Cover not available
Part of
Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba Conference
Edited by Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi and Éva Dékány
[Approaches to Hungarian 14] 2015
► pp. 167–185

Free Choice and Aspect in Hungarian

ORCID logo
The goal of this paper is to explore the interaction of verbal particles and FCIs in Hungarian. Our proposed solution is that sentences containing verbal particles and FCIs are interpreted as generics/habituals, where the FC-phrase (analyzed as a dependent indefinite) is bound (and thus, licensed) by a silent gen operator carried by the verbal particle. This proposal is supported by independent evidence (both from Hungarian and cross-linguistic) and fits into current theories FCIs, genericity and the quantificational force of verbal particles. Beside finding that verbal particles in Hungarian are capable of generic quantification, we also show that (1) genericity in Hungarian is primarily a pragmatic phenomenon and that (2) languages differ in terms of the formal semantics of individual-level predicates (presence/absence of inherent gen operator), and that the licensing of FCIs can be used as a diagnostic tool for this. Our paper also sheds light on the conundrum why FCIs are straightforwardly licensed in generics in many languages (e.g. English) but not in Hungarian. Our results also lend considerable further empirical support to the dependent indefinite analysis of FCIs.
Published online: 3 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.14.07hal
References (52)
References
Aloni, Maria. 2007. Free choice, modals, and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics 15. 65–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abrusán, Márta. 2007. “Even and Free-choice any in Hungarian”. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, ed. by Estela Puig-Waldmüller, 1–15. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Alberti, Gábor. 2004. “Climbing for Aspect: With no Rucksack”. In Verb Clusters. A Study of Hungarian, German and Dutch, ed. by Katalin É. Kiss and Henk van Riemsdijk, 253–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Genericity in Hungarian”, Handout, ICSH9, Debrecen.
Aloni, Maria. 2002. “Free Choice in Modal Contexts”. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7, ed. by Matthias Weisgerber, 25–37. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Free Choice, Modals, and Imperatives.” Natural Language Semantics 15: 65–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arsenijevic, Boban. 2007. “A Unified Analysis of Two Classes of Slavic Verb-Prefixes”. In Proceedings of ConSOLE XIV . Leiden.
Baker, Charles. L. 1970. “Double Negatives.” Linguistic Inquiry 1: 169–186.Google Scholar
Behrens, Leila. 2000. Typological Parameters of Genericity. (Arbeitspapier Nr. 37 (Neue Folge)). Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. 1977. “Reference to Kinds in English”. University of Massachusetts/Amherst, dissertation.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. “‘Individual-level Predicates as Inherent Generics’”. In The Generic Book, ed. by Gregory N. Carlson and Francis J. Pelletier, 176–223. University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1995. “The Marking of the Episodic/Generic Distinction in Tense-Aspect Systems.” In The Generic Book, ed. by N. Carlson and Francis J. Pelletier, 412–425. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1997. “Free Choice and Ever: Identity and Free Choice Readings. In Proceedings of SALT 7, ed. by Aaron Lawson, 99–116. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Any as Inherently Modal.” Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 353–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dékány Éva, Márkus Andrea. 2009. “Reduplication in Hungarian”. The Third Scandinavian Ph.D. Conference in Linguistics and Philology in Bergen , abstract.
Dikken, Marcel den 2004. “Agreement and “clause union.” In Katalin É. Kiss and Henkvan Riemsdijk (eds.), 445–495.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.-M., and R. Slabakova. 2005. “Quantification and Aspect”. In Perspectives on Aspect, ed. by A. Van Hout, H. de Swart, and H.J. Verkuyl, 61–80. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisner, Jason. 1995. “ ∀-less in Wonderland? Revisiting any .” In Proceedings of ESCOL 11, ed. by J. Fuller, H. Han, and D. Parkinson. Ithaca, NY: DMLL Publications.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “The Function and the Syntax of the Verbal Particle”. In Event Structure and the Left Periphery, ed. by É. Kiss Katalin, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eszes, Boldizsár. 2006. “A habituális mondatok eseményszerkezete [The event structure of habitual sentences]”. In LingDok 5 [Proceedings of the 8th Conference of Doctoral Students in Linguistice], ed. by G. Gárgyán and B. Sinkovics, Szeged.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. “Pragmatic Scales and Logical Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry 353–376.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 1996. “Quantification, Aspect and Lexicon”. In Proceedings of FORMAL GRAMMAR, ed. by Geert-Jan Kruijff, Glynn Morrill, and Dick Oehrle, 43–56. Eighth European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information. Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
Filip, H., and G.Carlson. 1997. “Sui Generis Genericity”. In Proceedings of the 21st Penn Linguistics Colloquium (Vol. 4).Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1997. The Landscape of Polarity Items. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.
