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. 167–185

Free Choice and Aspect in Hungarian

The goal of this paper is to explore the interaction of verbal particles and FCIs in Hungarian. Our proposed solution is that sentences containing verbal particles and FCIs are interpreted as generics/habituals, where the FC-phrase (analyzed as a dependent indefinite) is bound (and thus, licensed) by a silent gen operator carried by the verbal particle. This proposal is supported by independent evidence (both from Hungarian and cross-linguistic) and fits into current theories FCIs, genericity and the quantificational force of verbal particles. Beside finding that verbal particles in Hungarian are capable of generic quantification, we also show that (1) genericity in Hungarian is primarily a pragmatic phenomenon and that (2) languages differ in terms of the formal semantics of individual-level predicates (presence/absence of inherent gen operator), and that the licensing of FCIs can be used as a diagnostic tool for this. Our paper also sheds light on the conundrum why FCIs are straightforwardly licensed in generics in many languages (e.g. English) but not in Hungarian. Our results also lend considerable further empirical support to the dependent indefinite analysis of FCIs.
Published online: 03 June 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.14.07hal
References

References

Aloni, Maria
2007 Free choice, modals, and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics 15. 65–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abrusán, Márta
2007 “Even and Free-choice any in Hungarian”. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, ed. by Estela Puig-Waldmüller, 1–15. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Alberti, Gábor
2004 “Climbing for Aspect: With no Rucksack”. In Verb Clusters. A Study of Hungarian, German and Dutch, ed. by Katalin É. Kiss and Henk van Riemsdijk, 253–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Genericity in Hungarian”, Handout, ICSH9, Debrecen.
Aloni, Maria
2002 “Free Choice in Modal Contexts”. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7, ed. by Matthias Weisgerber, 25–37. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
2007 “Free Choice, Modals, and Imperatives.” Natural Language Semantics 15: 65–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arsenijevic, Boban
2007 “A Unified Analysis of Two Classes of Slavic Verb-Prefixes”. In Proceedings of ConSOLE XIV . Leiden.
Baker, Charles. L.
1970 “Double Negatives.” Linguistic Inquiry 1: 169–186.Google Scholar
Behrens, Leila
2000 Typological Parameters of Genericity. (Arbeitspapier Nr. 37 (Neue Folge)). Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Carlson, G.
1977 “Reference to Kinds in English”. University of Massachusetts/Amherst, dissertation.
Chierchia, Gennaro
1995 “ ‘Individual-level Predicates as Inherent Generics’”. In The Generic Book, ed. by Gregory N. Carlson and Francis J. Pelletier, 176–223. University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen
1995 “The Marking of the Episodic/Generic Distinction in Tense-Aspect Systems.” In The Generic Book, ed. by N. Carlson and Francis J. Pelletier, 412–425. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta
1997 “Free Choice and Ever: Identity and Free Choice Readings. In Proceedings of SALT 7, ed. by Aaron Lawson, 99–116. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
1998 “Any as Inherently Modal.” Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 353–422. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dékány Éva, Márkus Andrea
2009 “Reduplication in Hungarian”. The Third Scandinavian Ph.D. Conference in Linguistics and Philology in Bergen , abstract.
Dikken, Marcel den
2004 “Agreement and “clause union.” In Katalin É. Kiss and Henkvan Riemsdijk (eds.), 445–495.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.-M., and R. Slabakova
2005 “Quantification and Aspect”. In Perspectives on Aspect, ed. by A. Van Hout, H. de Swart, and H.J. Verkuyl, 61–80. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eisner, Jason
1995 “ ∀-less in Wonderland? Revisiting any .” In Proceedings of ESCOL 11, ed. by J. Fuller, H. Han, and D. Parkinson. Ithaca, NY: DMLL Publications.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
2002 The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “The Function and the Syntax of the Verbal Particle”. In Event Structure and the Left Periphery, ed. by É. Kiss Katalin, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eszes, Boldizsár
2006 “A habituális mondatok eseményszerkezete [The event structure of habitual sentences]”. In LingDok 5 [Proceedings of the 8th Conference of Doctoral Students in Linguistice], ed. by G. Gárgyán and B. Sinkovics, Szeged.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1975 “Pragmatic Scales and Logical Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry 353–376.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana
1996 “Quantification, Aspect and Lexicon”. In Proceedings of FORMAL GRAMMAR, ed. by Geert-Jan Kruijff, Glynn Morrill, and Dick Oehrle, 43–56. Eighth European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information. Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
Filip, H., and G.Carlson
1997 “Sui Generis Genericity”. In Proceedings of the 21st Penn Linguistics Colloquium (Vol. 4).Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia
1997 The Landscape of Polarity Items. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.
2001 “The Meaning of Free Choice”. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 659–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Josep Quer
2012 “Against Universal Free Choice: Free Choice and Referentially Vague Indefinites in Greek, Catalan, and Spanish”. Ms. under submission.
Halm, Tamás
2013 “Free Choice and Focus: FCIs in Hungarian”. In Proceedings of the Second Central European Conference in Linguistics for Postgraduate Students, ed. by Balázsi Surány. Budapest: Pázmány Péter Catholic University.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene
1982 “The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachussetts at Amherst. Garland, New York.
Hoeksema, Jack, and Hotze Rullmann
2000 “Scalarity and polarity.” In Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items, ed. by J. Hoeksema, H. Rullmann, V. Sanchez-Valencia, and T. van der Wouden, 129–171. Linguistik Aktuell.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence
1972 “On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Linguistics.
Kadmon, Nirit, and Fred Landman
1993 “Any”. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 353–422. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc
1996 “Prefix Reduplication in Hungarian”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 43: 175–194.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A.
1995 “Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates”. In The Generic Book, ed. by G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama
2002 “Indeterminate Pronouns: The View from Japanese”. In The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. by Yukio Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, et al.
1995 “Genericity: An Introduction”. In The Generic Book, ed. by G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier, 1–124. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kroch, Antony
1975 The Semantics of Scope in English. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, A. William
1979 “Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, reproduced by IULC, 1980.
Lahiri, Utpal
1998 “Focus and Negative Polarity in Hindi.” Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
1972 “Analyses of Negation in English.” Doctoral Dissertation, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
Menéndez-Benito, Paula
2010 “On Universal Free Choice Items”. Natural Language Semantics 18 (1): 33–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara
1986 “The Airport Squib: Any, Almost and Superlatives.” In Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara Partee , 31–40. Oxford: Blackwell.
Piñón, Christopher
1991 “Falling in Paradise: Verbs, Preverbs, and Reduplication in Hungarian”. Handout for Syntax Workshop Talk , Stanford University, 21 May 1991.
Piñon, Christopher
1995 “Around the Progressive in Hungarian”. In István Kenesei (ed.), 153–190.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G.
(2005) “Time and the Event: The Semantics of Russian Prefixes”. Nordlyd, 32(2). Rimell (2004)Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1985 “Association with Focus.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachussetts.
Schubert, Lenhart K., and Francis Jeffry Pelletier
1989 “Generically Speaking, or, Using Discourse Representation Theory to Interpret Generics.” In Properties, Types and Meaning, Volume II: Semantic Issues, ed. by G. Chierchia, et al., 193–268. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szabó, Martina
2012 A bárki nem akárki, avagy a bár- és akár- elemek eltérő nyelvi sajátságai. [ Bárki and akárki are not the same: grammatical differences of bár- and akár-words]. Paper presented at the Conference of Doctoral Students, University of Szeged, 31 May.
Tenny, Carol
1994 Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tóth, Ildikó
1999 “Negative Polarity Item Licensing in Hungarian.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 46: 119–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1967 Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vogel, Carl, and Michelle McGillion
2002 “Genericity is Conceptual, not Semantic”. In Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Logic and Language, ed. by G. Alberti, K. Balogh, and P. Dekker, 163–172. University of Pés.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Halm, Tamás
2019. The semantics of weak imperatives revisited: Evidence from free-choice item licensing. Acta Linguistica Academica 66:4 ► pp. 445 ff. Crossref logo
Lipták, Anikó & Andrés Saab
2019. Hungarian particle reduplication as local doubling. Acta Linguistica Academica 66:4 ► pp. 527 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.