Browsing by Author "Farkas, Judit"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item
    Pre-D non-possessor positions in Hungarian
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2018) Farkas, Judit; Karácsonyi, Krisztina
    The paper investigates pre-D non-possessor positions in Hungarian. In Hungarian, non-deverbal nominal constructions containing pre-D non-possessor positions are acceptable only if they contain a demonstrative pronoun and also an adjective, and the appearance of a pre-D possessor does not impact the acceptability of the sentence. The paper also gives a brief discussion of similar constructions with pre-D non-possessors in German, mainly to shed light on the Hungarian data. Although German also allows for pre-D non-possessors, it does so under different conditions. A short topicalized element can readily appear in German sentences as a non-possessor dependent, but in this language a possessor can never appear in the same noun phrase. The paper also discusses deverbal nominal constructions with pre-D non-possessor dependents in Hungarian. In these constructions the presence of a possessor argument is indispensable. This is due to the fact that the placement of the non-possessor argument in a position preceding the possessor is legitimized by the fact that the former takes scope over the latter within the internal information structure of the matrix noun phrase. The paper also deals with the syntactic structure of said deverbal nominals.
  • Item
    Similarities and differences between two Hungarian particles for also: szintén and is
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2020) Farkas, Judit; Futó, Bettina; Huszics, Aliz; Kleiber, Judit; Dóla, Mónika; Alberti, Gábor
    The paper provides a comparative analysis of the syntax, semantics and pragmatics of two Hungarian particles with the same logical core meaning also: is and szintén. The analysis yields important theoretical implications since it demonstrates how two particles sharing the same logical-propositional/truth-functional core meaning can expand into two different markers. In discourse, is acts as an intensional/metacognitive pragmatic marker in the sense as proposed by Aijmer et al. (2006), while szintén functions as a coherence-signaling discourse marker. The two particles share certain syntactic-semantic properties: neither of them can be followed by a topic, they both have distributive meaning, and both of them can pertain to the noun phrase that they immediately follow, as well as to ordered n-tuples of noun phrases. However, there are also syntactic and pragmasemantic differences between them. Namely, their ordered n-tuples have different word orders; is can function as a pragmatic marker while szintén cannot; szintén can appear as a separate clause, while is cannot (this is presumably related to the fact that szintén can be stressed, while is is obligatorily unstressed); and finally, szintén can have a peculiar discourse-preserving function. We explain the syntactic differences between the two particles using the partial spell-out technique of minimalist generative syntacticians (first applied to Hungarian by Surányi 2009), and the Cinque-hierarchy-based approach to Hungarian sentence- and predicate-adverbials (Surányi 2008). We account for the pragmasemantic properties of the pragmatic-marker variant of is in the formal representational dynamic theory of interpretation called ReALIS, already presented in the LingBaW series (Alberti et al. 2016, Kleiber and Alberti 2017, Viszket et al. 2019).
  • Item
    Spelling out of scope taking arguments in (de-)verbal constructions in Hungarian
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2022) Farkas, Judit; Alberti, Gábor
    The paper systematically investigates operators in post-head positions within the three constructions referring to states of affairs in Hungarian, that is, within verbal, deverbal nominal and infinitival phrases. Hungarian is well-known to be a language in which all types of operator can be, and are usually, spelt out in the pre-head zone. However, it has not been discussed in a systematic and comprehensive way earlier whether operators can appear in post-head positions. The paper points out that this is partially possible via a systematic overview of six basic operator types. It also illustrates that while spelling out operators in the pre-head zone results in unambiguous constructions, placing them in post-head positions yields different types of ambiguity. As for the acceptability of scope taking arguments, finite verbal constructions show a black-and-white picture while infinitival and deverbal nominal constructions can be characterized by gray zones in respect of the readiness of arguments to take scope from post-head position. In these “gray zones”, a somewhat speaker-dependent variation can be observed, presumably with underlying microvariation. To represent and interpret our findings, we use Grohmann’s (2000, 2003) phase-theoretic approach with its pragmasemantics-based three Spell-Out domains per cycle.