. 2001. “The Meaning of Free Choice”. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 659–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Josep Quer. 2012. “Against Universal Free Choice: Free Choice and Referentially Vague Indefinites in Greek, Catalan, and Spanish”. Ms. under submission.
Halm, Tamás. 2013. “Free Choice and Focus: FCIs in Hungarian”. In Proceedings of the Second Central European Conference in Linguistics for Postgraduate Students, ed. by Balázsi Surány. Budapest: Pázmány Péter Catholic University.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. “The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachussetts at Amherst. Garland, New York.
Hoeksema, Jack, and Hotze Rullmann. 2000. “Scalarity and polarity.” In Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items, ed. by J. Hoeksema, H. Rullmann, V. Sanchez-Valencia, and T. van der Wouden, 129–171. Linguistik Aktuell.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1972. “On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Linguistics.
Kadmon, Nirit, and Fred Landman. 1993. “Any”. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 353–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 1996. “Prefix Reduplication in Hungarian”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 43: 175–194.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1995. “Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates”. In The Generic Book, ed. by G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. “Indeterminate Pronouns: The View from Japanese”. In The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. by Yukio Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, et al. 1995. “Genericity: An Introduction”. In The Generic Book, ed. by G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier, 1–124. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kroch, Antony. 1975. The Semantics of Scope in English. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, A. William. 1979. “Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, reproduced by IULC, 1980.
Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. “Focus and Negative Polarity in Hindi.” Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1972. “Analyses of Negation in English.” Doctoral Dissertation, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2010. “On Universal Free Choice Items”. Natural Language Semantics 18 (1): 33–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1986. “The Airport Squib: Any, Almost and Superlatives.” In Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara Partee , 31–40. Oxford: Blackwell.
Piñón, Christopher 1991. “Falling in Paradise: Verbs, Preverbs, and Reduplication in Hungarian”. Handout for Syntax Workshop Talk , Stanford University, 21 May 1991.
Piñon, Christopher 1995. “Around the Progressive in Hungarian”. In István Kenesei (ed.), 153–190.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. (2005). “Time and the Event: The Semantics of Russian Prefixes”. Nordlyd, 32(2). Rimell (2004)Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. “Association with Focus.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachussetts.
Schubert, Lenhart K., and Francis Jeffry Pelletier. 1989. “Generically Speaking, or, Using Discourse Representation Theory to Interpret Generics.” In Properties, Types and Meaning, Volume II: Semantic Issues, ed. by G. Chierchia, et al., 193–268. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabó, Martina. 2012. A bárki nem akárki, avagy a bár- és akár- elemek eltérő nyelvi sajátságai. [ Bárki and akárki are not the same: grammatical differences of bár- and akár-words]. Paper presented at the Conference of Doctoral Students, University of Szeged, 31 May.
Tenny, Carol 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tóth, Ildikó. 1999. “Negative Polarity Item Licensing in Hungarian.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 46: 119–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vogel, Carl, and Michelle McGillion. 2002. “Genericity is Conceptual, not Semantic”. In Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Logic and Language, ed. by G. Alberti, K. Balogh, and P. Dekker, 163–172. University of Pés.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Kardos, Éva
2024. Culmination phenomena across languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 18:5 DOI logo
Halm, Tamás
2019. The semantics of weak imperatives revisited: Evidence from free-choice item licensing. Acta Linguistica Academica 66:4 ► pp. 445 ff. DOI logo
Lipták, Anikó & Andrés Saab
2019. Hungarian particle reduplication as local doubling. Acta Linguistica Academica 66:4 ► pp. 527 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 august 2024. 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.