Cover not available
Part of
Non-canonical Control in a Cross-linguistic Perspective
Edited by Anne Mucha, Jutta M. Hartmann and Beata Trawiński
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 270] 2021
► pp. 167–194

Control and covert modality in Hungarian

MECs and postverbal-only focus constructions

| Eötvös Loránd University
We discuss two seemingly unrelated constructions of Hungarian: a type of modal existential wh-construction (MEC), and a structure that on the surface seems to be a monoclausal focus construction. They are argued to have a similar biclausal underlying structure involving control and covert modality, the latter triggering the raising of the embedded verb to the selecting predicate. To account for this movement and other transparency phenomena attested in these constructions, adjunction of the moved wh-words to a non-finite TP-domain is proposed following Šimík (2011, 2013a). This analysis is closer to standard cross-linguistic accounts of both control and restructuring: though infinitival clauses can contain their own focus-related elements, it seems justifiable to assume that they are smaller than CPs.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.General overview of the data
    • 2.1Postverbal-only focus
    • 2.2Modal existential wh-constructions
  • 3.Earlier accounts
    • 3.1Postverbal-only focus
    • 3.2Modal existential wh-constructions
    • 3.3Covert modality
    • 3.4Transparency and clause size
    • 3.5Interim summary
  • 4.The proposal
    • 4.1Verb movement and covert modals
      • 4.1.1Agree
  • 5.Control and raising MECs in Hungarian
    • 5.1Control vs. raising
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

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

Published online: 17 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.270.06sze
References (40)
References
Barbosa, Pilar. 2018. Controlled overt pronouns as specificational predicates. In Complement Clauses in Portuguese: Syntax and Acquisition. Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 17], Ana Lúcia Santos & Anabela Gonçalves (eds), 129–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartos, Huba. 2002. Root infinitives. In Approaches to Hungarian 8, István Kenesei & Péter Siptár (eds), 13–38. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2006. Covert Modality in Non-finite Contexts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burukina, Irina. 2020. Mandative verbs and deontic modals in Russian: Between obligatory control and overt embedded subjects. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1): 54. 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalmi, Gréte. 2004. The Role of AGRP in Non-finite Predication. PhD dissertation, ELTE University.Google Scholar
. 2020. The argument structure of BE-possessives in Hungarian. In Approaches to Predicative Possession, Gréte Dalmi, Jacek Witkoś & Piotr Cegłowski (eds), 136–161. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2018. Dependency and Directionality. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74: 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Ways of licensing external possessors. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 61(1): 45–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 2004. The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh- constructions. In Balkan Syntax and Semantics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 67], Olga Mišeska Tomić (ed.), 405–438. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, István. 2001. Criteria for auxiliaries in Hungarian. In Argument Structure in Hungarian, István Kenesei (ed.), 73–106. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 2005. Nonfinite clauses in derived nominals. In Approaches to Hungarian 9, Christopher Piñón & Péter Siptár (eds), 161–186, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2015. A Two-tiered Theory of Control. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipták, Anikó. 2003. Hungarian Modal Existential Wh-constructions. Ms, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Livitz, Inna. 2013. Deriving Silence through Dependent Reference: Focus on Pronouns. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Pancheva-Izvorski, Roumyana. 2000. Free Relatives and Related Matters. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Prohászka, Zsolt. 2019. Van Marinak csak Pétertől mit ellopni – A modális egzisztenciális kérdőszói konstrukció a magyarban (Modal existential wh-constructions in Hungarian). Ms, University of Pécs.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea & Norvin, Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 565–599. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooryck, Johan & Postma, Gertjan. 2007. On participial imperatives. In Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 106], Wim van der Wurff (ed.), 273–296. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šimík, Radek. 2011. Modal Existential Wh-constructions. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
. 2013a. The PRO-wh connection in modal existential wh-constructions. An argument in favor of semantic control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31:1163–1205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Modal existential wh-constructions as affordance descriptions. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, Emmanuel Chemla, Vincent Homer & Grégoire Winterstein (eds), 563–580. <[URL]> (30 January 2021)
Surányi, Balázs. 2002. Multiple Operator Movements in Hungarian. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
. 2005. Indefinite wh-pronouns and the modal existential wh-constructions in Hungarian. Abstract from the 7th International Conference on the Structure of Hungarian (ICSH7), Veszprém, May 2005.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1986. From the definiteness effect to lexical integrity. In Topic, Focus, and Configurationality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 4], Werner Abraham & Sjaak de Meij (eds), 321–348. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Overt infinitival subjects (if that’s what they are). In Organizing Grammar, Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huijbregts, Ursula Kleinhenz & Jan Koster (eds), 618–625. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2009a. Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements in Hungarian. In Approaches to Hungarian, Vol. 11: Papers from the 2007 New York Conference, Marcel den Dikken & Robert Vago (eds), 251–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements cross-linguistically. In NYU WPL in Syntax, Irwin Rojas & Vázquez Rojas (eds). <[URL]> (30 January 2021)
Szécsényi, Krisztina. 2009. On the double nature of Hungarian infinitival constructions. Lingua 119(4): 592–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018a. Postverbal-only focus as evidence for biclausal structure in Hungarian. Jezikoslovlje 19(3): 481–508.Google Scholar
. 2018b. Control and the left periphery: The scope and information structure properties of Hungarian infinitival complements with nominative, dative, and covert subjects. In Boundaries Crossed, at the Interfaces of Morphosyntax, Phonology, Pragmatics and Semantics [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 94], Huba Bartos, Marcel den Dikken, Zoltán Bánréti & Tamás Váradi (eds), 279–295. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018c. Infinitival clauses with nominative subjects in European Portuguese and Hungarian: Only pronouns? In Para Óscar Lopes: Estudos de Linguística, Fátima Oliveira, António Leal, Fátima Silva & Purificação Silvano (eds), 215–239. Porto: Afrontamento.Google Scholar
Szécsényi, Krisztina & Szécsényi, Tibor. 2017. Definiteness agreement in Hungarian multiple infinitival constructions. In Language Use and Linguistic Structure. Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistic Colloquium 2016, Joseph Emonds & Marketa Janebova (eds), 75–89. Olomouc: Palacky University.Google Scholar
. 2019. I agrees with you: Object agreement and permissive hagy in Hungarian. In Language Use and Linguistic Structure. Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2018, Joseph Emonds, Markéta Janebová & Ludmila Veselovská (eds), 79–97. Olomouc: Palacký University.Google Scholar
Tabatowski, Michael. 2020. Exceptional wh-movement: The case of the Hungarian modal-existential construction. In Proceedings of the 19th Meeting of the Texas Linguistics Society, Caitlin Coons, Zhe-Chen Guo, Seyeon Park & Elizabeth Wood (eds), 62–79. <[URL]> (30 January 2021)
Tóth, Ildikó. 2000. Inflected Infinitives in Hungarian. PhD dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives. Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2002. Syntactic versus semantic control. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 26–27, 2000) [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 53], C. Jan-Wouter Zwart & Werner Abraham (eds), 93–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo