Cover not available
Part of
The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast: Theoretical, empirical, and typological approaches
Edited by Christine Dimroth and Stefan Sudhoff
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 249] 2018
► pp. 173–202

On two types of polar interrogatives in Hungarian and their interaction with inside and outside negation

 | Research Institue for Linguistics, | Hungarian Academy of Sciences
The paper provides a survey of the form types of Hungarian polar interrogatives containing the negative particle nem ‘not’ and of their interpretational features, and discusses the possibilities of formally modeling the observable distinctions. First a general review of the basic syntactic, semantic and pragmatic properties of polar interrogatives is provided, with special attention to the differences between two root interrogative form types in Hungarian. It is argued that the distinction between outside and inside negation readings proposed by Ladd (1981) for English can also be detected in Hungarian, with the help of particular morphosyntactic tests. The application of the tests reveals that whereas the intonationally marked negative polar interrogatives have both outside and inside negation readings, those marked by morphological means only possess the former one. The tests are also shown to detect interpretational distinctions having to do with the types of bias that the particular forms are compatible with. Without providing a fully-fledged formal modeling, the paper discusses possible strategies for capturing the above distinctions in terms of the proposals made in Romero & Han (2004), Repp (2013) and Krifka (2017).
Keywords: bias, inside negation, outside negation, polar interrogative, Hungarian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The structure of canonical polar interrogatives in Hungarian
  • 3.Interpretational contrasts in positive and negative interrogatives
    • 3.1Inside and outside negation readings of negative polar interrogatives
    • 3.2Bias properties of polar interrogatives
    • 3.3Theoretical accounts of bias in negative polar interrogatives
      • 3.3.1 Romero & Han (2004)
      • 3.3.2 Repp (2013)
      • 3.3.3 Krifka (2017)
  • 4.Inside and outside negation readings of negative polar interrogatives in Hungarian
    • 4.1The two form types and their compatibility with is ‘too’ and sem ‘neither’
      • 4.1.1Data
      • 4.1.2Implications
    • 4.2Negative polar interrogatives containing vala-indefinites
      • 4.2.1Data
      • 4.2.2Implications
    • 4.3Compatibility with positional variants of the adverbs még ‘still’ and már ‘already’
      • 4.3.1Data
      • 4.3.2Implications
    • 4.4Inversion and lack of inversion between verbal prefix and verb
      • 4.4.1Data
      • 4.4.2Implications
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.249.06gyu
References (42)
References
AnderBois, Scott. 2011. Issues and Alternatives. PhD dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Bacskai-Atkari, Julia. 2015. A kérdő modalitás jelölése a beágyazott poláris kérdésekben és viszonya a funkcionális bal perifériák történetéhez (Marking the interrogative mood in polar questions and its relation to the history of functional left peripheries). In Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XXVII: Diakrón mondattani kutatások (Studies in General Linguistics XXVII: Investigations in Diachronic Syntax), Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 13–45. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics. 4: 1-56.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel & Gunlogson, Christine. 2000. Aren’t positive and negative polar questions the same? Ms, UCSC/UCLA.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel & Krifka, Manfred. 2011. Superlative quantifiers as modifiers of meta-speech acts. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6: 1–56.Google Scholar
Domaneschi, Filippo, Romero, Maribel & Braun, Bettina. 2017. Bias in polar questions: Evidence from English and German production experiments. Glossa 2(1): 1–28.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Negative quantifiers in Hungarian. In Approaches to Hungarian 11. Papers from the 2007 New York Conference, Marcel den Dikken & Robert M. Vago (eds), 65–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. An adjunction analysis of quantifiers and adverbials in the Hungarian sentence. Lingua 120(3): 506–526.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka & Bruce, Kim. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27(1): 81–118.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Gyuris, Beáta. 2012. Pragmatic markers in Hungarian: Some introductory remarks. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59(4): 387–426.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin. 1984. Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. PhD dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel & Castroviejo Miró, Elena. 2011. The dimensions of VERUM. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), 143–165. Paris: CSSP.Google Scholar
Gyuris, Beáta. 2017. New perspectives on bias in polar questions: A study of Hungarian ‘-e’. International Review of Pragmatics 9(1): 1–50.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1): 41–53.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 2007. Separating “focus movement” from focus. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds), 108–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, István, Vago, Robert Michael & Fenyvesi, Anna. 1998. Hungarian. London: Routledge.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornai, András & László, Kálmán. 1988. Hungarian sentence intonation. In Autosegmental Studies in Pitch Accent, Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds), 183–193. Dordrecht: Foris.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2015. Bias in commitment space semantics: Declarative questions, negated questions, and question tags. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 25: 328–345.
. 2017. Negated polarity questions as denegations of assertions. In Contrastiveness and Scalar Implicatures, Chungmin Lee, Ferenc Kiefer & Manfred Krifka (eds), 359–398. Berlin: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1981. A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. Papers from the Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistics Society 17: 164–171.
. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Northrup, Oliver Burton. 2014. Grounds for Commitment. PhD dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Olsvay, Csaba. 2000. Formális jegyek egyeztetése a magyar nemsemleges mondatokban (Agreement of formal features in Hungarian non-neurtal sentences). In A mai magyar nyelv leírásának újabb módszerei 4 (New Methods in the Description of Contemporary Hungarian 4], László Büky & Márta Maleczki (eds), 119–151. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem.Google Scholar
Rédei, Károly. 1986–1991. Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Reese, Brian. 2007. Bias in Questions. PhD dissertation, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2006. ¬(A&B). Gapping, negation and speech act operators. Research on Language and Computation 4(4): 397–423.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Common ground management: Modal particles, illocutionary negation and VERUM. In Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-conditional Meaning, Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 231–274. Leiden: Brill.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richter, Frank. 1993. Settling the truth: Verum focus in German. Ms, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roelofsen, Floris, Venhuizen, Noortje & Weidman Sassoon, Galit. 2013. Positive and negative polar questions in discourse. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, Emmanuel Chemla, Vincent Homer & Grégoire Winterstein (eds), 455–472. Paris: ENS.Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel & Han, Chung-hye. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5): 609–658.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, Robert & Šafářová, Marie. 2003. On polar questions. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 13: 292–309.
Silk, Alex. 2016. Expectation biases and context management with negative polar questions. Ms.Google Scholar
Simoncsics, Péter. 2003. Egy uráli párhuzamosság: A nyenyec költői dikció ngey (ngæy) töltőeleme és a magyar –É szintaktomorféma (An Uralic parallel: The ngey (ngæy) particle of poetic diction and the Hungarian syntactomorpheme –É). Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 100: 238–244.Google Scholar
Sudo, Yasutada. 2013. Biased polar questions in English and Japanese. In Beyond expressives: Explorations in Use-conditional Meaning, Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 275–296. Leiden: Brill.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Surányi, Balázs. 2008. Határozóosztályok és mondattartományok (Classes of adverbials and sentential domains). Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 105: 164–192.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2002. Hungarian disjunctions and positive polarity. In Approaches to Hungarian 8: Papers from the Budapest Conference, István Kenesei & Péter Siptár (eds), 217–239. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 2015. What do quantifier particles do? Linguistics and Philosophy 38(2): 159–204.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trinh, Tue. 2014. How to ask the obvious – A presuppositional account of evidential bias in English yes/no questions. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 71: 227–249.Google Scholar
Varga, László. 1994. A hanglejtés (Intonation). In Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 2, Fonológia (A Structural Grammar of Hungarian 2, Phonology), Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), 468–549. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar