Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 31:4 (2014) ► pp.465–505

Cyclical change in Hungarian comparatives

 | University of Potsdam
This paper examines cyclical changes in comparative subclauses, showing how operators are reanalysed as complementisers via the general mechanism of the relative cycle, and how this is related to whether certain lexical elements have to be deleted at the left periphery. I also show that only operators appearing without a lexical XP can be grammaticalised, which follows from the nature of the formal features associated with the various operator elements. Though the main focus is on Hungarian historical data, the framework can be applied to other languages too, such as German and Italian, since the changes stem from general principles of economy.
Keywords: Comparative Deletion, left periphery, reanalysis, relative cycle, comparative subclause, complementiser combinations, economy, reinforcement
Published online: 19 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.4.01bac
References (64)
Allen, Cynthia. 1977. Topics in diachronic English syntax. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Bacskai-Atkari, Julia. 2010a. Parametric variation and Comparative Deletion. The Even Yearbook 91. 1–21.Google Scholar
. 2010b. On the nature of comparative subclauses: A crosslinguistic approach. The Odd Yearbook 81. 1–37.Google Scholar
. 2013. Reanalysis in Hungarian comparative subclauses. In Christer Platzack & Valéria Molnár (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 13: Papers from the 2011 Lund Conference, 5–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1985. Mirror theory and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 151. 373–415.Google Scholar
. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Ellen Brandner. 2008. On wh-head-movement and the Doubly-Filled-Comp Filter. In Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 87–95. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1973. The syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 275–343.Google Scholar
Brook, Marisa. 2011. One of those situations where a relative pronoun becomes a complementizer: A case of grammaticalization in progress... again. In Lisa Armstrong (ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference. [URL]. (12 October 2012).
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1999. Relative clauses: Structure and typology on the periphery of Standard English. In Peter Collins & David A. Lee (eds.), The clause in English: In honor of Rodney Huddleston, 81–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corver, Norbert Ferdinand Marie. 1997. Much-support as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 28(1). 119–164.Google Scholar
Dömötör, Adrienne. 1995. Az alárendelő mondatok: A jelzői mellékmondatok [Subordinate clauses: Attributive subclauses]. In Loránd Benkő (ed.), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana II/2: A kései ómagyar kor: Mondattan. Szöveggrammatika, 666–693. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franco, Ludovico. 2012. Complementizers are not (demonstrative) pronouns and vice versa. [URL]. (10 October 2012.)
Galambos, Dezső. 1907. Tanulmányok a magyar relatívum mondattanáról [Studies on Hungarian relatives]. Budapest: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 1993. The rise of functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Renewal in the left periphery: Economy and the complementiser layer. Transactions of the Philological Society 107(2). 131–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gergel, Remus. 2010. Towards notions of comparative continuity in English and French. In Anne Breitbarth, Christopher Lucas, Sheila Watts & David Willis (eds.), Continuity and change in grammar, 119–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
G. Varga, Györgyi. 1992. A névmások [Pronouns]. In Loránd Benkő (ed.), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana II/1: A kései ómagyar kor: Morfematika, 455–569. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Haader, Lea. 1991. Az alárendelő mondatok: Az alanyi, állítmányi, tárgyi és határozói mellékmondatok [Subordinate clauses: Subjective, predicative, objective and adverbial subclauses]. In Loránd Benkő (ed.), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana I: A korai ómagyar kor és előzményei, 728–741. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 1995. Az alárendelő mondatok: Az alanyi, állítmányi, tárgyi és határozói mellékmondatok [Subordinate clauses: Subjective, predicative, objective and adverbial subclauses]. In Loránd Benkő (ed.), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana II/2: A kései ómagyar kor: Mondattan. Szöveggrammatika, 506–665. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 2003a. Az ómagyar kor: Mondattörténet: Az összetett mondat [The Old Hungarian period: Syntax: Complex sentences]. In Jenő Kiss & Ferenc Pusztai (eds.), Magyar nyelvtörténet, 500–560. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 2003b. A középmagyar kor: Mondattörténet: Az összetett mondat [The Middle Hungarian period: Syntax: Complex sentences]. In Jenő Kiss & Ferenc Pusztai (eds.), Magyar nyelvtörténet, 677–690. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.Google Scholar
Hancock, Roeland & Thomas G. Bever. 2009. The study of syntactic cycles as an experimental science. In Elly van Gelderen (ed.), Cyclical change, 303–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive. Folia Linguistica Historica 91. 287–310.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, Jan. 1983. Negative polarity and the comparative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11. 403–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Homer, Vincent. 2011. Polarity and modality. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
IJbema, Aniek. 2002. Grammaticalization and infinitival complements in Dutch. Leiden: University of Leiden dissertation.Google Scholar
Jäger, Agnes. 2010. Der Komparativzyklus und die Position der Vergleichspartikeln. Linguistische Berichte 2241. 467–493.Google Scholar
. 2012. ‘How’ to become a comparison particle. Paper presented at the 14th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference (DiGS 14), Lisbon, 5 July.
Juhász, Dezső. 1991. A kötőszók [Conjunctions]. In Loránd Benkő (ed.), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana I: A korai ómagyar kor és előzményei, 476–500. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 1992. A kötőszók [Conjunctions]. In Loránd Benkő (ed.), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana II/1: A kései ómagyar kor: Morfematika, 772–814. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
. 2009. Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 81. 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. Some preliminary comparative remarks on French and Italian definite articles. In Richard Kayne (ed.), Comparison and contrasts, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2010b. Why isn’t this a complementizer? In Richard Kayne (ed.), Comparison and contrasts, 190–227. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István. 1992a. On Hungarian complementizers. In István Kenesei & Csaba Pléh (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian, vol. 41, 37–50. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
. 1992b. Az alárendelt mondatok szerkezete [The structure of subordinate clauses]. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális mondattan I.: Mondattan, 529–713. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István & Jon Ortiz de Urbina. Manuscript. Functional categories in complementation. [URL]. (12 October 2012.)
Kennedy, Christopher. 2002. Comparative Deletion and optimality in syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 201. 553–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Jason Merchant. 2000. Attributive Comparative Deletion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 181. 89–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lechner, Winfried. 1999. Comparatives and DP-structure. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2004. Ellipsis in comparatives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, William Burley. 1968. Historical German syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Marques, Rui. 2006. Multi-headed comparatives in Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 51. 5–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matos, Gabriela & Ana Brito. 2008. Comparative clauses and cross linguistic variation: A syntactic approach. In Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7, 307–329.Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. Manuscript. No more no less: Existential comparatives revisited. University of Utrecht. [URL]. (24 April 2013.)
Osborne, Timothy. 2009. Comparative coordination vs. comparative subordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 271. 427–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paoli, Sandra. 2007. The fine structure of the left periphery: COMPs and subjects. Evidence from Romance. Lingua 117(6). 1057–1079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph & Charles Leslie Wrenn. 1955. An Old English grammar. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Locality in the left periphery. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 31, 223–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2005. Principles and parameters in a VSO language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. 1999. A formal approach to “grammaticalization”. Linguistics 371. 1011–1041. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rowlett, Paul. 2007. The syntax of French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salvi, Giampaolo & Laura Vanelli. 2004. Nuova grammatica italiana. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Seuren, Pieter. 1973. The comparative. In Ferenc Kiefer & Nicolas Ruwet (ed.), Generative grammar in Europe, 528–564. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sipos, Pál. 1991. A névmások [Pronouns]. In Loránd Benkő (ed.), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana I: A korai ómagyar kor és előzményei, 353–400. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Bacskai-Atkari, Julia
2020. German V2 and Doubly Filled COMP in West Germanic. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 23:2 ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Bacskai-Atkari, Julia
2020. Non-degree equatives and reanalysis. In Approaches to Hungarian [Approaches to Hungarian, 16], ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo
Bacskai‐Atkari, Julia
2016. On the Diachronic Development of a Hungarian Declarative Complementiser. Transactions of the Philological Society 114:1 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Poletto, Cecilia & Emanuela Sanfelici
2018. On relative complementizers and relative pronouns. Linguistic Variation 18:2 ► pp. 265 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 january 2025. 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.