Predicate Structure in a Functional Grammar of Hungarian 9783110250480, 9783110130492

Citation preview

Predicate Structure in a Functional Grammar of Hungarian

Functional Grammar Series This series comprises monographs and collections written in the framework of Functional Grammar. The aim is to seek explanations for a wide variety of linguistic phenomena, both language-specific and cross-linguistic, in terms of the conditions under which and the purposes for which language is used. Editors:

A. Machtelt Bolkestein Simon C. Dik Casper de Groot J. Lachlan Mackenzie

General address: Institute for General Linguistics Functional Grammar Spuistraat 2 1 0 NL-1012 VT Amsterdam The Netherlands

Other books in this series: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

A.M. Bolkestein, C. de Groot and J.L. Mackenzie (eds.) Syntax and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar A. M. Bolkestein, C. de Groot and J.L. Mackenzie (eds.) Predicates and Terms in Funtional Grammar Michael Hannay English Existentials in Functional Grammar Josine A. Lalleman Dutch Language Proficiency of Turkish Children born in the Netherlands Jan Nuyts and Georges de Schutter (eds.) Getting one's Words into Line Johan van der A u w e r a and Louis Goossens (eds.) Ins and Outs of the Predication Judith Junger Predicate Formation in the Verbal System of Modern Hebrew A h m e d Moutaouakil Pragmatic Functions in a Functional Grammar of Arabic Simon C. Dik The Theory of Functional Grammar J o h n H. Connolly and Simon C. Dik (eds.) Functional Grammar and the Computer

Other studies on Functional Grammar include S.C. Dik, Functional Grammar (1978), T. Hoekstra et al. (eds.). Perspectives on Functional Grammar (1981), S.C. Dik (ed.). Advances in Functional Grammar (1983), S.C. Dik, The Theory of Functional Grammar (1989). All published by FORIS PUBLICATIONS.

Predicate Structure in a Functional Grammar of Hungarian

Casper le G root

¥ 1989

FORIS PUBLICATIONS Dordrecht-Holland/Providence RI - U.S.A.

Published

by:

Foris Publications Holland P.O. Box 509 3300 AM Dordrecht, The Netherlands Distributor

for the U.S.A. and

Canada:

Foris Publications USA, Inc. P.O. Box 5904 Providence Rl 02903 U.S.A. Distributor

for

Japan:

Sanseido Book Store, Ltd. 1-1, Kanda-jimbocho-cho Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 101, Japan

CIP-DATA

ISBN 90 6765 435 3 © 1989 Foris Publications - Dordrecht No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner. Printed in The Netherlands by ICG Printing, Dordrecht.

Voor Steve

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 AIMS, METHOD AND OUTLINE OF THE RESEARCH

1.1 Aims and Method 1.2 A Functional Grammar of Hungarian 1.2.1 The organization of a Functional Grammar 1.2.2 Predicates and predicate-frames 1.2.3 Terms and term formation 1.2.4 Predications 1.2.5 Pragmatic function assignment 1.2.6 Syntactic function assignment 1.2.7 Fully specified predications 1.2.8 Expression rules 1.2.8.0 Introduction 1.2.8.1 Case marking and adpositions 1.2.8.2 Determiners 1.2.8.3 Voice 1.2.8.4 Tense, mood, aspect 1.2.8.5 Illocution 1.2.8.6 Auxiliary elements 1.2.8.7 Agreement and cross-reference 1.2.8.8 Linear ordering 1.2.8.9 Stress and intonation 1.3 Conclusions Notes

1

1 3 3 3 5 6 10 11 11 12 12 16 18 18 18 19 19 19 22 26 26 27

CHAPTER 2 PREDICATE STRUCTURE

31

2.0 Introduction 2.1 Categories of predicates 2.2 States of affairs 2.2.1 Typology of states of affairs 2.2.2 The relation between parameters and predicates

31 32 38 38 40

viii

2.3 Arguments 2.3.0 Introduction 2.3.1 Arguments versus satellites 2.3.2 On the expression of arguments 2.4 Semantic functions 2.4.0 Introduction 2.4.1 First arguments 2.4.2 Second arguments 2.4.3 Third arguments 2.5 Conclusions Notes

43 43 44 47 55 55 55 57 59 61 63

CHAPTER 3 PERSON MARKING

67

3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

67 69 72 75 79 79 81 84 84 88 90 91 92 93

Introduction De Groot & Limburg's typology of pronominal elements The representation of 'person' in FG The representation of apposition Typology of person marking in Hungarian 3.4.0 Introduction 3.4.1 Finite verb + verbal PMs 3.4.2 Participle + verbal PMs 3.4.3 Noun + nominal PMs 3.4.4 Infinitive + nominal PMs 3.4.5 Nominalization + nominal PMs 3.4.6 Adposition + nominal PMs 3.5 Conclusions Notes CHAPTER 4 PERSPECTIVE

4.0 Introduction 4.1 Main predication 4.2 Finite embedded predications 4.2.1 Predications in term positions 4.2.2 Displacement 4.3 Non-finite embedded predications 4.3.0 Introduction 4.3.1 Constructions with an infinitve 4.3.1.1 Infinitive + copula 4.3.1.2 Infinitive + modal verbs 4.3.1.3 Infinitive + adjectival or nominal predicate 4.3.1.4 Infinitive + verbs of volition and perception 4.3.1.5 Infinitive + phasal verb 4.3.1.6 Infinitive as 3rd argument

95

95 98 103 103 104 107 107 107 108 109 109 110 112 112

ix

4.3.1.7 Conclusions of this section 4.3.2 Constructions with a participle 4.3.2.1 Introduction 4.3.2.2 Adverbial participles 4.3.2.3 Adjectival participles 4.3.2.3.1 Present participle 4.3.3.3.2 Past participle 4.3.2.3.3 Future participle 4.4 Nominalizations 4.5 Conclusions Notes

113 113 113 114 117 117 117 124 124 125 129

CHAPTER 5 PREDICATE FORMATION

131

5.0 Introduction 5.1 Predicate and predicate formation 5.2 Predicate formation rules 5.2.1 Valency extension 5.2.1.1 Causative formation 5.2.1.2 De-adjectival verb formation 5.2.1.3 Comparative degree formation 5.2.2 Valency reduction 5.2.2.1 Detransitivization 5.2.2.2 Reflexivization 5.2.3 Semantic function shift of the arguments of the predicate 5.2.4 Semantic modification of the predicate 5.2.5 Categorial change of input predicate 5.2.5.0 Introduction 5.2.5.1 Derived verbal predicates 5.2.5.2 Derived adjectival predicates 5.2.5.3 Derived nominal predicates 5.2.6 Effects on the set of SoAs the predicate designates 5.2.6.1 Change in value of inherent features 5.2.6.2 Contingent features binding different arguments 5.3 Derived predicates are complex 5.4 Conclusions Notes

131 134 137 137 137 138 139 140 140 141 142 145 146 146 147 149 159 162 162 163 163 166 168

CHAPTER 6 NON-VERBAL PREDICATES

171

6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

171 172 175 180 181

Introduction The data The treatment of non-verbal predicates in FG Adjectival predicates Nominal predicate and Term predicates

X

6.5 Relational predicates 6.5.1 Locative 6.5.2 Existential 6.5.3 Possessive 6.6 Remote progressive 6.7 Attributive constructions 6.8 Interim summary 6.9 A case study: adverbial participle construction 6.9.0 Introduction 6.9.1 The adverbial construction 6.9.2 The predicative construction 6.9.3 Analyses 6.9.3.0 Introduction 6.9.3.1 Subject assignment (passive I) 6.9.3.2 Valency reduction (passive II) 6.9.3.3 Adverbial predicate 6.9.3.4 Predication operator 6.9.3.5 SoA existential 6.9.3.6 Relational predicate 6.10 Conclusions Notes

187 187 187 188 190 190 192 192 192 193 196 200 200 201 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY

211

7.0 7.1 7.2. 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6

211 211 213 214 215 216 218

Introduction Lexicon Term formation Predicate formation Function assignment Expression rules Conclusions

References Index of authors Index of topics

219 229 231

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Linguistic research is a trade that cannot be plied in solitude. Linguists discuss interpretations of the data they have collected and the theoretical problems they have encountered over and over with their colleagues, and they check the data and new examples with native speakers of the language concerned. If a linguist would list the names of all those who have helped him to accomplish his research, books such as this would contain too many pages filled with acknowledgements. Therefore I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have contributed to this study in one way or another by thanking them here collectively. Some persons, however, I would like to mention here by name. First of all Simon Dik who has been my supervisor for many years and from whom I have learned so much about linguistics and linguistic research. In particular our discussions on the topic of this study have been extremely valuable for me. Secondly, I would like to mention Andr&s Koml6sy who has supervised the Hungarian part of this study. I thank him for his patience and constant readiness to give thoughtful answers to my questions. The collaboration with Machiel Limburg on a study on person marking affixes has provided me with a sound basis for chapter three. In the prefinal stage of preparing the text for publication Kees Hengeveld and Jan Rijkhoff have discussed the entire contents of this book with me. Their numerous comments and suggestions have markedly improved the text. Finally, I would like to mention the participants of the weekly sessions of the Functional Grammar colloquium, and the members and associates of the Linguistic Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, in particular those of room 13.

