Chapter published in:
Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 16: Papers from the 2017 Budapest Conference
Edited by Veronika Hegedűs and Irene Vogel
[Approaches to Hungarian 16] 2020
► pp. 116–136

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
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 rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 08 April 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.16.06rak
References

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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko
2005 On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59. 1–45. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Phases, reflexives, and definiteness. Syntax 18(3). 201–234. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Free word order, (non)configurationality, and phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3). 441–475. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Ways of licensing external possessors in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 61(1). 45–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia
2007 Vocatives and the pragmatics‒syntax interface. Lingua 117. 2077–2105. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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: http://​slioussar​.narod​.ru​/reuland2007​.htm
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. CrossrefGoogle 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 http://​www​.nyu​.edu​/projects​/szabolcsi​/szabolcsi​_DP​_IP​_CP​.pdf
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.Google 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