Cover not available
Part of
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. 35–63

Chapter 2
Structural ambiguity and case assignment in Hungarian clausal and phrasal comparatives

This paper presents a contrastive analysis of comparative degree complements in Germanic (English, German) and Hungarian, focussing on two particular types of constructions that are potentially ambiguous in isolation. I argue that Hungarian has both clausal and phrasal comparatives. In clausal comparatives, the morphological case of the single remnant always corresponds to its underlying function (subject or object), hence ambiguities arise only if both interpretations involve subjects, but there are no subject/object ambiguities. This differs from Germanic, where subject/object ambiguities arise due to case syncretism, and where subjects of small clauses can be marked by the accusative case. In Hungarian phrasal comparatives, case distinction does not play a role, and the interpretation is governed by semantic rules.

Keywords: ambiguity, case assignment, clausal comparative, comparative subclause, degree semantics, ellipsis, phrasal comparative, tense projection, small clause
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Ambiguity and case assignment with single predicates (Type I)
  • 3.Ambiguity and case assignment with two predicates (Type II)
  • 4.The proposal: Semantics and underlying syntactic structures
  • 5.Ellipsis
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.15.02bac
References
Asbury, Anna
2005 Adpositions as case realizations. Leiden Papers in Linguistics 2(3). 69–92.Google Scholar
2008a Marking of semantics roles in Hungarian morphosyntax. In Szilárd Szentgyörgyi et al. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 10: Papers from the Veszprém conference, 9–30. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2008b The morphosyntax of case and adpositions. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Bacskai-Atkari, Julia
2014a The syntax of comparative constructions: Operators, ellipsis phenomena and functional left peripheries. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
2014b Structural case and ambiguity in reduced comparative subclauses in English and German. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 61(4). 363–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015a A kérdő modalitás jelölése a beágyazott poláris kérdésekben és viszonya a funkcionális bal perifériák történetéhez [The marking of modality in embedded polar questions and its relation to the history of functional left peripheries]. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Általános nyelvészeti tanulmányok XXVII: Diakrón mondattani kutatások [Papers in general linguistics XVII: Investigations in diachronic syntax], 13–45. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2015b Ambiguity and the internal structure of comparative complements in Greek. Paper presented at: 12th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (ICGL 12), Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin 16–19 September 2015 Handout available at: [URL] (21 April, 2016).
2015c Syntactic features, overtness, and functional left peripheries. Paper presented at: Syntax-Semantics Colloquium, Potsdam, Universität Potsdam 20 October 2015 Handout available at: [URL] (28 April, 2016).
Bacskai-Atkari, Julia & Gergely Kántor
2011 Elliptical comparatives revisited. In Vadim Kimmelman et al. (eds.), Proceedings of MOSS 2: Moscow Syntax and Semantics, 19–34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
2012 Deletion in Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian comparatives. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 1(1–2). 44–66.Google Scholar
Bowers, John
1993 The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 591–656.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
1973 The syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3). 275–343.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael
1990 Remarks on the order of elements in the Hungarian focus field. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian 3: Structures and arguments, 95–112. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1977 On WH-Movement. In Peter Culicover et al. (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van & Anikó Lipták
2008 On the interaction between verb movement and ellipsis: New evidence from Hungarian. In Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 138–146. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1987 Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008a Free word order, (non)configurationality, and phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3). 441–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b The structure of the Hungarian VP revisited. In: Szilárd Szentgyörgyi et al. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 10: Papers from the Veszprém conference, 31–58. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2014 The evolution of functional left peripheries in the Hungarian sentence. In: Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), From head-final to head-initial: The evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax, 9–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gyuris, Beáta
2004 A new approach to the scope of contrastive topics. In Benjamin Shaer et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, ZAS Berlin, November 2003, 133–156. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
2009 The semantics and pragmatics of the contrastive topic in Hungarian. Budapest: The Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences & Lexica Ltd.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge
1973 Why there are two than’s in English. In Claudia Corum et al. (eds.), Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 179–191. Chicago, Ill.: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Hegedűs, Veronika
2013 Non-verbal predicates and predicate movement in Hungarian. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István
1989 Adjuncts and arguments in VP focus in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45(1–2). 61–88.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István & Robert Michael Vago & Anna Fenyvesi
1998 Hungarian. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher
2002 Comparative Deletion and optimality in syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20. 553–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Jason Merchant
2000 Attributive Comparative Deletion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18. 89–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin & Omer Preminger
2015 Nominative as no case at all: An argument from raising-to-accusative in Sakha. In Andrew Joseph & Esra Predolac (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 9), 109–120. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried
2004 Ellipsis in comparatives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipták, Anikó
2010 The structure of the topic field in Hungarian. In Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds.), Mapping the left periphery: The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 5, 163–198. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora
2012 On the internal structure of case in Finno-Ugric small clauses. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 1(1–2). 3–43.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas & Sandhya Sundaresan
2011 Nominative case is independent of finiteness and agreement. Ms. Available at: [URL] (30 August, 2016).
Merchant, Jason
2001 The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Kyle Johnson (ed.), Topics in ellipsis, 132–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2009 Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Greek and the abstractness of syntax. Journal of Greek Linguistics 9. 134–164.Google Scholar
Molnár, Valéria
1998 On the syntax, phonology, semantics and pragmatics of the so-called “contrastive topic” in Hungarian and German. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45(1–2). 89–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T.
2001 On the nature of default case. Syntax 4(3). 205–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger
1999 GIVENness, avoid F and other constraints on the placement of focus. Natural Language Semantics 7(2). 141–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Surányi, Balázs
2009 Verbal particles inside and outside vP. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 56(2–3). 201–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 An interface account of identificational focus movement. In Tibor Laczkó & Catherine O. Ringen (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 12: Papers from the 2009 Debrecen conference, 163–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
1981 The semantics of Topic – Focus articulation. In Jeroen Antonius Gerardus Groenendijk et al. (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 513–541. Amsterdam: Matematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter
2001 Two comparatives. In István Kenesei & Robert M. Harnish (eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics, and discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer, 75–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar