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
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.4.01bac
References
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. http://​homes​.chass​.utoronto​.ca​/~cla​-acl​/actes2011​/Brook​_2011​.pdf. (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. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/001539. (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. http://​www​.nytud​.hu​/kenesei​/publ​/funccat​.pdf. (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. http://​semanticsarchive​.net​/Archive​/2JlNmQ5Z​/matushansky​.existential​.comparison​.pdf. (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

Cited by 4 other publications

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 january 2023. 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.