Amsterdam, June 1989

Casper de Groot

Chapter 1

AIMS, METHOD AND OUTLINE OF THE RESEARCH

1.1. AIMS AND METHOD

This study applies a linguistic theory to a language. The linguistic theory is Functional Grammar, the language is Hungarian. The choice of Hungarian as the language to which the linguistic theory will be applied is a subjective one. We might have taken any other natural language. The motivation for using Functional Grammar (FG) as developed by Simon Dik (1978a) and others1 as the general theoretical framework is based on the following two considerations. Firstly, we fully subscribe to the fundamental assumption underlying linguistic research as advocated by FG that languages must be regarded as instruments of social interaction, which human beings use to achieve certain goals and purposes. From this functional point of view one wishes, whenever this is possible, to understand why languages are organized as they are in the light of the way they are used. FG, therefore, seeks functional explanations that can account for structural properties of languages. A functional explanation of a linguistic phenomenon is a statement in which that phenomenon is shown to follow from one or more principles which crucially refer to any of the functional prerequisites imposed on natural languages (cf. Dik 1986b). Secondly, FG offers a general theoretical framework which is practically applicable to the analysis of different aspects of language and language use. FG is not only a holistic theory, but it is even an integrated theory in the sense that it assumes that there are no autonomous parts of grammar. Parts of grammar such as morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics do not stand on their own. They can only be studied in relation to each other, i.e. within one integrated linguistic theory. FG aims at a maximum of practical applicability in the analysis of diverse aspects of language and language use. An attempt is made to reach this goal by (i) maximizing the degree of typological adequacy, while (ii) minimizing the degree of abstractness of linguistic analysis. By degree of abstractness is meant the distance (as measured in terms of rules, operations, or procedures) between the structures postulated for a given language on the basis of the theory, and the actual

2 linguistic expressions of that language which are constructed in terms of these structures. Constraints on the degree of abstractness are: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

transformations in the sense of structure-changing operations are avoided; empty elements in underlying structure which do not receive expression are avoided; filter devices are disallowed; abstract lexical decomposition is not applied (instead the semantic relations between words are accounted for through meaning definitions).

The application of a linguistic theory, such as FG, to languages has empirical and theoretical relevance. It forces us to look for new linguistic data, and it allows us to evaluate the power of linguistic theories. In applying a linguistic theory to a language one may encounter gaps in the description of that language. If one wishes to fill up those gaps, one has to search for appropriate linguistic data. The result is an enlargement of the empirical domain. A good example of such a result is offered by the data on predicatively used verbal adverbials in Hungarian in chapter 6. Most grammarians of Hungarian seem to have overlooked this particular kind of construction, or have neglected to describe its properties. The application of a theory to a language also offers us the opportunity to evaluate the power of the model. The results of such an application may reinforce the strength of the theory, but may also prove the theory to be inadequate. In that case the theory must be reconsidered, which may result in an improvement of the theory. An application of the improved, more elaborated theory to the same language as before may again result in the discovery of new linguistic facts. Our view on linguistic research is that it proceeds in the following cyclic way: (1)

i linguistic theory 4

* empirical domain i

From a theoretical point of view it is also relevant that an application of a theory to a language enables us to make generalizations over apparently unrelated linguistic domains or data. This may offer us new insights into the language systems. Moreover, this may offer us a better understanding of which general distinctions or principles underlie language and language use. Along these lines we want to explore the scope of a central notion in FG, viz. the predicate-frame, by discussing relevant data from Hungarian.2 Each chapter presents a possible linguistic domain in which explanations heavily depend on the notion of predicate-frame. The linguistic domains are: classes of predicates (verbal predicates (chapter 2) and non-verbal predicates (chapter 6)), person marking (chapter 3), perspective (active vs. passive, chapter 4), and derivation (chapter 5). We will give an overall picture of each of these domains,

Problem and method

3

and we will give at least one type of construction within each domain in considerable detail. In the remainder of this chapter we will present an outline of a functional grammar of Hungarian. The twofold purpose of this outline is (i) to present information about Hungarian relevant to the discussions in later chapters, and (ii) to give an illustration of a functional grammar.

1.2. A FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR OF HUNGARIAN

1.2.1. The organization of a Functional Grammar Our presentation of Functional Grammar is based on several introductions to Functional Grammar by Dik (1978a, 1980) and Dik ed. (1983a). Functional Grammar consists of the following main components: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

the fund, which consists of sets of predicates (expressions designating properties or relations) and sets of terms (expressions designating entities); the predications (expressions designating States of Affairs (SoAs)), which are created by combining predicates and terms; the assignment of syntactic and pragmatic functions; expression rules, which convert predications into linguistic expressions.

1.2.2. Predicates and predicate-frames The fund contains a lexicon. The lexicon is considered to be the set of all predicates, or contentives, of a language. Only those predicates are given in the lexicon which cannot be productively derived from other predicates. These are called basic predicates. All irregular forms of a basic predicate which cannot be considered the result of some productive rule (inflectional or derivational) are given in the lexicon, too.3 In the lexicon, for instance, we find the form buy together with the irregular forms bought (past) and bought (past participle). Verbal predicates which do have regular past tense and past participle forms are only represented by their stems. For instance, because the formation of walked from walk can be described by a general rule, this form need not be stored in the lexicon. Predicates are contained in predicate-frames, i.e. structures which specify their fundamental semantic and syntactic properties, such as (i) the syntactic category of the predicate (Verbal, Nominal, Adjectival), (ii) the number of arguments, (iii) the semantic functions of the arguments (Agent, Goal, Recipient, etc.), and (iv) the selection restrictions on the terms which are to fill the argument slots. The predicate-frame of Hungarian javit 'repair' may have the following form:

4 (2)

javit v (xj : < human > (xj))^ (x2: < inanimate > (x2))Go 'repair'

Predicate-frame (2) indicates the following. The verbal predicate javit designates a relation between to two arguments. The semantic function of the first argument is Agent, the semantic function of the second argument is Goal. The first argument has a selection restriction < human >, the second argument has the selection restriction < inanimate >. Further details about predicate-frames follow below. The order in which the predicate and the arguments are given has no direct or necessary relation to the linear order in which these constituents will finally be realized. Predicate-frame (2) could just as well be given in another linear form, or in a two or three dimensional form. The representation of predicate-frame (2) is purely a matter of convention. The set of basic predicates can be extended with a set of derived predicates by means of a system of productive predicate formation rules, such as rules of derivation and composition. The lexicon represents the stock of basic predicates which language users must know in order to be able to use them, while the predicate formation component reflects what the language users may form themselves. Thus, derived predicates are those predicates which can be formed by means of some synchronically productive rule. All predicates, whether basic or derived, are contained in predicate-frames. Predicate formation rules can have different sorts of effects on the input predicate-frame. The most important effects are (i) effects on the valency of the predicate (number of arguments and types of semantic function), (ii) a change in the syntactic category of the predicate, and (iii) change in the set of SoAs they designate. In chapter 5 we will discuss predicate formation in more detail. Predicate-frames can be extended by satellite positions (non-arguments). The semantic functions of the satellites express the relation between the state of affairs designated by the predicate-frame and the satellites, whereas the semantic functions of the arguments express the relations between the predicate and the arguments. Javit 'repair' designates an Action SoA. This SoA may take place at some location. The location is represented by means of a satellite with the semantic function of Location. Consider (3) for instance: (3)

[javitv (x, : < human > (x,))^ (x2: < inanimate > (x2))Go ] A C n o N ( y ^ 'repair'

In chapter 2 we will discuss many aspects of predicates and predicate-frames. Among other things, we will discuss: valency, semantic functions, and States of Affairs.

Functional Grammar of Hungarian

5

1.2.3. Terms and term formation The variables indicating the arguments in predicate-frames and satellites can be replaced by terms, i.e. the structures underlying NPs. Two types of term are distinguished: basic terms and derived terms. Basic terms are given as such in the lexicon (e.g. personal pronouns, proper nouns, question words). Derived terms can be formed by the following general schema: (4)

(ox,:

^(Xi): ...: *n(xi))

Our interpretation of schema (4) is the following: Xj is the term variable symbolizing the intended referent of the term; the symbol Q indicates one or more term operators (operators for definiteness, number etc.); each $(Xj) indicates some predication, where the symbol $ indicates a predicate and (x;) its argument. As opposed to Dik (1978a), we consider a Xj in argument position to be an anaphor which is bound by the term variable, i.e. the first X; binds later Xj's.4 Each such predication can be regarded as a restrictor specifying some property which Xj must have in order to qualify as a potential referent of the term. Restrictors are stacked onto each other through the relation indicated by ':' ('such that'). Usually the first restrictor of a term will contain a nominal predicate, and be realized as the head of the noun phrase. Later restrictors will be realized as attributive modifiers or relative clauses. For instance: (5)

(dlXj: óraN (xj: oregA (x,)) 'clock' 'old'

(5) is to be read as: 'the definite single entity Xj such that it is óra, such that it is óreg. The term will be realized as:5 (6)

az òreg óra 'the old clock'

In chapter 2 we will propose a more elaborate general schema underlying terms. In chapter 4 and 6 we will give evidence that support our interpretation of term structure. Terms can be inserted into the argument and satellite slots of a predicate-frame. If all slots of a given predicate-frame are filled, the result is a (closed) predication. For instance:

6 (7)

javit v (dlxj: PaliN (Xj))Ag (dlx^: 6raN (Xj): oregA (Xj)) Go 'repair' 'Paul' 'clock* 'old' (dl yi : konyhaN fy))^ 'kitchen' [Paul is repairing the old clock in the kitchen]

Terms can also form the input of a special predicate formation rule called the 'term predicate formation rule'. This rule enables us to create non-verbal predicates of the type a gyilkos 'the killer' in Jdnos a gyilkos 'John is the killer'. Consider representation (8) where the term a gyilkos functions as a predicate (this is indicated by the braces { }). (8)

{(dlXj: gyilkosN (j^)),} (dlx,: Jdnos (*)), 'killer' 'John'

Term predicate formation, non-verbal predicates (which also include locative, existential, and resultative constructions) and copula constructions will be dealt with in chapter 6. 1.2.4. Predications Nuclear predications consist of predicates and terms. Terms refer to entities in some world, and predicates designate properties of, or relations between, such entities. A nuclear predication as a whole designates a set of States of Affairs. The term State of Affairs (SoA) is used in the broad sense of 'the conception of something which can be the case in some world'. SoAs can be divided into different types, according to the values that they can have for a number of distinguishing parameters. Together these parameters and their different values define a semantic cross-classification of SoAs. The most important semantic parameters defining the typology of SoAs are Control, Dynamism, Telicity, and Momentaneousness. This cross-classification is relevant to a number of properties of predications, among other things to the selection of satellites, tense, mood, aspect and illocution. In chapter 2 we will discuss the parameters which define the typology of SoAs. Predication operators specify grammatical distinctions such as the Polarity, Tense, Aspect, and Mood of a predication.6 Consider the following example: (9)

a.

Pali nem javitotta az oreg 6r&t. 'Paul was not repairing the old clock.'

b.

Neg Past javit v (Pali)A (az oreg 6ra) Go

Functional Grammar of Hungarian

7

We will discuss two types of predication operators here, aspect and tense. (i) aspect. By aspect we mean the internal time structure of a state of affairs. Perfective SoAs are characterized as those dynamic SoAs the internal time structure of which is indivisible, i.e. no reference can be made to a point in time within the temporal structure of those SoAs. This can be illustrated by the application of imperfective javit 'repair' and perfective meg-javit 'pf-repair' in the following examples (cf. Kiefer 1982: 297, also Dezstf 1982a: 35f): (10)

Amikor Pali 0-javitja az oreg 6rdt, nem szabad dt zavarni. impf-repairs 'When Paul repairs the old clock, he must not be disturbed' * Amikor Pali meg-javitja az oreg 6r&t, nem szabad ¿ft zavarni. pf-repairs

(11)

'To repair the old clock' in the imperfective sense (10) has an internal time structure with various discrete time points. During the time of Paul's repairing the old clock other things may happen: somebody may wish to talk to him. If, on the other hand, 'to repair the old clock' is taken in the perfective sense (11), this is not possible. Thus, as in Comrie's definition of perfectivity (Comrie 1976: 3), the situation is presented as a single unanalyzable whole, with beginning, middle and end rolled into one, or in other words as a complete situation. When we use 'perfective' in this work, it is defined in this way.7 Since there is no overt expression of imperfective aspect (cf. (10)) and since there is overt expression of perfective aspect (cf. (11)), we will not indicate imperfective aspect in our examples. Instead of (12a) we will present examples with imperfective aspect as (12b). Compare: (12)

a.

0-Javitja. impf-repair 'He repairs it.' b. Javitja. repair 'He repairs it.'

The imperfective form in Hungarian can have both non-progressive and progressive meaning. In Hungarian we also find another construction which has progressive meaning. This type of construction, however, is rather different from the English progressive form.8 Consider: (13)

Pali javit-ani van az oreg 6rdt. Paul repair-inf be:3s the old clock 'Paul is away repairing the old clock.'

8 Construction (13) has the following interpretation: John is not present; he is somewhere else at the moment, repairing the old clock. Sentence (13) may be answered to questions like 'Where is John?', or 'What is John doing?'. Sentence (13) is not an appropriate answer when John is within the visual field of the one who answers the question. Consider: (14)

* Jdnos mellettem javit-ani van az oreg 6r t —> asztalN-_

15 (trigger rule) (placement rule)

Since the function of Goal in Hungarian is always expressed by case marker f, and since the case marker is always a suffix and not a prefix, the placement rule seems redundant here. Hence, the following type of rule may account for both the form and the position of the grammatical expression of the Goal function in Hungarian: (39)

Go

— > predN-f

The introduction and position of a formal element cannot always be accounted for in one rule, as for instance in (39). An example of an expression which involves two distinct rules, a trigger rule and a placement rule, is the expression of perfective aspect, because the position of the perfective marker in Hungarian is not fixed. Depending on the pragmatic organization of the utterance in which the perfective verbal form appears the marker of perfective aspect will either take the position before the verb (as a verbal prefix) or the position immediately after verb. Consider the following examples with perfective javit 'repair', which take the perfective marker meg: (40) a.

J&nos megjavitotta az oreg 6r£t. 'John repaired the old clock.' b. Jcinos javitotta meg az oreg 6r£t. 'It was John who repaired the old clock.'

