Article published in:
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. 5–36

Arguments for arguments in the complement zone of the Hungarian nominal head

| Department of Linguistics, Pécs
| Research Institute for Linguistics, HAS
This paper argues that a Hungarian nominal head may have a phonetically non-empty complement zone — if certain “felicity conditions” are satisfied. Our approach relies on the introduction of two new constituency tests (based on certain properties of the contrastive topic and on the order of certain functional heads), instead of the earlier ones. Another crucial element to our solution is the reinterpretation of É. Kiss’s Constraint on Case Assignment as a Behaghel-type phonetic rule, which prevails in a graded way, instead of providing a black and white picture. Our approach can also be put into the cross-linguistic discussion of branchingness. It is claimed on the basis of our data that branchingness in Hungarian can be accounted for by a generalized version of Hinterhölzl’s (“Germanic”) weight condition; and the differences between Hungarian and, for instance, German in branchingness can simply be attributed to differences between these languages in the prosodic sensitivity of phases.
Published online: 03 June 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.14.01alb
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Alberti, Gábor & Judit Farkas
2015. Az elidegeníthető birtoklást kifejező -j- képző esete a -(Vt)t főnévképzővel és más főnévképzőkkel. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 2:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Alberti, Gábor, Judit Farkas & Veronika Szabó
2017.  In Approaches to Hungarian [Approaches to Hungarian, 15], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 december 2020. 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.

References

References

Abeillé, Anne and Godard, Danièle
2000 “French word order and lexical weight”. In The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, Syntax and Semantics, Robert Borsley (ed), 325–358. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alberti, Gábor
1997 “Restrictions on the Degree of Referentiality of Arguments in Hungarian Sentences”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44 (3-4): 341–362.Google Scholar
2004 “Climbing for Aspect – with no Rucksack.” In Verb Clusters; A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. Linguistics Today 69, Katalin É. Kiss and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 253–289. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alberti, Gábor, and Farkas, Judit
2013 “Book review: Syntax of Dutch, Nouns and Noun Phrases”. Lingua 133: 375–384. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alberti Gábor and Medve Anna
2000 “Focus Constructions and the “Scope–Inversion Puzzle” in Hungarian”. Approaches to Hungarian 7, Gábor Alberti and István Kenesei (eds), 93–118. Szeged: JATE Press.Google Scholar
2002/2005 Generatív grammatikai gyakorlókönyv. Budapest: Janus Books / Gondolat.Google Scholar
Bartos Huba
2000 “Az inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere.” In Strukturális magyar nyelvtan. I. Mondattan, Kiefer Ferenc (ed), 653–762. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans and Keizer, Evelien and Dikken, Marcel den
2012 Syntax of Dutch – Nouns and Noun Phrases, Vol I-II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
2001 “Derivation by phase.” In Ken Hale: a life in language, Michael Kenstowitz (ed), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
É. Kiss Katalin
1992 “Az egyszerű mondat szerkezete”. In Strukturális magyar nyelvtan. I. Mondattan, Kiefer Ferenc (ed), 79–179. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
1998 “Mondattan”. In Új magyar nyelvtan, É. Kiss Katalin and Kiefer Ferenc and Siptár Péter (eds), 15–184. Budapest: Osiris.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
2000 “The Hungarian Noun Phrase is like the English Noun Phrase”. Approaches to Hungarian 7, Gábor Alberti and István Kenesei (eds), 119–149. Szeged: JATE Press.Google Scholar
2002 The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 119–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Is free postverbal order in Hungarian a syntactic or a PF phenomenon?” In: The Sound Pattern of Syntax, Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Lisa Rochman (eds), 53–71. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland
2010 “Collapsing the Head Final Filter and the Head Complement Parameter”. Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 35–65. Venice: University of Venice.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc
(ed.) 1992 Strukturális magyar nyelvtan I. Mondattan. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda and Szabolcsi, Anna
1998 Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laczkó Tibor
2000 “Az ige argumentumszerkezetét megőrző főnévképzés.” In Strukturális magyar nyelvtan. III. Morfológia, Kiefer Ferenc (ed), 293–452. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1988 “On the Function of Agreement”. In Agreement in Natural Languages. Approaches, Theories, Descriptions, M. Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), 55–65. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lipták, Anikó K.
2011 “A fragmentumok mondattana a magyarban”. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XXIII, Bartos Huba (ed), 317–349.Google Scholar
Rákosi, György
2009 “Ablative causes in Hungarian”. Approaches to Hungarian 11, Marcel den Dikken and Robert M. Vago (eds.), 167–196. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna and Laczkó, Tibor
1992 “A főnévi csoport szerkezete”. In Strukturális magyar nyelvtan. I. Mondattan, Kiefer Ferenc (ed), 179–298. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta
2003 “A strees-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus”. The Linguistic Review 20. 37–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1982 “Another argument that passive is transformational”. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 160–163.Google Scholar