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. 121–145

The morphosyntax of (in)alienably possessed noun phrases

The Hungarian contribution

| Linguistics Program, CUNY Graduate Center
This paper argues that there is a fundamental difference between alienable and inalienable possession in the syntax of the noun phrase, and that this difference involves direction of predication. A possessum is the subject of a predicate that is or contains the possessor; the configurational relationship between the possessive predicate and its subject is established by a relator that takes the possessum either as its specifier or as its complement, with the possessive predicate occupying the other position in the small clause. Alienably possessed noun phrases involve an underlying syntax in which the possessum is the relator’s specifier; inalienable possession constructions are built on a structure in which the possessum is the complement of the relator. The paper provides an analytical sketch of a partial typology of possessed noun phrases and an account of the cross-linguistic generalisation that for languages that show a systematic structural distinction between alienable and inalienable adnominal possession, it is the inalienably possessed noun phrase that is morphosyntactically simpler than the alienably possessed one. The focus of the discussion is on Hungarian, a language whose ‘possessedness marker’ -(j)a/-(j)e is teased apart into two component parts: an affixal ‘spurious’ article -a/e lexicalising the relator of DP-internal possession, and an additional -j- that in noun phrases that show a morphological alienability split has morphemic status, functioning as the linker that facilitates the Predicate Inversion derivation of alienably possessed noun phrases.
Published online: 03 June 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.14.05dik
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
den Dikken, Marcel
2018.  In Boundaries Crossed, at the Interfaces of Morphosyntax, Phonology, Pragmatics and Semantics [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 94], ► pp. 147 ff. Crossref logo
Farkas, Judit & Gábor Alberti
2017. Általánosítások a potenciális magyar birtokszóváltozatokra vonatkozóan. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 4:1 ► pp. 59 ff. Crossref logo
Hegedüs, Veronika & Éva Dékány
2017.  In Approaches to Hungarian [Approaches to Hungarian, 15], ► pp. 65 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

Bennis, Hans, Norbert Corver & Marcel den Dikken
(1998) Predication in nominal phrases. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1. 85–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1967 Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua 18. 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly
1992 Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den
1999 On the structural representation of possession and agreement. The case of (anti-)agreement in Hungarian possessed nominal phrases. In István Kenesei (ed.), Crossing boundaries: Theoretical advances in Central and Eastern European languages, 137–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2011 On the strategies for forming long A′–dependencies: Evidence from Hungarian. In Balázs Surányi (ed.), [title tbd] (volume of papers from the conference on Minimalist Approaches to Syntactic Locality). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (to appear).Google Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den & Anikó Lipták
1997  Csoda egy nyelv . In Jane Coerts & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1997. 61–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den, Anikó Lipták & Zsófia Zvolenszky
2001 On inclusive reference anaphora: New perspectives from Hungarian. In Karine Megerdoomian & Leora Anne Bar-El (eds.), WCCFL 20 Proceedings, 137–49. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Dobler, Eva
2008 The morpho-phonology of (in)alienable possession. In Susie Jones (ed.), Proceedings of the 2008 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association/Actes du congrès annuel de l’Association canadienne de linguistique 2008.Google Scholar
Elekfi, László
2000 Semantic differences of suffix alternates in Huangarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47. 145–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerland, Doris & Albert Ortmann
2012 What counts as relational in Hungarian, Uralic and beyond? CTF 2012, Düsseldorf.
Guéron, Jacqueline
1985 Inalienable possession, PRO-inclusion and lexical chains. In Jacqueline Guéron, Hans-Georg Obenauer & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris. 43–86.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2008 Syntactic universals and usage frequency, 3: Alienable vs. inalienable possessive constructions. Handout, Leipzig Spring School on Linguistic Diversity.
Heine, Bernd & Kézié Lébikaza
1997 On attributive possession in Kabiye. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type, 217–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, István
1995 On bracketing paradoxes. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 43. 153–173.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc
1985 Natural morphology. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 35. 85–105.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1995 Stage-level/individual-level predicates. In Gregory Carlson & Francis Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard & Franc Marušić
2004 Indefinite pronoun structures with APs. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 268–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek
1985 Possessive constructions in Oceanic languages and Proto-Oceanic. In Andrew Pawley & Lois Carrington (eds.), Austronesian linguistics at the 15th Pacific Science Congress. Pacific Linguistics C-88. 93–140.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith
2003 Inflectional morphology in the Hungarian noun phrase: A typological assessment. In Frans Plank (ed.), Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe. Berlin: de Gruyter. 113–252.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo
1989 Predication theory: A case study for indexing theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1988 On alienable and inalienable possession. In W. Shipley (ed.), In honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics, 557–609. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rácz, Péter
2010 Hungarian phonology and morphology: Discord in the possessive allomorphy of Hungarian. MA thesis, ELTE.
Rácz, Péter & Péter Rebrus
2012 Complexity and distinctiveness in Hungarian possessive allomorphy. In Ferenc Kiefer, Mária Ladányi & Péter Siptár (eds.), Current issues in morphological theory: (Ir)regularity, analogy and frequency, 51–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schirm, Anita
2009 Alienable and inalienable possession in Hungarian. Paper presented at New Trends in Uralistics , Szeged, 3–5 September 2009. Earlier version published as ‘Az elidegeníthető és az elidegeníthetetlen birtoklás kifejezésmódjairól’, in Nyelvtudomány I (2005). 155–169.
Szabolcsi, Anna
1983 The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3. 89–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 The noun phrase. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian. Syntax and Semantics 27, 179–274. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna & Tibor Laczkó
1992 A főnévi csoport szerkezete. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan I. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 179–298.Google Scholar