Cover not available
Part of
Inner-sentential Propositional Proforms: Syntactic properties and interpretative effects
Edited by Werner Frey, André Meinunger and Kerstin Schwabe
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 232] 2016
► pp. 241–270

Rethinking clausal asymmetries

Propositional pronoun insertion in Hungarian

This paper proposes a theoretically minimal analysis of cataphoric propositional pronoun insertion in complex sentences in Hungarian, based on the realization of the SpecCP in the embedded clause. In accordance with Chomsky (2008), we assume that the derivation of SpecCP results from the instantiation of the edge-feature in C. We argue that syntax universally provides two clause types: those with an edge-feature (EF) in C, and those lacking an edge-feature in C. As propositional pronoun insertion is dependent on the availability of SpecCP, it is only possible in [+EF]-clauses. In our modular framework, we regard the EF as semantically vacuous, although it can be associated with different semantic contents in different languages. In Hungarian, the semantic content of the EF can be rendered in terms of predicationality. As we demonstrate, pronoun insertion has information-structural effects in Hungarian, a fact that can be seen as an immediate consequence of the claimed correlation between the EF and predicationality.
Published online: 26 July 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.232.09bra
References (38)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 2000. Presuppositions as non-assertions. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1419–1437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Presuppositions and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 523–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alberti, Gábor. 1997. Restrictions on the degree of referentiality of arguments in Hungarian sentences. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44: 341–362.Google Scholar
Bentzen, Kristine, Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn, Hróarsdóttir, Þorbjörg & Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2007. The Tromsø guide to the force behind V2. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 79: 93–118.Google Scholar
Brandtler, Johan. 2012. The Evaluability Hypothesis. The Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Item Licensing [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguisics Today 183]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 1997. The Meaning of Topic and Focus – The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Cuba, Carlos & Ürögdi, Barbara. 2009. Eliminating factivity from syntax. Sentential complements in Hungarian. In Papers from the 2007 New York Conference, Vol. 11 of Approaches to Hungarian, Marcel den Dikken & Robert M. Vago (eds), 29–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2006. Focussing as predication. In Architecture of Focus, Vol. 1, Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds), 169–196. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–1669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Operator movement and topicalization in adverbial clauses. Folia Linguistica 41: 279–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The syntax of adverbial clauses and the licensing of main clause phenomena. Truncation or intervention? Talk given at GLOW, Newcastle upon Tyne, March 26.
Higgins, Francis Roger. 1973. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan. 1975. On assertive predicates. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 4, John P. Kimball (ed), 91–124. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan & Thompson, Sandra. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465–497.Google Scholar
Horváth, Júlia. 1997. The status of wh-expletives and the partial wh-movement construction in Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 509–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carol. 1970. Fact. In Progress in Linguistics, Manfred Bierwisch & Karl Erich Heidolph (eds), 313–341. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9: 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipták, Anikó. 1998. A magyar fókuszemelések egy minimalista elemzése. In A mai magyar nyelv leírásának új módszerei, Vol. III, László Büki & Miklós Maleczki (eds), 93–116. Szeged: LATE.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1998. Questions and questioning in a local English. In Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics: Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture, Vol. III, Raffaella Zanuttini, Héctor Campos, Elena Herburger & Paul H. Portner (eds), 87–126. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Molnár, Valéria. 1998. Topic in focus. On the syntax, phonology, semantics and pragmatics of the so-called "Contrastive Topic" in Hungarian and German. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45: 1–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1996. On extraposition and successive cyclicity. In On Extraction and Extraposition in German [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 11], Uli Lutz & Jürgen Pafel (eds), 213–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pagin, Peter. 2015. Assertion. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2015 edn, Edward N. Zalta (ed).Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2008. The Edge Feature on C. Ms.Google Scholar
. 2009. Old wine in new barrels: The Edge Feature on C, topicalization and stylistic fronting. Talk presented at the Mailing Seminar , University of Reykjavik, November 30–December 1.
Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54: 883–906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pütz, Herbert. 1986. Über die Syntax der Pronominalform <es> im modernen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandberg, Bengt. 1998. Zum <es> bei transitiven Verben vor satzförmigem Akkusativobjekt. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy. 2007. Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality and presupposition. Lingua 117: 1034–1056. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1978. Assertion. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9, 315–332. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sudhoff, Stefan. 2003. Argumentsätze und es-Korrelate. Zur syntaktischen Struktur von Nebensatzeinbettungen im Deutschen. Berlin: WVB.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. The semantics of Topic-Focus articulation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Part 1, Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds), 513–541. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Bentzen, Kristine, Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn & Hróarsdóttir, Þorbjörg. 2009. On the distribution and illocution of V2 in Scandinavian that-clauses. Lingua 119: 1914–1938. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Ilse. 1993. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Satzeinbettung. In Satz und Illokution, Vol. 2, Inger Rosengren (ed), 231–251. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar