Chapter published in:
Broader Perspectives on Motion Event Descriptions
Edited by Yo Matsumoto and Kazuhiro Kawachi
[Human Cognitive Processing 69] 2020
► pp. 41–62

Patterns of deictic expressions in Hungarian motion event descriptions

| University of Miyazaki
This chapter aims to examine how deictic notions (Deixis) are expressed in Hungarian motion event descriptions. Hungarian is one of the languages in which Path is expressed in satellites and other “head-external elements” (Matsumoto 2017) (i.e. elements outside the main verb root). However, this does not apply to Deixis, although it is often regarded as a component of Path (Talmy 2000). Deixis in Hungarian is expressed in interesting ways, differently from Talmy’s non-deictic Path notions (e.g. UP, INTO). It can be expressed in the main verb root, where Manner can also be expressed, or outside the main verb root, where Path can be expressed. In addition, different deictic elements can co-occur, and a (seemingly) identical notion can be specified in more than one slot in the same clause. The present chapter discusses the kinds of constraints that are placed on the use of each type of deictic expression, and investigates the circumstances under which expressions are chosen for use in descriptions of self-motion, caused motion, and the fictive motion of vision.
Keywords: competition, co-occurrence, deixis, head-external
Published online: 11 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.69.02egu
References

References

Ackerman, F.
1992 Complex predicates and morpholexical relatedness: Locative alternation in Hungarian. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical Matters, CSLI Lecture Note No. 24 (55–83). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bárczi, G., Benkő, L., & Berrár, J.
1967 A magyar nyelv története [The history of the Hungarian language]. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Declerck, R.
1989 Boundedness and the structure of situations. Leuvense Bijdragen, 78, 275–308.Google Scholar
Depraetere, I.
1995 On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eguchi, K.
2007 Hangarii-go doosi-settoozi to go-keisei [Preverbs in Hungarian and their word formation]. Doctoral dissertation, Kobe University, Japan.Google Scholar
2017 Hangarii-go ni okeru idoo-hyoogen [Motion expressions in Hungarian]. In Y. Matsumoto (Ed.), Idoo-hyoogen no ruikeiron [The typology of motion expressions]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, K.
1992 Az egyszerű mondat szerkezete [The structure of the simple sentence]. In F. Kiefer (Ed.), Mondattan [Syntax], Structuális magyar nyelvtan [Structural Hungarian grammar]. Vol. 1 (79–178). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
1998 Verbal prefix or postpositions? Postpositional aspectualizers in Hungarian. In I. Kenesei (Ed.), Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 6 (125–148). Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
1999 Strategies of complex predicate formation and the Hungarian verbal complex. In I. Kenesei (Ed.), Crossing boundaries (91–114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, H., & Hickmann, M.
2011 Expressing voluntary motion in a second language: English learners of French. In V. Cook & B. Bassetti (Eds.), Language and Bilingual Cognition (315–339). Oxford: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Jakab, I.
1976 A magyar igekötők állományi vizsgálata [The investigation on the substance of Hungarian preverb]. Nyelvtudományi Értekezések [Linguistic disquisitions], 91. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kiefer, F.
1992 Az aspektus és a mondat szerkezete [Aspect and its sentence structure]. In F. Kiefer (Ed.), Mondattan, Structuális magyar nyelvtan [Structural Hungarian grammar]. Vol. 1 (797–885). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kiefer, F., & Honti, L.
2003 Verbal ‘prefixation’ in the Uralic Languages. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 50(1–2), 137–153. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Koga, H., Koloskova, Y., Mizuno, M., & Aoki, Y.
2008 Expressions of spatial motion events in English, German, and Russian: With special reference to Japanese. In C. Lamarre, T. Ohori, & T. Morita (Eds.), Typological studies of the linguistic expression of motion events, Volume II. A contrastive study of Japanese, French, English, Russian, German and Chinese: Norwegian Wood (13–44). 21st Century COE Program Center for Evolutionary Cognitive Sciences at the University of Tokyo.
Mano, M., Yoshinari, & Eguchi, K.
2018 The effect of the first language on the description of motion events: L2 Japanese learners of English and Hungarian. In I. Walker, Ch. Daniel, M. Nagami, & C. Bourguignon (Eds.), New perspectives on the development of key competencies in foreign language education. Boston and Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
2014 Common tendencies in the descriptions of manner, path and cause across languages: A closer look at their subcategories. Langacross 2. (Linguistic diversity and cognition: Implications for first and second language acquisition.) 21 June 2014.Google Scholar
2017 Idoo-hyoogen-no ruikei-ni kansuru kadai [Issues on the typology of motion expressions]. In Y. Matsumoto (Ed.), Idoo-hyoogen-no ruikeiron [Typology of motion expressions] (1–24). Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
This volume. Neutral and specialized path coding: Toward a new typology of path coding devices and languages.
Matsumoto, Y., Akita, K., & Takahashi, K.
2017 The functional nature of deictic verbs and the coding patterns of Deixis: An experimental study in English, Japanese, and Thai. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages and applications (95–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsuse, I.
This volume. The distinct coding of Deixis and Path in Kathmandu Newar.
Morita, T.
This volume. Attraction of attention in perceived motion events weighed against typology and cognitive cost: An experimental study of French.
Sinha, C., & Kuteva, T.
1995 Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 18, 167–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
1996 From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
1985 Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Path to realization. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 17 (480–519). Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
2000 Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yoshinari, Y., Mano, M., Eguchi, K., & Matsumoto, Y.
2016 Daini gengo ni okeru idoo-zisyoo no gengo-ka: Nihongo washa ga motiiru eigo, hangariigo no kenkyuu [Tendency of encoding motion events of L2 learners: The study of English and Hungarian spoken by Japanese native speakers]. Studies in Language Sciences, 15, 142–174.Google Scholar