Cover not available
Part of
Advances in the Syntax of DPs: Structure, agreement, and case
Edited by Anna Bondaruk, Gréte Dalmi and Alexander Grosu
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 217] 2014
► pp. 165–192

The feature geometry of generic inclusive null DPs in Hungarian

This paper claims that Hungarian allows generic inclusive subjects to be null only if they have a generic inclusive antecedent in an adjacent clause. This distinguishes Hungarian from all the other types of Null Subject Languages (NSLs) identified by Roberts & Holmberg (2010). The generic inclusive lexical az ember GEN ‘the man’ is a first person-oriented genericity-inducing lexical item that always receives widest scope interpretation, just like English one. The generic inclusive null subject, pro GEN, on the other hand, is an anaphor that requires a generic inclusive antecedent, as does English oneself (Moltmann 2006, 2010, 2012). A similar duality is observed with PRO, the silent counterpart of generic inclusive one in non-finite clauses.
Published online: 14 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.217.07dal
References (65)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartos, Huba. 1997. On subjective and objective agreement in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44: 363–384.Google Scholar
. 2001. Object agreement in Hungarian: A case for Minimalism. In The Minimalist Parameter: Selected Papers from the Open Linguistics Forum, Ottawa, 21–23 March 1997 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 192], Galina M. Alexandrova & Olga Arnaudova (eds), 311–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bèjar, Susanna & Rezac, Milan. 2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1): 35–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2006. The syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116: 2023–2067. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa. 2010. Semi-null subjects, expletives and expletive pro reconsidered. In Parametric Variation. Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 153–200. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bródy, Mihály. 2011. Az ember és az emberek (One and people). Lecture slides. Research Institute for Linguistics of HAS, Budapest. [URL]
Bródy, Mihály & Szabolcsi, Anna. 2006. Overt scope in Hungarian. Syntax 6(1): 19–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. The variability of impersonal subjects. In Quantification in Natural Languages, Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara Partee (eds), 107–143. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of Arb . Linguistic Inquiry 19: 521–581.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta 2002. On impersonal si-constructions in Italian. In Proceedings of ConSole 10 , Marjo von Koppen, Joanna Sio & Mark de Voos (eds). Leiden: University of Leiden. [URL]Google Scholar
. 2007. Impersonal Si Constructions. Agreement and Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Alexiadou, Artemis. 2003. Inclusive and exclusive impersonal pronouns: A feature-geometrical analysis. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 27: 31–44.Google Scholar
Dalmi, Gréte. 1983. A case of re-analysis in a topic-prominent language. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 31: 57–85.Google Scholar
. 1994. Hungarian Infinitival Constructions. MPhil dissertation, The University of Sydney.Google Scholar
. 1997. On object agreement in Hungarian. Working Papers in the Theory of Grammar5(2): 91–119. Department of Theoretical Linguistics, ELTE Budapest.Google Scholar
. 2000. The structure of psych-impersonal predicates. In Proceedings of SCL-18 , Artur Holmer, Jan-Olof Svantesson & Åke Viberg (eds), 193–207. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
. 2002. The Role of AGRP in Non-finite Predication. PhD dissertation. Budapest: Department of Theoretical Linguistics ELTE.Google Scholar
. 2005. The Role of Agreement in Non-finite Predication. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 90]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Copular Sentences, Predication and Cyclic Agree. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing (VDM).Google Scholar
. 2013. All-in-One: generic inclusive null subjects in Hungarian. In Proceedings of WCCFL 31: 115–123. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Egerland, Verner & Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2009. Impersonal null subjects in Icelandic and elsewhere. Studia Linguistica 63: 158–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É.Kiss, Katalin. 1994. Introduction. In Discourse-configurational Languages, Katalin É. Kiss (eds), 3–29. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Multiple topic one focus? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45: 3‒29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Hungarian Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], Kerststin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. Negative…..concord? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 457–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannikidou, Anastasia & Merchant, Jason. 1997. On the interpretation of null indefinite objects in Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics 17: 141–155.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The null generic subject pronoun in Finnish: A case of incorporation to T. In Parametric Variation. Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 200–231. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Sheehan, Michelle. 2010. Control into finite clauses in partial null subject Languages. In Parametric Variation. Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 125–153. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Nikanne, Urpo. 2002. Expletives, null subjects and topics in Finnish. In Subjects, Expletives and the EPP, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 71–106. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Huang, James. 1989. Pro-drop in Chinese. A generalized control theory. In The Null Subject Parameter, Osvaldo Jaeggli & Kenneth Safir (ed.), 185–214. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Safir, Kenneth. 1989. Introduction. In The Null Subject Parameter, Osvaldo Jaeggli & Kenneth Safir (eds), 1–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Johannes Gisli. 1992. The pronoun maður in Icelandic. Ms, University of Massachussets,Amherst.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit & Landman, Fred. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 356–422.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István. 1989. On pronominal binding in Hungarian. In Configurationality. The Typology of Asymmetries, László Marácz & Pieter Muysken (eds), 223–236. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1992. Az alárendelt mondatok szerkezete. In Strukturális magyar nyelvtan, 1: Mondattan. [The structure of Hungarian, 1: Syntax] Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds), 529–715,Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan & Reuland, Eric. 1991. Long-distance Anaphora. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Semantics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 639–650. New York NY: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2000. German impersonal pronouns and logophoricity. Paper presented at the Generic Pronouns and Logophoricity Conference. Sao Paolo.
Krzek, Małgorzata. 2011. Some aspects of impersonal constructions in Polish. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 66–87.Google Scholar
. 2012. The Syntax of Impersonal Constructions in Polish. PhD dissertation, The University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Pelletier, Francis, Carlson, Gregory, ter Meulen, Alice & Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Genericity. Introduction. In The Generic Book, Gregory Carlson & Francis Pelletier (eds), 1–124. Chicago IL: University Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2001. On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 9: 191–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 2006. Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person. Natural Language Semantics 14: 257–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Generalizing detached self-reference and the semantics of generic one . Mind and Language 25(4): 440–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Two kinds of first person-oriented content. Synthese 184(2): 157–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Neil, John Herbert. 1997. Means of Control: Deriving the Properties of PRO in the Minimalist Program. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. On the cartography of syntactic structures. In The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. The Structure of CP and IP, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 3–17. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2006. On the form of chains. Criterial positions and chain effects. In Wh-movement: Moving On, Lisa Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 97–134. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Topic, focus and the cartography of clauses. In The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, Silvia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (eds), 436–450. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Holmberg, Anders. 2010. Introduction. In Parametric Variation. Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 1– 58. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Salo, Merje. 2010. Meteorological verbs in Uralic languages – Are there any impersonal structures to be found? In Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 124], Andrei Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds), 395–438. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2000. To be an oblique subject. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 66: 1–32.Google Scholar
. 2002. Non-nominative subjects in Icelandic. In Non-nominative Subjects [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumiri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 137–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. The syntax of person, tense and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16: 219–251. Special issue edited by Valentina Bianchi & Kenneth Safir.Google Scholar
. 2006. The nominative puzzle and the Low Nominative Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 289–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. On EPP-effects. Studia Linguistica 64(2): 159–189.Google Scholar
Tóth, Ildikó. 1999. Inflected Infinitives in Hungarian. PhD dissertation, University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
. 2010. Non-referential readings of null subjects in Hungarian. In Approaches to Hungarian 12: Papers form the 2009 Debrecen Conference , Tibor Laczkó, György Rákosi & Catherine Ringen (eds), 209–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1997. Word order in Eurepean Uralic. In Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe, Anna Siewierska (ed.), 173–235. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Dalmi, Gréte
2021. The status of the oblique possessor in BE-possessives: Evidence from Russian and Hungarian. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 66:4 ► pp. 634 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 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.