Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 45:2 (2021) ► pp. 428–469

Additive particle uses in Hungarian

A Role and Reference Grammar account

| Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
In this paper, we investigate empirical data that raise challenging issues with respect to focus sensitivity of the Hungarian additive particle is ‘also, too’. In Hungarian, the additive particle is attached to a constituent, and the is-phrase cannot occupy the structural focus position. This raises the issue how to capture the focus sensitivity of is. We propose a primarily pragmatic, context-based analysis of the Hungarian additive particle, where the particle associates with the pragmatic focus (Lambrecht 1994) determined on basis of the immediate question under discussion (Roberts 2012). Important evidence for this claim is that the Hungarian additive particle can take different semantic associates, corresponding to the pragmatic focus of the sentence. After discussing the Hungarian data, we will present the analysis in the framework of Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997; Van Valin 2005). To capture Hungarian and English data in a uniform way, important extensions of the framework will be proposed.
Keywords: additive particles, Hungarian, Role and Reference Grammar
Published online: 22 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19034.bal
References

References

Alberti, Gábor & Anna Medve
2000 Focus Constructions and the “Scope-inversion Puzzle” in Hungarian. In Gábor Alberti & István Kenesei (eds.), The structure of Hungarian VII, 93–117. Szeged: JATEPress.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides
2003 Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Balogh, Kata
2009 Theme with variations. A Context-based analysis of focus. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Balogh, Kata & Corinna Langer
Forthcoming. Additive particles, focus sensitivity and prosody: the case of Hungarian. Submitted.
Barsalou, Lawrence W.
1992 Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Feder Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, 21–74. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Beaver, David I. & Brady Z. Clark
2002 The proper treatments of focus sensitivity. In Line Mikkelsen & Christopher Potts (eds.), WCCFL 21 Proceedings, 15–28. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
2008 Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning Explorations in Semantics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Suzanne
2009 Az éhezők viadala [The hunger games]. Budapest: Agave Könyvek. Translated by Benedek Totth.Google Scholar
Dowty, David
1979 Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1978 A magyar mondatok egy szintaktikai modellje [A syntactic model of Hungarian sentences]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 80. 261–286.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1995 Discourse configurational languages. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1998 Identificational Focus versus Information Focus. Language 74. 245i273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2002 The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Discourse functions: The case of Hungarian. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 663–685. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana
2016 Toward a typology for additive markers. Lingua 180. 69–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Genzel, Susanne, Shinichiro Ishihara & Balázs Surányi
2015 The prosodic expression of focus, contrast and givenness: A production study of Hungarian. Lingua 165. 183–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gyuris, Beáta
2009 The semantics and pragmatics of the contrastive topic in Hungarian. Budapest: Lexica Ltd.Google Scholar
2012 The information structure of Hungarian. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure, 159–186. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horváth, Júlia
2007 Separating “focus movement” from focus. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. 108–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Discourse features”, Syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua 120. 1346–1369. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kallmeyer, Laura & Rainer Osswald
2013 Syntax-driven semantic frame composition in lexicalized tree adjoining grammars. Journal of Language Modelling 1(2). 267–330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 Combining predicate-argument structure and operator projection: Clause structure in Role and Reference Grammar. In Marco Kuhlmann & Tatjana Scheffler (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+13), 61–70. Association for Computational Linguistics. Available at: https://​www​.aclweb​.org​/anthology​/W17​-6207/ (Last access: 13 May 2020).
Kallmeyer, Laura, Rainer Osswald & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.
2013 Tree wrapping for Role and Reference Grammar. In Glyn Morrill & Mark-Jan Nederhof (eds.), Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2012 and 2013 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8036, 175–190. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István
1997 On the syntactic options of focus. Unpublished manuscript, University of Delaware, Newark and JATE, Szeged.Google Scholar
1998 Adjuncts and arguments in VP-focus in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45(1–2). 61–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Focus as identification. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 137–168. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ference
2005 On the information structure of the Hungarian sentence. Hungarian Studies 19(2). 255–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1991 The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
1998 Additive particles under stress. In Devon Strolovitch & Aaron Lawson (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 8, 111–128. Cornell University: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
2006 Association with focus phrases. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 105–136. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred & Renate Musan
(eds.) 2012 The expression of information structure. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, Saul A.
2009 Presupposition and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 40(3). 367–386. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langer, Corinna
2019 Focus sensitivity and prosodic structure in Hungarian: A case study on the additive particle is. Düsseldorf: Henrich-Heine-Universität MA Thesis.Google Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian
2014 Evidence for frames from human language. In Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (eds.), Frames and concept types, 23–67. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 Frame theory with first-order comparators: Modeling the lexical meaning of punctual verbs of change with frames. In Helle Hvid Hansen, Sarah E. Murray, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh & Henk Zeevat (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Information LNCS 10148, 98–117. Heidelberg/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Mayer, Mercer
1967 A boy, a dog and a frog. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
1969 Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
1973 Frog on his own. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
1974 Frog goes to diner. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
Mayer, Mercer & Marianna Mayer
1971 A boy, a dog, a frog and a friend. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
1975 One frog too many. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
Onea, Edgar
2007 Exhaustivity, focus and incorporation in Hungarian. In Maria Aloni, Paul Dekker & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, 169–174. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Osswald, Rainer & Laura Kallmeyer
2018 Towards a formalization of Role and Reference Grammar. In Rolf Kailuweit, Lisann Künkel & Eva Staudinger (eds.), Applying and expanding Role and Reference Grammar (NIHIN Studies), 355–378. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Universitätsbibliothek.Google Scholar
Petersen, Wiebke
2015 Representation of concepts as frames. In Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (eds.), Meaning, frames, and conceptual representation (Studies in Language and Cognition 2), 43–67. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press. [Commented reprint: originally published 2007 In Jurģis Šķilters, Fiorenza Toccafondi & Gerhard Stemberger (eds.): Complex cognition and qualitative science (The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 2), 151–170. Riga: University of Latvia.]Google Scholar
Riester, Arndt
2015 Analyzing Questions under Discussion and information structure in a Balinese narrative. In Atsuko Utsumi & Asako Shiohara (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Information Structure of Austronesian Languages, 1–26. Tokyo: Tokyo University ILCAA, TUFS.Google Scholar
2019 Constructing QUD trees. In Malte Zimmermann, Klaus von Heusinger & Edgar Onea (eds.), Questions in discourse. Volume 2: Pragmatics, 164–193. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige
2003 Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 287–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6). 1–69.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1985 Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth
1996 Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In John A. Glodsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros, Ines Fiedler, Samantha Hellmuth, Anne Schwarz, Ruben Stoel, Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry & Manfred Krifka
2006 Questionnaire on Information Structure: Reference manual (Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 4). Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Ana R. Luís
2012 Clitics. An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
2002 Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5–6). 701–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Surányi, Balázs
2011 A szintaktikailag jelöletlen fókusz pragmatikája [On the pragmatics of the syntactically unmarked focus]. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XXIII. 281–313.Google Scholar
2015 Discourse-configurationality. In Caroline Féry & Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 422–440. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
1981 The semantics of topic-focus articulation. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language. Proceedings of the 3rd Amsterdam Colloquium, 513–540. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
1994 All quantifiers are not equal: the case of focus. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 42(3/4). 171–187.Google Scholar
1997 Strategies for Scope Taking. In Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, 109–154. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Quantifier particles and compositionality. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 27–34. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
2017 Additive presuppositions are derived through activating focus alternatives. In Alexandre Cremers, Thom van Gessel & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium, 455–464. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna & Adrian Brasoveanu
2013 Quantifier particles and compositionality. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of ψ,?ψ, and ◊ψ. A festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman, Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam. Available at: http://​festschriften​.illc​.uva​.nl​/Festschrift​-JMF/ (Last access: 13 May 2020).
Szendrői, Kriszta
2001 Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. London: University College London PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
2003 A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20. 37–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr.
2005 Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Semantic macroroles and language processing. In Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie & Angela D. Friederici (eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking, 263–301. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & Randy LaPolla
1997 Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1967 Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vilkuna, M.
1989 Free word order in Finnish. Its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, Daniel
2007 Identifying inferences in focus. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 207–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M.
1985 Clitics and particles. Language 61(2). 283–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar