Cover not available
Part of
Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Karolina Krawczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcin Grygiel
[Human Cognitive Processing 73] 2022
► pp. 83–114

Chapter 4
‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend.’

Similarities motivated by contrasts in Hungarian sentence structure

| Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
In Hungarian generative grammar, the terms topic and focus designate structural positions associated with logico-semantic functions. The present chapter highlights the fact that elements sharing the behaviour of “topics” and “foci” are highly varied, and that logico-semantic definitions only capture prioritized subsets of the relevant data. I argue that preverbal, inversion-triggering elements (“foci” and the negative particle) are overriders, with their semantic commonality depending on relationships of contrast vis-à-vis a baseline clause type, that of neutral positive declarative clauses. With regard to sentence-initial, weakly stressed expressions (“topics” and “sentence adverbials”), I propose that they are contextualizers, generating supporting context for the processing of a message. Here, the baseline can be identified as the situation where no explicit contextualization is necessary. The possibility for two patterns to be similar indirectly, by virtue of standing in contrast with a third one, will be referred to as the ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ principle of linguistic organization.
Keywords: baseline, contextualization, contrast, focus, overriding, topic
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Shared behaviour, diverse meanings: Two puzzles of Hungarian sentence structure
  • 3.Inversion as a way of marking departures from baseline clauses. “Foci” as overriders
  • 4.Topics as a subtype of contextualizers
  • 5.Summary and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.73.04imr
References (50)
References
Arany, J. 1873. A szórend. [Word order.] Magyar Nyelvőr, 2, 7–11.Google Scholar
Brassai, S. 2011 [1860]. A magyar mondat. Első értekezés. [The Hungarian sentence. First treatise.] In A magyar mondat (12–94). Texts selected by László Elekfi and Ferenc Kiefer. Budapest: Tinta.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (25–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1994. Speech act classification, language typology and cognition. In S. L. Tsoha­tzidis (Ed.), Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives (460–477). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. 2005. Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, K. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Mondattan. [Syntax.] In É. Kiss, K. Siptár, & F. Kiefer (Eds.) Új magyar nyelvtan (1–126). Budapest: Osiris.Google Scholar
2006. Focusing as predication. In V. Molnár, & S. Winkler (Eds.), The architecture of focus (169–196). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008. Tagadás vagy egyeztetés? A senki, semmi típusú névmások szórendi helye, jelentése és hangsúlyozása. [Negation or concord? The word order, interpretation and prosody of se-pronouns.] Magyar Nyelv, 104, 129–143.Google Scholar
2009. Topic and focus: Two structural positions associated with logical functions in the left periphery of the Hungarian sentence. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55(3/4), 287–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farina, M. 2017. The Syro-Arabic glosses to Barhebraeus’ Metrical Grammar. In P. Molinelli (Ed.), Language and identity in multilingual Mediterranean settings (157–170). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gécseg Zs., & Kiefer, F. 2009. A new look at information structure in Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27, 583–622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax. An introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th edition. Revised by Christian Matthiessen. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 88–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imrényi, A. 2012. Inversion in English and Hungarian: Comparison from a cognitive perspective. In Hart, C. (Ed.), Selected papers from UK-CLA meetings. Vol. 1, 209–228.Google Scholar
2017a. Az elemi mondat viszonyhálózata. [The network structure of clauses.] In G. Tolcsvai Nagy (Ed.), Nyelvtan. [Grammar] (664–760). Budapest: Osiris.Google Scholar
2017b. Form-meaning correspondences in multiple dimensions: The structure of Hungarian finite clauses. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 287–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imrényi, A., & Vladár, Zs. 2020. Sámuel Brassai in the history of dependency grammar. In A. Imrényi, & N. Mazziotta (Eds.), Chapters of dependency grammar: A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière (164–187). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, J. 2001. The dimensions of topic–comment. Linguistics, 39(4), 641–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A. 2015. Cognitive linguistics in the year 2015. Cognitive Semantics, 1, 131–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kas, B. 2005. Az óhajtó mondatok kategóriája. [The category of optative-desiderative sentences.] Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, 102, 136–174.Google Scholar
Kugler, N. 2020. Contextualizing clauses. Studia Linguistica Hungarica, 32, 76–90.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2001. Topic, subject, and possessor. In H. G. Simonsen, & R. T. Endresen (Eds.), A cognitive approach to the verb. Morphological and constructional perspectives (11–48). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Semantic motivation of the English auxiliary. In K.–U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (29–48). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Substrate, system, and expression: Aspects of the functional organization of English finite clauses. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli, & M. Ž. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation (3–52). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2016. Baseline and elaboration. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(3), 405–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
This volume. What could be more fundamental?
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (458–489). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. 2002. Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In E. J. Francis, & L. A. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Modrián-Horváth, B. 2015. Topik und Thema. Untersuchungen zur Informationsstruktur in Deutschen und Ungarischen Erzähl- und Berichtstexten. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Olsvay, Cs. 2000. Formális jegyek egyeztetése a magyar nemsemleges mondatokban. [Agreement of formal features in Hungarian non-neutral sentences.] In L. Büky, & M. Maleczki (Eds.), A mai magyar nyelv leírásának újabb módszerei, vol. 4 (119–152). Szeged: JATEPress.Google Scholar
Ramm, W., & Villiger, C. 1995. Global text organization and sentence-grammatical realization: Discourse-level constraints on theme selection. Paper read at RANLP 95, Tzigov Chark, Bulgaria, September 14–15.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. 1966 [1915]. Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Oxford: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Szilágyi N. S. 1996. Hogyan teremtsünk világot? [How shall we create a world?] Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Tankönyvtanács.Google Scholar
Tátrai, Sz. 2020. On the perspectival nature and the metapragmatic reflectiveness of contextualization. Studia Linguistica Hungarica, 32, 109–120.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1995. Adjectives vs. verbs: The iconicity of part-of-speech membership. In M. E. Landsberg (Ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes (223–245). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J., Racine, T. P., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E. (Eds.) 2008. The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar