Chapter 5. Hungarian verbs of natural phenomena with explicit and implicit subject arguments
Their use and occurrence in the light of data
The present chapter has two main aims. First, it attempts to provide a novel account for the occurrence of Hungarian verbs of natural phenomena with subject arguments. The problem which the present chapter wants to resolve is that there is an inconsistency between the previous explanations of the behaviour of verbs of natural phenomena with and without an explicit subject and the data. The previous approaches have considered the Hungarian verbs of natural phenomena subjectless, although data from various direct sources (such as written corpora, intuition, introspection, and spoken discourses) testify to occurrences of verbs of natural phenomena with explicit subjects. To eliminate this inconsistency, the chapter argues for a new, unified approach, according to which Hungarian verbs of natural phenomena have subject arguments in their lexical-semantic representations which can (or even should) be lexically unrealised in some contexts, while in others they can be explicitly expressed and contextual, grammatical as well as lexical-semantic factors together license the implicit or explicit occurrence of subject arguments. Second, applying Kertész & Rákosi’s (this volume, 2012) p-model, the chapter aims to reflect on a metalinguistic level on how the proposed explanation has been reached in the course of the research as well as how the new account can resolve the above mentioned problem.
References (41)
References
Bartos, Huba. 2000. Az inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere (The syntactic background of inflectional phenomena). In
Stukturális magyar nyelvtan
, 3:
Morfológia
(Structural Hungarian Grammar, 3: Morphology), Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), 653–762. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó,![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bibok, Károly. 2008. Az igék szemantikája és a szintaktikai alternáció (The semantics of verbs and syntactic alternation). In
Strukturális magyar nyelvtan
, 4:
A szótár szerkezete
(Structural Hungarian Grammar, 4: Structure of the Lexicon), Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), 23–70. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bibok, Károly. 2009. Az evidencia problémája az elméleti nyelvészetben (The problem of evidence in theoretical linguistics). Talk presented at the conference Kutatócsoportjaink
(Our research groups), Szeged.
Bibok, Károly. 2010. From syntactic alternation to lexical pragmatics. In
The Role of Data at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface
, Enikő Németh T. & Károly Bibok (eds), 261–304. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bibok, Károly & Németh T., Enikő. 2001. How the lexicon and context interact in the meaning construction of utterances. In
Pragmatics and the Flexibility of Word Meaning
, Enikő Németh T. & Károly Bibok (eds), 289–320. Amsterdam: Elsevier.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1983. Semantische und konzeptuelle Repräsentation lexikalischer Einheiten. In
Untersuchungen zur Semantik
[Studia Grammatica 22], Rudolf Růžička & Wolfgang Motsch (eds), 61–99. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1996. How much space gets into language? In
Language and Space
, Paul Bloom, Mary A Peterson, Lynn Nadel & Merrill F. Garrett (eds), 31–76. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cote, Sharon A. 1996. Grammatical and Discourse Properties of Null Arguments in English. Ph.D. dissertation, <[URL]> (20 December 2009).
Dik, Simon C. 1985. Formal and semantic adjustment of derived constructions. In
Predicates and Terms in Functional Grammar
, A. Machtelt Bolkestein, Casper de Groot & J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds), 1–28. Dordrecht: Foris.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002.
The Syntax of Hungarian
. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
García Velasco, Daniel & Portero Muñoz, Carmen. 2002.
Understood Objects in Functional Grammar
[Working Papers in Functional Grammar 76], Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995.
Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure
. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005. Constructions, lexical semantics and the correspondence principle: Accounting for generalizations and subregularities in the realization of arguments. In
The Syntax of Aspect
, Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds), 215–236. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Groefsema, Marjolein. 1995. Understood arguments: A semantic/pragmatic approach.
Lingua
96: 139–161. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Groot, Casper. 1985. Predicates and features. In
Predicates and Terms in Functional Grammar
, A. Machtelt Bolkestein, Casper de Groot & J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds), 71–84. Dordrecht: Foris.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990.
Semantic Structures
. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kertész, András & Rákosi, Csilla. 2012.
Data and Evidence in linguistics. A plausible argumentation model
. Cambridge: CUP.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Kertész, András & Rákosi, Csilla. this volume. The p-model of data and evidence in linguistics. ![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keszler, Borbála (ed.). 2000.
Magyar grammatika
(Hungarian Grammar). Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kocsány, Piroska. 1997. Pro-drop und Textkohärenz: Interagierende Regeln im Gebrauch des Subjektspronomens im Ungarischen.
Acta Linguistica Hungarica
44: 385–411.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Komlósy, András. 1994. Complements and adjuncts. In
Syntax and Semantics
27, Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds), 91–178. New York NY: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Komlósy, András. 2001.
A lexikai-funkcionális grammatika mondattanának alapfogalmai
[Basic notions in the syntax of lexical-functional grammar]. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maleczki Márta. 2001. Indefinite arguments in Hungarian. In
Argument Structure in Hungarian
, István Kenesei (ed), 157–199. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Martí, Luisa. 2006. Unarticulated constituents revisited.
Linguistics and Philosophy
29: 135–166. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nagy C., Katalin. 2008. Data in historical pragmatics: A case study on the Catalan periphrastic perfective past. In
New Approaches to Linguistic Evidence: Pilot Studies
, András Kertész & Csilla Rákosi (eds), 171–197. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Németh T., Enikő. 2000. Occurrence and identification of implicit arguments in Hungarian.
Journal of Pragmatics
32: 1657–1683. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Németh T., Enikő 2001. Implicit arguments in Hungarian. In
Argument Structure in Hungarian
, István Kenesei (ed.), 113–156. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Németh T. Enikő. 2008. Az implicit alanyi és tárgyi argumentumok előfordulásának lexikai-szemantikai jellemzői (The lexical-semantic properties of the occurrence of implicit subject and direct object arguments). In
Strukturális magyar nyelvtan
, 4:
A szótár szerkezete
(Structural Hungarian Grammar, 4: Structure of the Lexicon), Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), 71–128. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Németh T., Enikő.. 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
, Enikő Németh T. & Károly Bibok (eds), 305–348. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Németh T., Enikő. & 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pustejovsky, James. 1995.
The Generative Lexicon
. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pustejovsky, James. 1998. Generativity and explanation in semantics: A reply to Fodor and Lepore.
Linguistic Inquiry
29: 289–311. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pusztai, Ferenc (ed.). 2003.
Magyar értelmező kéziszótár
(Concise Explanatory Dictionary of Hungarian), 2nd rev. edn. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radford, Andrew. 1997.
Syntax: A Minimalist introduction
. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Recanati, François. 2007. It is raining (somewhere).
Linguistics and Philosophy
30: 123–146. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rescher, Nicholas. 1976.
Plausible Reasoning
. Assen: Van Gorcum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rice, Sally. 1988. Unlikely lexical entries.
Berkeley Linguistic Series
14: 202–212.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sárik, Pál. 1998. A határozói igenevek néhány problémája (Some problems of adverbial participles).
Magyar Nyelv
94: 423–435.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995.
Relevance: Communication and Cognition
, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taylor, Kenneth. 2001. Sex, breakfast, and descriptus interruptus.
Synthese
128: 45–61. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tóth, Ildikó. 2001. Impersonal constructions and null expletives. In
Argument Structure in Hungarian
, István Kenesei (ed.), 51–78. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.