Cover not available
Article published In:
Approaches to Hungarian 18: Special issue of the Journal of Uralic Linguistics 2:1 (2023)
Edited by Donka F. Farkas, Gábor Alberti and Balázs Surányi
[Journal of Uralic Linguistics 2:1] 2023
► pp. 74–95

The morphosyntax of the Hungarian sociative and dissociative suffixes

ORCID logo | Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics | Eötvös Loránd University
| Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics | Eötvös Loránd University
This paper examines the morphosyntax of (dis)sociative ‘with(out)’, with particular reference to the facts of Hungarian but with an eye towards universality. The morphological analysis of -stul/stül ‘with’ and -talanul/telenül ‘without’ unpacks these complex forms, utilizing a variety of morphemes treated as heads of phrases in the syntax; the syntax, in turn, represents (dis)sociatives as depictive secondary predications, with a PRO-subject controlled by either the subject or the object of the containing clause. The morphophonology and semantics of sociative -stul and dissociative -talanul unfold compositionally from the syntactic structure. The analysis of (dis)sociatives reveals the benefits of composing complex word-level formatives in syntax, shows that snowballing head movement and phrasal movement are two discrete strategies for syntactic word formation, and sheds new light on several grammatical formatives and their interactions.
Keywords: sociative, dissociative, depictive, locative, ablative, essive, negation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The syntax of sociative -stul
    • 2.1The underlying structure of sociative -stul
    • 2.2The derivation of sociative -stul
    • 2.3A note on PP-over-aP
  • 3.The syntax of dissociative -talanul
    • 3.1The underlying structure of dissociative -talanul
    • 3.2The derivation of dissociative -talanul
  • 4.On the distribution of essive morphology
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 19 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00015.dik
References (24)
References
Aasmäe, Niina. 2018. The morphosyntactic manifestations of the copula in Erzya. Linguistica Uralica 541. 191–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beke, Ödön. 1910. Megfejtetlen névragok [Unresolved noun suffixes]. Magyar Nyelvőr 391. 194–200.Google Scholar
Budenz, József. 1884. A -stúl, -stűl comitativus rag [The comitative suffix -stúl, -stűl ]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 181. 158–160.Google Scholar
Dékány, Éva. 2011. A profile of the Hungarian DP. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Dékány, Éva & Veronika Hegedűs. 2021. Postpositions: Formal and semantic classification. In Katalin É. Kiss & Veronika Hegedűs (eds), The syntax of Hungarian: Postpositions and postpositional phrases, 11–191. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den. 2006. Relators and linkers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. A phonosyntactic representation of Hungarian ‘lowering’. In Jeroen van de Weijer (ed.), Segmental structure and representations, 307–326. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(forthcoming). On the merger and antecedence of depictive secondary predicates. In Marcel den Dikken & Hideki Kishimoto (eds), Formal perspectives on secondary predication. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Dikken, Marcel den & Éva Dékány. 2018. A restriction on recursion. Syntax 211. 37–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fekete, István. 2013. Hungarian gyerekestül vs. gyerekkel (‘with [the] kid’). AHEA: E-Journal of the American Hungarian Educators Association 61; [URL]
Groot, Casper de. 2017. The essives in Hungarian. In Casper de Groot (ed.), Uralic essive and the expression of impermanent state, 325–352. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1986. Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples. In Pieter Muysken & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), Features and projections, 233–254. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hynönen, Emmi. 2017. The essive in Finnish. In Casper de Groot (ed.), Uralic essive and the expression of impermanent state, 29–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1942. A modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. VI: Morphology. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István, Robert Vago & Anna Fenyvesi. 1998. Hungarian. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc & Mária Ladányi. 2000. Morfoszintaktikailag semleges képzések [Morphosyntac-tically neutral derivations]. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan [A structural grammar of Hungarian]. Vol. 31, Morfológia [Morphology], 165–214. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kühner, Raphael. 1877–1879. Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache [A detailed grammar of the Latin language]. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Piñón, Christopher. 1991. Presupposition and the syntax of negation in Hungarian. In Lise M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols & Rosa M. Rodriguez (eds), CLS 27: Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 1991. Part Two: The parasession on negation, 246–262. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schirm, Anita. 2005. Az elidegeníthető és az elidegeníthetetlen birtoklás kifejezésmódjairól [On the expression of alienable and inalienable possession]. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis – Sectio Linguistica 421. 155–69; accessed on-line at: [URL]
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. A specifikus/nem specifikus megkülönböztetésről [On the specific/non-specific distinction]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 851. 83–92.Google Scholar
Ürögdi, Barbara. 2013. Adverbial clauses with -ig and the ‘until-puzzle’. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 601. 303–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2010. Emphatic multiple negative expressions in Dutch: A by-product of loss of negative concord. The Linguistic Review 271. 37–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar