Cover not available
Part of
Existential Constructions across Languages: Forms, meanings and functions
Edited by Laure Sarda and Ludovica Lena
[Human Cognitive Processing 76] 2023
► pp. 180–218

Chapter 6
On a continuum from categorical to thetic judgment

Indefinite subjects and locatives in Hungarian and French

ORCID logo | University of Szeged, Hungary
ORCID logo | LATTICE – CNRS, Ecole Normale Supérieure-PSL | Université Paris Sorbonne Nouvelle, France
This paper addresses the relationships between the existential reading of sentences with an indefinite subject and the presence of a spatial anchoring constituent. We investigated a corpus of French sentences with indefinite subjects in preverbal position and their translation into Hungarian. While French has a rather rigid word order, Hungarian is a discourse configurational language which signals the informational status of sentence constituents. Through the prism of differentiations made in the Hungarian translation, we distinguished two groups of indefinite subject sentences, one having a thetic interpretation, the other retaining a categorical – or categorical-like – interpretation despite the indefinite form of the subject. These sentences illustrate the fact that while indefinite NPs are known to be bad topics, they can nevertheless play this role to various degrees.
Keywords: coda constraints, contrastive analysis, discourse configurational language, informational structure, translation, word order
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Indefinites and spatio-temporal localization
    • 2.1Lack of topicality of weak indefinites
    • 2.2Obligatory vs. optional presence of a locative expression
  • 3.The corpus
  • 4.General observations
    • 4.1The ontology of the subject
    • 4.2Thematic role of the subject and presence of locatives
    • 4.3The Aktionsart of the sentence
    • 4.4The semantic classes of the eventualities
  • 5.Indefinite subjects in Hungarian
  • 6.Constraints on the locative in the Hungarian corpus
    • 6.1Subject in Topic position
    • 6.2Subject in VM position
    • 6.3The postverbal position
  • 7.Categorical and thetic judgments
    • 7.1Degrees of topicality and categorical judgment
    • 7.2VM position, thetic judgment and existentials
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 5 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.76.06gec
References (59)
References
Alberti, G. 1997. Restrictions on the degree of referentiality of arguments in Hungarian sentences. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 44(3–4), 341–362.Google Scholar
Attal, P. 1976. Indéfinis et structures sémantiques. Faits de langue, 4, 187–195.Google Scholar
Carlier, A. 2005. L’argument davidsonien : un critère de distinction entre les prédicats « stage level » et les prédicats « individual level » ?. Travaux de linguistique, 50, 13–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlier, A., & Sarda, L. 2010. Le complément de la localisation spatiale : entre argument et adjoint. In F. Neveu., V. Muni-Toké., J. Durand., T. Klingler, L. Mondada, & S. Prévost (Eds.), Actes du CMLF’10 (2057–2073). Paris: ILF.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 5–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (27–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1997a. Classes de prédicats, distribution des indéfinis et la distinction thétique-catégorique. Le gré des langues, 12, 58–97.Google Scholar
1997b. Types of predicates and the representation of existential readings. In A. Lawson (Ed.), SALT VII (117–134). Ithaca: Cornell University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1986. The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse: semantics or pragmatics?. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 37–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, K. 1995. Definiteness effect revisited. In I. Kenesei (Ed.), Approaches to Hungarian Vol 5. (63–88). Szeged: JATE Press.Google Scholar
1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74, 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2013. Information structure and (in)definiteness. Syntax and Semantics, 39, 23–51.Google Scholar
Furukawa, N. 2006. Énoncés athématiques, point d’ancrage et indéfinis. in F. Corblin, S. Ferrando, & L. Kupferman (Eds.), Indéfinis et prédication (83–96). Paris: Presses de la SorbonneGoogle Scholar
Gécseg, Zs. 2006. Topic, logical subject and sentence structure in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 53, 139–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. The syntactic position of the subject in Hungarian existential constructions. Argumentum, 15, 545–560.Google Scholar
Gécseg, Zs., & Kiefer, F. 2009. A new look at information structure in Hungarian. Natural language and linguistic theory, 27, 583–622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geist, L. 2010. Bare singular NPs in argument positions: restrictions on indefiniteness. International Review of Pragmatics, 2(2), 191–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gosselin, L. 2018. L’Aspect verbal. In Encyclopédie grammaticale du français, available online at: [URL]
2021. Aspect et formes verbales en français, Coll. : Domaines linguistiques, n° 17 : Grammaires et représentations de la langue, n° 10, Classique Garnier, Paris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. 1985. ‘Shared knowledge’ and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 83–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik, & J. Wirth (Eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 17] (209–239). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K., & Fretheim, T. 2004. Information structure. In L. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (175–196). Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Gyuris, B. 2009. The semantics and pragmatics of the contrastive topic in Hungarian. Budapest: Lexica KiadóGoogle Scholar
