Chapter published in:
Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 15: Papers from the 2015 Leiden Conference
Edited by Harry van der Hulst and Anikó Lipták
[Approaches to Hungarian 15] 2017
► pp. 1–33

Internal-scope taking arguments in the information structure of deverbal nominals in Hungarian

| University of Pécs
| University of Pécs | Hungarian Academy of Sciences
| University of Pécs
The paper claims that the syntax of Hungarian is so extremely transparent from a pragmasemantic point of view that certain (complex-event-related) deverbal nominal constructions can have an internal information structure consisting of internal-scope taking dependents. The scope-semantic source of such an internal scope is an embedded verbal construction complemented by the nominalizer. What makes it possible for an internal information structure to be hosted is (the independent factor) that the Hungarian noun-phrase structure is (even) more flexible than was hypothesized earlier: so flexible that it can host as complex pragmasemantic hierarchies as verbal structures can. In this way, Hungarian makes it possible to express explicitly, by word order, all potential scope orders not only in verbal constructions, but even within noun phrases. We thus argue for the integration of the carthographic Split-DP (or Clausal-DP) Hypothesis into the Hungarian traditions via inserting operator layers in the Hungarian noun-phrase structure both above and below the DP-layer.
Keywords: deverbal nominal constructions, noun-phrase-internal scope, hybrid scope, Clausal-DP Hypothesis
Published online: 24 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.15.01alb
References

References

Aboh, Enoch
1998 On the Syntax of Gungbe Noun Phrases. Clearing House on Languages and Linguistics ELIC Documentation Reproduction service No ED 420 209.Google Scholar
Abney, Steven P.
1987 The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspects. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Alberti, Gábor
2004 Climbing for Aspect – with no Rucksack. In Katalin É. Kiss & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Verb Clusters: A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. Linguistics Today 69, 253–289. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alberti, Gábor & Judit Farkas
2015 Az elidegeníthető birtoklást kifejező j képző esete a (Vt)t főnévképzővel és más főnévképzőkkel [The -j- affix expressing alianable possession and the (Vt)t and other nominalizers]. Jelentés és nyelvhasználat 2: 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
To appear. Derivation of nouns. In Gábor Alberti & Tibor Laczkó eds. Nouns and Noun Phrases Amsterdam AUP
Alberti, Gábor, Judit Farkas & Veronika Szabó
2015 Arguments for Arguments in the Complement Zone of the Hungarian Nominal Head. In Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi & Éva Dékány (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 14, 3–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis
2004 On the development of possessive determiners. Consequenses for DP structure. In Eric Fuss & Carola Trips (eds.), Diachronic clues to synchronic grammar, Linguistik Aktuell 72, 31–58. Linguistik Aktuell 72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark
1985 The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 373–415.Google Scholar
Bartos, Huba
2000a Affix order in Hungarian and the Mirror Principle. In Gábor Alberti & István Kenesei (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 7, 53–70. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
2000b A magyar inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 3. Morfológia, 653–762. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, Evelien Keizer & Marcel den Dikken
2012 Syntax of Dutch – Nouns and Noun Phrases. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University PressGoogle Scholar
Caruso, Đurđica Ž.
2011 Nominal phrases in Croatian. In Koichi Otaki, Haime Takeyasu & Shin-ichi Tanigawa (eds.), Online Proceedings of GLOW in Asia Workshop for Young Scholars.16–30.Google Scholar
Cetnarowska, Bożena
2014 The Topic Phrase within a Determiner Phrase: Fronting Adnominal Genitives in Polish. In Ludmila Veselovská & Markéta Janebová (eds.), Nominal Structures: All in Complex DPs. Olomouc Modern Language Monographs Vol. 2, 147–161. Olomouc: Palacky University.Google Scholar
Dékány, Éva
2014 Argument structure and functional projections in Old Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 61/3. 317–361. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1992 Az egyszerű mondat szerkezete [The structure of the simple sentence]. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 1. Mondattan [A structural grammar of Hungarian 1. Syntax], 79–177. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2000 The Hungarian Noun Phrase is like the English Noun Phrase. In Gábor Alberti & István Kenesei (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 7, 119–149. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
2002 The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 The function and the syntax of the verbal particle. In É. Kiss, Katalin (ed.), Event Structure and the Left Periphery, 17–56. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Free word order, (non-)configurationality, and phases. Linguistics Inquiry 39. 441–475. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Egedi, Barbara
2015 The Hungarian definite article across time: an account of its spreading. Talk given at International Conference on the Structure of Hungarian 12, Leiden, 22–23. May 2015.Google Scholar
Farkas, Judit & Gábor Alberti
2016 The Hungarian hatnék -noun expression: a hybrid construction. In Anna Bondaruk & Anna Bloch-Rozmej (eds.), Constraints on structure and derivation in syntax, phonology and morphology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
To appear. Complementation. In Tibor Laczkó & Gábor Alberti eds. Nouns and Noun Phrases Amsterdam AUP
Farkas, Judit, Veronika Szabó & Gábor Alberti
2016 Information-structurally (un)ambiguous nominal constructions in Hungarian. Manuscript, based on a talk given at the workshop Syntactic Structure of Uralic Languages, Oulu, 18–21 August 2015.Google Scholar
Featherston, Sam
2007 Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics 33(3). 269–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fokos, Dávid
1960 Uráli és altaji összehasonlító szintaktikai tanulmányok [Uralic and Altaic comparative syntactic studies]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények LXII/1. 213–241.Google Scholar
Fu, Jingqi, Thomas Roeper & Hagit Borer
2001 The VP within Process Nominals: Evidence from Adverbs and the VP Anaphor Do-So. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19. 549–582. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerőcs, Mátyás, Anna Babarczy & Balázs Surányi
2014 Exhaustivity in Focus: Experimental Evidence from Hungarian. In Joseph Emonds & Markéta Janebová (eds.), Language Use and Linguistic Sructure, Olomouc Modern Language Monographs Vol. 3, 181–194. Olomouc: Palacky University. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana
1996 Is there a FocusP and a TopicP in the Noun Phrase structure? Working Papers in Linguistics 6/2, 105–128. University of Venice.Google Scholar
2005 At the left periphery of the Romanian noun phrase. In Martine Coene & Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), On Space and Time in Language, 23–49. Cluj-Napoca: Anversa.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana & Rosella Iovino
2014 A Split-DP Hypothesis for Latin and Italo-Romance. In Ludmila Veselovská & Markéta Janebová (eds.), Complex Visibles Out There, Olomouc Modern Language Monographs Vol. 4, 127–143. Olomouc Palacky University.Google Scholar
Ihsane, Tabea & Genoveva Puskás
2001 Specific is not Definite. Generative Grammar in Geneva 2. 39–54.Google Scholar
Laczkó Tibor
2000 Az ige argumentumszerkezetét megőrző főnévképzés [Nominalization retaining verbal argument structure]. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 3. Morfológia [A structural grammar of Hungarian 3. Morphology], 293–407. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Mišmaš, Petra
2014 An Argument for Wh-fronting in the Slovenian DP. In Ludmila Veselovská & Markéta Janebová (eds.), Nominal Structures: All in Complex DPs. Olomouc Modern Language Monographs Vol. 2, 175–191. Olomouc: Palacky University.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roehrs, Dorian
2013 Split DP in German. Ninetheenth Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference 26–27 April 2013 University at Buffalo. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/002111 (5 October 2015.)
Szabolcsi, Anna
1981 The possessive construction in Hungarian: a configurational category in a non-configurational language. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 31. 261–289.Google Scholar
1983 The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3. 89–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi Anna
1992 A birtokos szerkezet és az egzisztenciális mondat. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
1994 The Noun Phrase. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian, Syntax and Semantics vol. 27, 179–274. San Diego-New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna & Tibor Laczkó
1992 A főnévi csoport szerkezete [The structure of the noun phrase]. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 1. Mondattan [A structural grammar of Hungarian 1. Syntax], 179–298. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Tompa József
1961 A mehetnék(je) típusú deverbalis főnevek mai változataihoz. Magyar Nyelv 57/3. 340–342.Google Scholar
Tóth Ildikó
2011 A -t képzős igeneves szerkezet használata az ómagyarban [The use of the -t gerund in Old Hungarian]. In Katalin É. Kiss Katalin & Attila Hegedűs (eds.) Nyelvelmélet és diakrónia [Linguistic Theory and diachrony] 121–132. Budapest – Piliscsaba: Szent István Társulat.Google Scholar