszta. 2003. “A strees-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus”. The Linguistic Review 20. 37–78. 

Williams, Edwin. 1982. “Another argument that passive is transformational”. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 160–163.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Dékány, Éva
2021.
Possessive DPs. In
The Hungarian Nominal Functional Sequence [
Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 100],
► pp. 159 ff.

Alberti, Gábor, Judit Farkas & Veronika Szabó
Alberti, Gábor & Judit Farkas
2015.
Az elidegeníthető birtoklást kifejező -j- képző esete a -(Vt)t főnévképzővel és más főnévképzőkkel.
Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 2:1
► pp. 1 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.