Cover not available
Part of
Implicitness: From lexis to discourse
Edited by Piotr Cap and Marta Dynel
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 276] 2017
► pp. 95–118

Chapter 5
Zero subject anaphors and extralinguistically motivated subject pro-drop in Hungarian language use

| University of Szeged
The present chapter aims to analyse implicit subject arguments in Hungarian language use, focusing especially on the zero subject anaphors and extralinguistically motivated subject pro-drop phenomena in utterance and discourse contexts. Zero anaphors are types of implicit arguments which have their own position in the syntactic structure of utterances and antecedents with which they are coreferential. When an implicit argument obtains its interpretation extralinguistically, for instance, from the physical context, it is a manifestation of exophoric reference. Exophoric implicit arguments do not have any antecedents; instead, they refer to items in the external world. On the basis of a detailed analysis of these kinds of implicit arguments, the chapter has two interrelated conclusions. Firstly, the use or interpretation of zero subject anaphors and exophoric subject pro-drop phenomena in Hungarian language use predicted by grammar can be considered only a typical, default use and interpretation that emerge due to the lack of any pieces of information from the encyclopaedic knowledge, general pragmatic knowledge and/or specific context. And secondly, grammar and pragmatics intensively interact in the course of use and interpretation of implicit arguments.
Keywords: implicit arguments, zero subject anaphors, exophoric reference, subject pro-drop, interaction between grammar and pragmatics, principle of relevance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Anaphors, zero anaphors and extralinguistically motivated pro-drop phenomena
  • 3.Zero subject anaphors and extralinguistically motivated subject pro-drop in Hungarian language use
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 30 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.05nem
References (49)
References
Ariel, Mira. 1991. “The Function of Accessibility in a Theory of Grammar.” Journal of Pragmatics 16: 443–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, Sarah. 2001. “Testing the Neo-Gricean Pragmatic Theory of Anaphora: The Influence of Consistency Constraints on Interpretation of Coreference in Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 901–941. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capone, Alessandro. 2008. “Belief Reports and Pragmatic Intrusion (the case of null appositives).” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1019–1040. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cote, Sharon A. 1996. Grammatical and Discourse Properties of Null Arguments in English. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Cummins, Sarah, and Yves Roberge. 2005. “A Modular Account of Null Objects in French.” Syntax 8: 44–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dankovics, Natália. 2001. “Anaforikus viszonyok finn, észt és magyar összetett mondatokban pszicholingvisztikai szempontból” [Anaphoric relations in Finnish, Estonian, and Hungarian compound sentences from the psycholinguistic point of view]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 98: 120–142.Google Scholar
. 2005. “A szórend szerepe az anafora-feldolgozásban” [The role of word order in anaphor resolution]. In Az ezerarcú elme. Tanulmányok Pléh Csaba 60. születésnapjára [The Thousand Face Mind. Studies on the Occasion of Csaba Pléh’s 60th Birthday], ed. by Judit Gervain, Kristóf Kovács, and Mihály Racsmány, 117–134. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Ehlich, Konrad. 1982. “Anaphora and Deixis: Same, Similar, or Different?” In Speech, Place and Action. Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, ed. by Robert J. Jarvella and Wolfgang Klein, 315–338. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1985. “Az anaforikus névmások értelmezéséről.” [On the interpretation of anaphoric pronouns]. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok 16: 155–187.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Mondattan” [The syntax]. In Új magyar nyelvtan [New Hungarian Grammar], ed. by Katalin É. Kiss, Ferenc Kiefer, and Péter Siptár, 151–184. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.Google Scholar
García Velasco, Daniel, and Carmen Portero Muñoz. 2002. Understood Objects in Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.Google Scholar
Gillon, Brendan S. 2012. “Implicit Complements: A Dilemma for Model Theoretic Semantics.” Linguistics and Philosophy 35: 313–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2005. “Argument Realization. The Role of Constructions, Lexical Semantics and Discourse Factors.” In Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried, 17–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Arguments Structure Constructions versus Lexical Rules or Derivational Verb Templates.” Mind and Language 28: 435–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2000. “Discourse Anaphora: Four Theoretical Models.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 151–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Anaphora and the pragmatics-syntax interface.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Robert Horn and Gregory Ward, 288–314. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Anaphora, Cataphora, Exophora, Logophoricity.” In Concise Encyclopaedia of Semantics, ed. by Keith Allan, 19–31. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2012. The Oxford Dictionary of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Iten, Corinne, Marie-Odile Junker, Aryn Pyke, Robert Stainton, and Chaterine Wearing. 2005. “Null Complements: Licensed by Syntax or by Semantics-Pragmatics?” CLA Annual Conference Proceedings 2005: 1–15.Google Scholar
Kim, Kye-Sung, Park, Seong-Bae, Song, Hyu-Je, Park, Se Young, and Lee, Sang Jo. 2010. “Identification of Non-referential Zero Pronouns for Korean-English Machine Translation.” In Proceedings of PRICAI 2010: Trends in Artificial Intelligence. 11th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Daegu, Korea, August 30–September 2, 2010, 112–122. Berlin: Springer.
Laczkó, Krisztina. 2003. “A mutató névmások funkcionális vizsgálata.” [The functional examination of demonstrative pronouns]. Magyar Nyelvőr 127: 314–325.Google Scholar
Lejtovicz, Katalin E., and Zsolt T. Kardkovács. 2007. “Anaphora Resolution.” Magyar Kutatók 8. Nemzetközi Szimpóziuma. 8th International Symposium of Hungarian Researchers on Computational Intelligence and Informatics, 227–237. Budapest: BMF.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mitkov, Ruslan. 2013. Anaphora Resolution. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita. 1983. “Backward Anaphora and Discourse Structure.” Journal of Pragmatics 7: 129–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Németh T., Enikő. 2000. “Occurrence and Identification of Implicit Arguments in Hungarian.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1657–1683. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Implicit Arguments in Hungarian: Manners of Their Occurrence and Possibilities of Their Identification.” In Argument Structure in Hungarian, ed. by István Kenesei, 113–156. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Grammatika és pragmatika viszonya az implicit argumentumok tükrében.” [The relationship between grammar and pragmatics in case of implicit arguments]. In Nyelvelmélet − nyelvhasználat [Theory of Languge and Language Use], ed. by Tamás Gecső and Csilla Sárdi, 188–197. Székesfehérvár: Kodolányi János Főiskola.Google Scholar
. 2010. “How Lexical-Semantic Factors Influence the Verbs’ Occurrence with Implicit Direct Object Arguments in Hungarian.” In The Role of Data at the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface, ed. by Enikő T.Németh and Károly Bibok, 305–348. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Lexical-Semantic Properties and Contextual Factors in the Use of Verbs of Work with Implicit Subject Arguments in Hungarian.” Intercultural Pragmatics 9: 453–477.Google Scholar
. 2014a. “Hungarian Verbs of Natural Phenomena with Explicit and Implicit Subject Arguments: Their Use and Occurrence in the Light of Data.” In The Evidential Basis of Linguistic Argumentation, ed. by András Kertész and Csilla Rákosi, 103–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. “Implicit Arguments at the Grammar-Pragmatics Interface: Some Methodological Considerations.” Argumentum 10: 679–694.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Theoretical and methodological issues in the research into implicit arguments in Hungarian.” In Pragmatics at Its Interfaces, ed. by Stavros Assimakopoulos, 149-174. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Németh T., Enikő, and Károly Bibok. 2010. “Interaction between Grammar and Pragmatics: The Case of Implicit Arguments, Implicit Predicates and Co-composition in Hungarian.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 501–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peral, Jesús, and Antonio Fernández. 2000. “Generation of Spanish Zero Pronouns into English.” In Natural Language Processing − NLP 2000. Second International Conference. Patras, Greece, June 2000. Proceedings, ed. by Dimitris N. Christodoulakis, 252–260. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Pethő, Gergely, and Éva Kardos. 2009. “Cross-Linguistic Evidence and the Licensing of Implicit Arguments.” Oslo Studies in Language 1: 33–61.Google Scholar
Pléh, Csaba. 1994. “Mondatközi viszonyok feldolgozása: az anaphora megértése a magyarban.” [Processing intersentential relations: Interpreting anaphors in Hungarian]. Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle 50: 287–320.Google Scholar
. 1998. A mondatmegértés a magyar nyelvben [Sentence Comprehension in Hungarian]. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.Google Scholar
Pléh, Csaba, and Katalin Radics. 1978. “Truncated Sentence, Pronominalization and the Text.” Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 28: 91–113.Google Scholar
Pléh, Csaba, and Brian McWhinney. 1987. “Anaphora Resolution in Hungarian.” Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 37: 103–124.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntactic Theories and the Structure of English. A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1985. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Renkema, Jan. 2004. Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, José, and Wilbert Spooren. 1997. “Perspective, Subjectivity, and Modality from a Cognitive Linguistic Point of View.” In Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker, and Linda Waugh, 85–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Kate. 2006. “When Less Is More: Implicit Arguments and Relevance Theory.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 139–170.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tolcsvai Nagy, Gábor. 2001. “3rd Person Anaphora in Hungarian.” Hungarian Studies 15: 287–298.Google Scholar