Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 41:1 (2024) ► pp.99–126

Reconstructing the decoupling of case and agreement in Old Hungarian

Evidence from epithets and names as syntactic fossils

ORCID logo | Pázmány Péter Catholic University | Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics
The interdependence of accusative case and object agreement has changed dramatically during the history of Ugric languages. While Proto-Ugric exhibited full interdependence (mediated by topicality), this connection has loosened in the extant Ob-Ugric languages (Mansi and Khanty), and it is severed completely in Late to Modern Hungarian. In this paper, I introduce new, hitherto unreported empirical evidence from nicknames and family names that preserve archaic syntactic features for an intermediate stage of Early Old Hungarian (which predates our earliest written records) where case assignment was still a function of topicality but object agreement was already a function of definiteness. In addition to providing insight into an unrecorded stage of Hungarian, my findings also contribute to a more thorough understanding of the connection between case, agreement and information structure in Ugric and beyond.
Keywords: case, agreement, information structure, syntactic reconstruction, Ugric, Uralic, Old Hungarian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Case and agreement in Ugric, and the challenge of Hungarian
  • 3.New evidence: Archaic syntax preserved in personal names
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1A dependent case analysis of Early Old Hungarian
    • 4.2Against an incorporation analysis
    • 4.3The underrepresentation of the -ja allomorph
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 25 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.23020.hal
References (43)
References
Asztalos, Erika, Katalin Gugán & Nikolett Mus. 2017. Uráli VX szórend: Nyenyec, hanti és udmurt mondatszerkezeti változatok [Uralic VX word order: Nenets, Khanty and Udmurt clause structure variants]. In Katalin É. Kiss, Attila Hegedűs & Lilla Pintér (eds.) Nyelvelmélet és diakrónia 3. Budapest & Piliscsaba, Hungary: PPKE BTK. 30–62.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2015. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakró-Nagy, Marianne. 1999. A magyar határozott névelő kialakulásának szintaktikai vonatkozásai. [Syntactic aspects of the development of the Hungarian definite article] In László Büky & Tamás Forgács (eds.) A nyelvtörténeti kutatások újabb eredményei I. Magyar és finnugor mondattörténet. Szeged, JATE Magyar Nyelvészeti Tanszék, 5–13Google Scholar
Bartos, Huba. 2000. Az inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere [The syntactic background of Hungarian inflection phenomena]. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.) Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 3. Morfológia. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 653–760.Google Scholar
. 2001. Object agreement in Hungarian: A case for Minimalism. In Galina M. Alexandrova & Olga Arnaudova (eds.) The Minimalist parameter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 311–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bárány, András. 2017. Person, case, and agreement: The morphosyntax of inverse agreement and global case splits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bíró, Bernadett & Katalin Sipőcz. 2017. The Mansi ditransitive constructions. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 6(1). 41–55.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 1998. The case of Proto-Karnic: Morphological change and reconstruction in the nominal and pronominal system of Proto-Karnic (Lake Eyre Basin). Canberra, Australia: Australian National University BA thesis.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale. A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elisabeth. 2013. A semantic solution to the problem of Hungarian object agreement. Natural Language Semantics 21(4). 345–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. Object agreement in Hungarian: In defense of a semantic solution. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 1(1). 121–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Csepregi, Márta. 1997. Russische Einflüsse in der Südostjakischen Syntax. In Sirkka-Liisa Hahmo, Tette Hofstra, László Honti, Paul van Linde & Os Nikkila (eds.) Finnisch-ugrische Sprachen in Kontakt, 71–77. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Shaker Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2019. Kontaktusjelenségek az északnyugat-szibériai nyelvi areában [Contact phenomena in the linguistic area of North-Western Siberia]. In Katalin É. Kiss, Attila Hegedűs, & Lilla Pintér (eds.) Nyelvelmélet és kontaktológia 4 1, 77–102. Budapest & Piliscsaba, Hungary: PPKE BTK.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2004. Agreement and ‘clause union’. In Katalin É. Kiss & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.) Verb clusters: A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch, 445–498. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Döbrentei, Gábor. 1842. Berzsenyi Dániel összes müvei: Költelem’s folyóbeszéd, 2. kötet [The Collected Works of Dániel Berzsenyi: Poetry and Prose, volume 2]. Buda, Hungary: Egyetemi Nyomda.Google Scholar