2013. The information structure of Hungarian. In M. Krifka, & R. Musan (Eds.), The expression of information structure (159–186). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, K. 2011. Specificity. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Vol 2. (1024–10579). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T., & Mulder, R. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs; locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review, 7, 1–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, T. This volume. The Finnish existential clause: Aspect, case marking and quantification of the S argument. In L. Sarda, & L. Lena. (Eds.), Existential constructions across languages: Forms, meanings and functions (220–245). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kálmán, L. 1985. Word order in neutral sentences. In I. Kenesei (Ed.), Approaches to Hungarian Vol. 1. Data and descriptions (13–23). Szeged: JATE Press.Google Scholar
1995. Definiteness effect verbs in Hungarian. In I. Kenesei (Ed.), Approaches to Hungarian Vol 5. (221–242). Szeged: JATE Press.Google Scholar
(Ed.) 2001. Magyar leíró nyelvtan. Mondattan 1. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Kiefer, F. 1996. Az igeaspektus areális-tipológiai szempontból. Magyar Nyelv, 92(3), 257–268.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. 1981. Problèmes de référence: Descriptions définies et noms propres. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
2001. Indéfinis: lecture existentielle et lecture partitive. In G. Kleiber, B. Laca, & L. Tasmowski (Eds.), Typologie des groupes nominaux (47–97). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In G. N. Carlson, & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (125–175). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S. Y. 1971. Le jugement catégorique et le jugement thétique. Exemples tirés de la langue japonaise. Langages, 30, 81–110.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. A. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In M. Harvey, & L. Santelmann (Eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory 4. (220–229). Ithaca: CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lahousse, K. 2003. NP-Subject inversion in French and (preposed) adverbs. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux, & Y. Roberge (Eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition. Selected papers from the 32nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Toronto, April 2002 (181–196). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Implicit stage topics. Discours [En ligne], 1 | 2007, online April 02 2008, consulted on March 24th 2023. URL: [URL]; DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lena, L. This volume. Partition and existence: The case of you ren ‘there’s someone, there are people’ in Chinese. In L. Sarda, & L. Lena. (Eds.), Existential constructions across languages: Forms, meanings and functions (245–282). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Maleczki, M. 1992. Bare common nouns and their relation to the temporal construction of events in Hungarian. In P. Dekker, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium (347–365). Amsterdam: ILLC, Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
1995. On the Definiteness effect in Hungarian (a semantic approach). In I. Kenesei (Ed.), Approaches to Hungarian Vol 5. (263–284). Szeged: JATE Press.Google Scholar
2001. Indefinite arguments in Hungarian. In I. Kenesei (Ed.), Argument structure in Hungarian (157–199). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2003. Information structure, argument structure, and typological variation. In K. M. Jaszczolt, M. Katarzyna, & K. Turner (Eds.), Meaning through language contrast 1. (223–244). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. On the definiteness effect in existential sentences: Data and theories. In E. Németh T., & K. Bibok (Eds.), The role of data at the semantics-pragmatics interface (25–56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T. 2004. Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1389–1400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puskás, G. 2000. Word Order in Hungarian: the Syntax of A’-positions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, H-J. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics, 25(3), 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 1981. The semantics of topic-focus articulation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssem, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (513–541). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
1986. From the definiteness effect to lexical integrity. In W. Abraham, & S. de Meij (Eds.), Topic, Focus and configurationality (321–348). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Strategies for scope taking. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of scope taking. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 65 (109–154), Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1 Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van De Velde, D. This volume. Is the French verb manquer ‘lack, miss’ a negative existential predicate? In L. Sarda, & L. Lena. (Eds.), Existential constructions across languages: Forms, meanings and functions (284–300). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Viszket, A. 2004. Argumentumstruktúra és lexikon. PhD dissertation. Budapest: University Eötvös Loránd.
Vogeleer, S. & Tasmowsky, L. 2005. Les N, un N et des N en lecture générique. Travaux de linguistique, 50, 53–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waldenfels, R. 2011. Recent developments in ParaSol: Breadth for depth and XSLT based web concordancing with CWB. In D. Majchrakova, & R. Garabík (Eds.), Natural language processing, multilinguality. Proceedings of Slovko 2011 (156–162). Bratislava: Tribun.Google Scholar
Zemach, E. 1979. Four ontologies. In F. J. Pelletier (Ed.), Mass Terms: Some Philosophical problems (63–80). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Sarda, Laure, F. Neveu, S. Prévost, A. Montébran, A. Steuckardt, G. Bergounioux, G. Merminod & G. Philippe
2024. Un brouillard flotte au fond du ravin – Les prédicats de quelques noms météorologiques. SHS Web of Conferences 191 ► pp. 12015 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.