In Hungarian there is a general phonological rule that says that some short vowels in final position of words, like for instance a in ora 'clock', will be lengthened when a suffix is added to the word. The plural form of ora is orak with a long vowel a. We assume that a phonological rule that accounts for the lengthening of final vowels is also a trigger rule. In that case the output of a placement rule will function as trigger in a trigger rule. Consider: (41)

j,

—>

F

/a/, /o/#-sx

—>

/¿/, /6/-sx

Thus, to arrive at the plural form of ora in Hungarian there is the following ordering of rules:15 (42) a. trigger rule (introduction of plural A:) b. placement rule (placement of plural k) c. trigger rule (lengthening of vowel before plural k) In the remainder of this section we will give examples of trigger rules and placement rules. We will start with trigger rules. We will distinguish between

16 trigger rules that are relevant to terms (I) and trigger rules that are relevant to predicates (II). We will conclude with examples of placement rules (III). Consider: (43) I.

rules relevant to the form in which terms are realized, in particular: - case marking and adpositions (section 1.2.8.1.) - determiners (section 1.2.8.2.) II. rules relevant to the form in which the predicate is realized, in particular with respect to: - voice differences (section 1.2.8.3.) - tense, mood, aspect (section 1.2.8.4.) - illocution (section 1.2.8.5.) - auxiliary elements (section 1.2.8.6.) - agreement and cross-reference (section 1.2.8.7.) III. rules relevant to the linear ordering of morphemes and constituents.

1.2.8.1. Case marking and adpositions Expression rules may be sensitive to semantic functions. Semantic functions (and also syntactic functions, although not in Hungarian) may be expressed by cases or adpositions. Hungarian has an elaborated case system. The exact number of cases is unclear. There seems to be agreement on 17 as the number of cases (Kiefer 1987). Tompa (1968), however, distinguishes 27 case forms. We will mention 15 forms here:16

a. b. c. d. e. f. gh. i. jk. 1. m. n. o.

Cases in Hungarian name form nominative 0 accusative t nak dative inessive ban elative bòi illative ba n superessive delative ról sublative ra adessive nâl tól ablative allative hoz terminative ig translative vâ instrument/ val comitative

example hajó 'ship' hajó-t hajó-nak hajó-ban hajó-ból hajó-ba hajó-n hajó-ról hajó-ra hajó-nàl hajó-tól hajó-hoz hajó-ig hajó-và hajó-val

0 0 'to/on behalf of/of 'in(side)' 'out of 'into' 'on' 'from' 'onto/at' 'near' 'from near' 'to near' 'till' 'into' *with'

Functional Grammar of Hungarian

17

Apart from the large number of cases, Hungarian also has a number of postpositions, such as, utdn 'after', altal 'by', helyett 'instead of, miatt 'because o f . The criterion for distinguishing between cases and postpositions in Hungarian is that a noun and a case form constitute one word, whereas a noun and a postposition do not.17 Some semantic functions are expressed by a postposition together with a case (cf. Maracz 1984).18 Consider (45b): (45)

a.

Kecskem6t fele

b.

Kecskemet towards 'in the direction of Kecskemet' Kecskemet-en keresztul Kecskem6t-sup.es via Via Kecskemet'

As far as we know, Hungarian has only one preposition, mint 'as' (cf. De Groot 1983d). The same spatial distinctions we find in the Hungarian case system are relevant to postpositions. The local system is based on the distinction of (i) locative (answers the question Svhere ?'), (ii) lative (Svhere to ?'), and (iii) ablative ('from where ?'). Some examples are the following.19 locative

lative

ablative

cases

ban n näl

ba ra hoz

bòi ról tól

'in' 'on' 'near'

postpositions

alatt mögött fölött mellett között elött

aid

alól mögül fölül mellöl közül elöl

'under' 'behind' 'above' 'beside' 'between' 'before'

mogé folé mellé kozé elé

Table 1: Hungarian local system The following type of rule accounts for the introduction of cases and post• • 7(1 positions: (46)

T

—>

F

T = semantic function F = case form or adposition

18

The following rules introduce the case forms and postposition in our example (31): (47)

Agent Goal Source Duration

—> —> —> —>

0 t tól alatt

1.2.8.2. Determiners Term operators usually function as triggers. Consider: (48)

T ---> F T = term operator F = article, demonstrative, cardinal, plural

One of the terms in example (31) is the following: (49)

(-pdmx,,,: 6ra N (xm): oregA ( x j )

Note the term operators, -p (non-proximate), d (definite), and m (plural). These operators will introduce the following forms: (50)

a. b. c.

-p ---> d —> m —>

az a(z) k

An example of a cardinal operator is presented by the term with the temporal function in sentence (31): (51)

(30yi: perc N (y,))

1.2.8.3. Voice Hungarian does not have voice differences. There is just one voice. In other words, Hungarian does not have a passive voice corresponding to the English 'the car was ordered by the man'. 1.2.8.4. Tense, mood, aspect In section 1.2.4 above we presented the tense and aspect distinction Hungarian makes. Tense, mood, and aspect (TMA) are accounted for by means of predication operators, which function as triggers: (52)

T ---> F T = predication operator F = TMA markers

Functional Grammar of Hungarian a. Pres b. Past c. Irr d. Impf e. Pf

... >

—> —> —> —>

19

0 t ne 0 meg

1.2.8.5. Illocution Illocution can be accounted for in a similar way as TMA. In example (31) we see that the predicate kerdez 'ask' selects a so-called dependent *yes-no question'. That is why the embedded predication is supplied with the illocutionary operator 'Interrogative'. The following rule introduces the dependent question marker: (54)

Int

—>

-e

1.2.8.6. Auxiliary elements The appropriate element to mark tense distinctions in Hungarian is the verbal predicate. If no verbal predicate is present, as for instance in nominal clauses, and if one wishes to express Past tense, a verbal auxiliary element will have to be introduced. This auxiliary does not have a meaning of its own. Consider the nonverbal predication (55a) and the same predication after a 'copula support rule' has been applied (cf. (55b)): (55) a.

b.