Egedi, Barbara. 2013. Grammatical encoding of referentiality in the history of Hungarian In Anna Giacolone Ramat, Caterina Mauri & Piera Molinelli (eds.) Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface, 367–390. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The DP-cycle in Hungarian and the functional extension of the noun phrase. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.) The evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax, 56–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2013a. From Proto-Hungarian SOV to Old Hungarian Top Foc V X*. Diachronica 30:2, 202–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. The inverse agreement constraint in Uralic languages. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 2(1). 2–21.Google Scholar
. 2017. The person–case constraint and the inverse agreement constraint are manifestations of the same inverse topicality constraint. The Linguistic Review 34(2). 365–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. What determines the varying relation of case and agreement? Evidence from the Ugric languages. Acta Linguistica Academica 67(4). 397–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filchenko, Andrey. 2007. A grammar of Eastern Khanty. Houston, TX: Rice University dissertation.
Givón, Talmy. 1975. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li & Sandra Thompson (eds.) Subject and topic, 149–188. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halm, Tamás. 2021. Radically truncated clauses in Hungarian and beyond: Evidence for the fine structure of the minimal VP. Syntax 24(3). 376–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horger, Antal. 1931. A magyar igeragozás története. [The history of conjugation in Hungarian] Szeged: M. Kir. Ferenc József Egyetem Barátainak Egyesülete. 761.Google Scholar
I. Gallasy, Magdolna. 1992. A névelők [The articles]. In Loránd Benkő (ed.) A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana II/1. A kései ómagyar kor. Morfematika, 716–770. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Imre, Samu. 1971. A mai magyar nyelvjárások rendszere. [The dialect system of contemporary Hungarian.] Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István & Krisztina Szécsényi. 2022. Hungarian. In Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.) The Oxford guide to the Uralic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kulonen, Ulla-Maija. 1989. The passive in Ob-Ugrian. MSFOu 203. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Layton, Scott C. 1990. Archaic features of Canaanite personal names in the Hebrew Bible. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. Paper presented at The 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. University of Maryland.
Melich, János. 1913. A magyar tárgyas igeragozás. [Object conjugation in Hungarian.] Magyar Nyelv 9:1, 1–14.Google Scholar
Mikes, Kelemen. 1794. István Kultsár (ed.), Törökországi levelek. [Letters from Turkey.] Szombathely, Hungary: Siess Antal.Google Scholar
Munich Codex. 1416/1466. In Antal Nyíri (ed.) A Müncheni Kódex 1466-ból. Kritikai szövegkiadás a latin megfelelővel együtt, [The Munich Codex of 1466. Critical edition with Latin correspondences.] 1971. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. Ostyak. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Rebrus, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy. 2015. Monotonicity and the typology of front/back harmony. Theoretical Linguistics 41(1–2). 1–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riese, Timothy. 2001. Vogul. Languages of the world/materials 158. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Skribnik, Elena. 2001. Pragmatic structuring in Northern Mansi. In Tönu Seidenthal (ed.) Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno-ugristarum. Pars IV. Dissertationes sectionum: Linguistica III 1, 222–239. Tartu, Estonia: Tartu University.
Sosa, Sachiko. 2017. Functions of morphosyntactic alternations, and information flow in Surgut Khanty discourse. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.
Szabó, Sándor. 1902. A magyar magánhangzóilleszkedés. [Vowel harmony in Hungarian.] Budapest.Google Scholar
Vienna Codex. Mid-15th C. In Gedeon Mészöly (ed.) Bécsi Codex (Új Nyelvemléktár 1) [Vienna Codex (New collection of language records, vol. 1)]. Budapest, 1916.Google Scholar
Virtanen, Susanna. 2014. Pragmatic object marking in Eastern Mansi. Linguistics 52(2). 391–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Transitivity in Eastern Mansi. An information structural approach. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.