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
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