Cover not available
Part of
Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 16: Papers from the 2017 Budapest Conference
Edited by Veronika Hegedűs and Irene Vogel
[Approaches to Hungarian 16] 2020
► pp. 115–136

With or without the definite article

On the syntax of anaphoric possessor strategies in Hungarian

| Department of Linguistics, University of Debrecen
That noun phrases may constitute a binding domain is a key component among the parallelisms between the syntax of noun phrases and clauses. Reuland (2007, 2011) and Despić (2011, 2015) have shown recently that the definite article plays a crucial role in delimiting this domain, since dedicated possessive reflexive anaphors are only possible in languages that lack a prenominal definite article. Hungarian has several anaphoric possessor strategies, which vary in whether they require, allow, or prohibit the use of the definite article in the possessive noun phrase. This paper gives an overview of the grammar of these strategies, and presents a discussion of the results of a questionnaire survey that was conducted to better understand the delicate distribution of the definite article in these constructions. The importance of these Hungarian data lies in showing that Reuland’s conjecture describes an important factor not only in cross-linguistic, but also in language internal variation in definite article use in possessive DP’s.
Keywords: anaphor, definite article, Hungarian, logophor, noun phrase, phase, possessive, pronoun, reflexive, reciprocal
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The background of the study
    • 2.1Reuland’s (2007, 2011) conjecture on dedicated possessive reflexives
    • 2.2The Hungarian background
  • 3.Anaphoric possessors with or without the definite article
    • 3.1Pronominal possessors
    • 3.2The survey
    • 3.3The primary reflexive as a possessor
    • 3.4The reciprocal anaphor as a possessor
    • 3.5The complex reflexive önmaga ‘oneself’ as a possessor
  • 4.Summary and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 8 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.16.06rak
References (35)
References
Bartos, Huba. 1999. Morfoszintaxis és interpretáció: A magyar inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere[Morphosyntax and interpretation: The syntactic background of inflectional phenomena in Hungarian.] Doctoral thesis. Budapest: ELTE Elméleti Nyelvészet Doktori Program.
Bernstein, Judy B. & Christina Tortora. 2005. Two types of possessive forms in English. Lingua 115. 1221–1242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59. 1–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45(1). 27–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dékány, Éva. 2011. A profile of the Hungarian DP. The interaction of lexicalization, agreement and linearization with the functional sequence. Doctoral thesis. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.
Despić, Miloje. 2011. Syntax in the absence of determiner phrase. Doctoral thesis. University of Connecticut.
. 2013. Binding and the structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian. Linguistic Inquiry 44(2). 239–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Phases, reflexives, and definiteness. Syntax 18(3). 201–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
d’Hulst, Yves, Martine Coene & Liliane Tasmowski. 2007. The romance vocative and the DP hypothesis. In Alexandra Cunita, Coman Lupu & Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), Studii de lingvistica si filologie romanica: Hommages offerts à Sanda Reinheimer Rîpeanu, 200–211. Bucharest: Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. When Hungarians Agree (to Disagree) ‒ The Fine Art of ‘Phi’ and ‘Art’. Ms. New York: CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
Dóla, Mónika, Anita Viszket & Judit Kleiber. 2017. A határozott névelő a birtokos szerkezetben. [The definite article in the possessive construction.] Hungarológiai Évkönyv 18. 38–69.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. The Hungarian noun phrase is like the English noun phrase. In Gábor Alberti & István Kenesei (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian VII. Papers from the Pécs Conference, 119–150. Szeged: JATEPress.Google Scholar
. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Free word order, (non)configurationality, and phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3). 441–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Ways of licensing external possessors in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 61(1). 45–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2007. Vocatives and the pragmatics‒syntax interface. Lingua 117. 2077–2105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, István. 2005. Nonfinite clauses in derived nominals. In Christopher Piñón & Péter Siptár (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 9: Papers from the Düsseldorf Conference, 159–186. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Laczkó, Tibor. 1995. The syntax of Hungarian noun phrases. A Lexical-Functional approach. Metalinguistica 2. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2009. On the -ás suffix: Word formation in the syntax? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 56 (1). 23–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marácz, László. 1989. Asymmetries in Hungarian. Doctoral thesis. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Marelj, Marijana. 2011. Bound-variable anaphora and Left Branch Condition. Syntax 14(3). 205–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oravecz Csaba, Váradi Tamás & Sass Bálint. 2014. The Hungarian Gigaword Corpus. Proceedings of LREC 2014.
Pléh, Csaba. 1983. Some semantic and pragmatic factors of anaphoric interpretation in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 33(1/4). 201–211.Google Scholar
Rákosi, György. 2014. Possessed by something out there: On anaphoric possessors in Hungarian. Argumentum 10. 548–559.Google Scholar
. 2015. Psych verbs, anaphors, and the configurationality issue in Hungarian. In Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi & Éva Dékány (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 14. Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba Conference, 245–265. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. The definite article and anaphoric possessors in Hungarian. Linguistica Brunensia 65 (2). 21–33.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2007. Binding conditions: How can they be derived? Lectures on Binding. Department of Linguistics, St Petersburg University. Joint PhD program St Petersburg- Utrecht University. April 24–May 3, 2007. [Retrieved 31.01.2017] Available at: [URL]
. 2011. Anaphora and language design [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 62]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3. 89–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. Functional categories in the noun phrase. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian 2, 167–190. JATE: Szeged.Google Scholar
. 1989. Noun phrases and clauses: Is DP analogous to IP or CP? Ms. Retrieved from [URL]
. 1994. The noun phrase. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian. Syntax and Semantics 27, 179–275. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Virovec, Viktória. 2019. A határozott névelő használatáról üres névmási birtokosok mellett. [On the use of the definite article with covert pronominal possessors.] In György Scheibl (ed.), LingDok 17. Nyelvészdoktoranduszok dolgozatai. Szeged: SZTE Nyelvtudományi Doktori Iskola.Google Scholar