Past oregA (dlXj:6raN &)),, old clock Past van v oregA (dlXi:oraN (x,))j, be old clock [The clock was old]

Auxiliary support is another instance of a trigger rule, where the non-verbal predicate together with the tense operator functions as the trigger. In chapter 6 we will discuss copula support in great detail. 1.2.8.7. Agreement and cross-reference In Hungarian we find person marking suffixes on verbs and on nouns. Grammars of Hungarian always discuss person marking suffixes on verbs under the heading of Verb agreement'. We will not treat those suffixes on verbs as agreement markers but as the spelling out of subjects. In chapter 3 we will give a detailed account of the Hungarian person marking system. For the sake of convenience we will present the relevant data in the traditional way here. Grammars of Hungarian usually characterize verb agreement in the following fashion: the verb agrees with the subject in person (1st, 2nd, and 3rd) and number (sg. and pi.), and with the object in 'definiteness'. There are languages

20 which mark the definite object by applying a special marker (ra in Persian) or by using a resumptive pronoun attached to the verb (Modern Greek) (see Moravcsik 1978). In Hungarian, however, the indication of definiteness of the object is fused in the verb with the subject-agreement marker. The conjugation which the verb takes in intransitive constructions and with indefinite direct objects will be indicated by 'first form' (If); the other conjugation, with the agreement in definiteness, is indicated by second form (2f).21 Some examples are: (56) a.

b.

(57) a.

b.

Laci el-men-t. Laci away-go-past(3s.lf) 'Laci went away.' A gyerek-ek el-men-t-ek. the child-pl away-go-past-3p.lf 'The children went away.' Gyerek-et Mt-ott. child-ac see-past(3s.lf) 'He saw a child.' A gyerek-et l&t-t-a. the child-ac see-past-3s.2f 'He saw the child.'

The second form (the so-called definitive or objective conjugation) is applied when the object is 'definite'. The object phrase counts as definite if it is determined by (a) a definite article, (b) a demonstrative, (c) a possessive marker, and if the object phrase is (d) a complement clause, (e) a 3rd person pronoun, (f) a proper noun, or (g) implicitly definite:22 (58) a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

Ldt-t-a a gyerek-et. see-past-3s.2f the child 'He saw the child.' Ldt-t-a az-t a gyerek-et. see-past-3s.2f dem-ac the child-ac 'He saw that child.' L&t-t-a ket konyv-em-et. see-past-3s.2f two book-ls-ac 'He saw two of my books.' L&t-t-a, hogy el-men-t-em. see-past-3s.2f that away-go-past-ls 'He saw that I left.' Ldt-t-a d-t. see-past-3s.2f he-ac 'He saw him.'

21

Functional Grammar of Hungarian f.

g.

L&t-t-a Jdnos-t. see-past-3s.2f John-ac 'He saw John.' L&t-t-a. see-past-3s.2f 'He saw it/him/her.'

Note that third person counts as 'definite' (cf. (58e) and (58g)), whereas first person and second person count as 'indefinite'. Compare: (59)

L&t-ott. see-past-3s.lf 'He saw something, me/us/you, or was capable of seeing.'

One class of verbs is marked differently in present tense forms. In this class, first person singular is marked by -om (and not -ok), and third person singular is marked by the suffix -ik, whereas there is zero expression in other cases. We will refer to this class of verbs as 'ik-verbs', and indicate the forms as in dolgoz(-ik) in (60).23 (60) Is 2s 3s IP 2p 3p Is 2s 3s IP 2p 3p

jár 'go'

mos 'wash'

dolgoz(-ik) Svork'

jár-ok jár-sz24 jár jár-unk jár-tok jár-nak

mos-ok mos-ol mos mos-unk mos-tok mos-nak

dolgoz-om dolgoz-ol dolgoz-ik dolgoz-unk dolgoz-tok dolgoz-nak

jár-t-am jár-t-ál jár-t jár-t-unk jár-t-atok jár-t-ak

mos-t-am mos-t-ál mos-ott mos-t-unk mos-t-atok mos-t-ak

dolgoz-t-am dolgoz-t-ál dolgoz-ott dolgoz-t-unk dolgoz-t-atok dolgoz-t-ak

(PRESENT TENSE)

(PAST TENSE)

There are also person marking suffixes on nouns in Hungarian. They are usually referred to as possessive suffixes. The possessive suffixes are similar to the verbal second form suffixes. However, there are differences. Consider the following past tense paradigms of the Verb idez 'quote' together with the possessive paradigm of the Noun idezet 'quote':

22

Is 2s 3s IP 2p 3p

first form Past idéz 'quote'(Verb) idéz-t-em idéz-t-él idéz-ett idéz-t-ûnk idéz-t-etek idéz-t-ek

second form Past idéz 'quote'(Verb) idéz-t-em idéz-t-ed idéz-t-e idéz-t-iik idéz-t-étek idéz-t-ék

possessive form idezet 'quote' (Noun) idezet-em idezet-ed id6zet-e id6zet-iink idezet-etek iddzet-iik

We refer to chapter 3 for a detailed account of the Hungarian person marking system. Hungarian has number agreement (single and plural) in the following types of non-verbal predications. (62) a.

b.

A l&ny okos. the girl clever "The girl is clever.'

A l&ny-ok okos-ak. the girl-pl clever-pl "The girls are clever.'

A fiu di&k. the boy pupil "The boy is a pupil.'

A fiu-k diak-ok. the boy-pl pupil-pl "The boys are pupils.'

1.2.8.8. Linear ordering The actual ordering patterns found in a language are taken to be the result of a number of principles, some of which we will mention here (see Dik 1983c, and Rijkhoff 1986). (i)

Languages make a basic choice between Prefield and Postfield ordering of the dependents with respect to their Centre (= Predicate, Head Noun, or Adjective).

If this principle were the only principle that determines constituent ordering, there would be only two language types, with the following ordering patterns: (63)

POSTFIELD-type

PREFlELD-type

NP NP Adj Noun Relative Noun Adv Adj

NP

V

V Noun Noun Adj

NP NP Adj Relative Adv

NP

If we want to characterize Hungarian in terms of Prefield-type versus Postfieldtype languages, there is no doubt that it should be considered as a Prefield-type language.25 Consider the four constructions in (64). The word order in (64a) is not

Functional Grammar of Hungarian

23

the neutral one. There is emphasis on konyvet 'book-ac'. The example does illustrate, however, that constructions with the finite verb in the final position of the sentence do occur in Hungarian. The word order in the other examples is the neutral or the only possible one. (64) a.

Jànos Mari-nak konyv-et adott. John Maiy-dat book-ac gave 'John gave Mary a book.' b. egy òreg óra 'an old clock' c. a kònyv-et olvas-ó fiu the book-ac read-pr.part boy 'the boy who reads a book' d. nagyon jó Very good'

A second principle concerns the relative positions of terms with the function of Subj and Obj in the sense described in section 1.2.6 above: (ii)

The Subject position precedes the Object position

This principle defines the following basic orders for Prefield and Postfield languages: (65) a. b.

Prefield: Postfield:

S V

O V S O

In chapter 4 it will be claimed that Object is irrelevant to Hungarian and that the role that Subj plays is almost nil. Because no syntactic functions are assigned in Hungarian, no predictions can be made as to whether Subj precedes Obj. As a matter of fact, Hungarian word order is rather free. All 24 possible permutations of example (64a) are grammatical sentences in Hungarian. However, most (if not all) examples have a different pragmatic content.26 A third principle concerns the position of relators. Relators are, for instance, adpositions, co- and subordinators. Consider: (iii)

Relators have their preferred position (a) in between their two relata. (b) at the periphery of the relatum with which they form one constituent (if they do so);,

24 Principle (iii) defines for instance the following preferred and non-preferred orderings: (66)

Preferred: (dependent (R)) ... (Centre) (Centre) ... ((R) dependent) Non-preferred: ((R) dependent) ... (Centre) (Centre) ... (dependent (R))

This principle predicts, for instance, that prefield-type languages will have postpositions, and that postfield-type languages will have prepositions. As for Hungarian, this prediction is correct: Hungarian, a prefield-type language, has postpositions (cf. De Groot 1983d). Two other principles concerning linear ordering are the following: (iv)

(v)

There is a universally relevant clause-initial special position PI which is used for special purposes, including the placement of constituents with Topic or Focus function. Other things being equal, constituents prefer to be placed in order of increasing complexity, where complexity of constituents is defined as follows:

Clitic < Pronoun < Noun Phrase < Adpositional Phrase < Subordinate clause The hierarchy given in principle (v) is usually referred to as LIPOC (Language Independent Preferred Order of Constituents). Given these principles, it is possible to formulate a basic functional pattern underlying clauses. Consider (67), where P2 and P3 indicate the positions for extraclausal constituents. (67)

P2, PI (V) S O (V) , P 3

The functional pattern of Hungarian looks somewhat different. Firstly, there is no syntactic function assignment in Hungarian (see chapter 4). Therefore, no positions for Subj and Obj can be postulated for a functional pattern. Secondly, Hungarian seems to have two special positions in a clause: PI and P0. A constituent with Topic function will be placed in PI, whereas a constituent with Focus function will be placed in P0, the position immediately preceding the verbal predicate. Some examples are:

25

Functional Grammar of Hungarian (68) a.

Jânos a kônyv-et adta Mari-nak. John the book-ac gave Mary-dat 'John gave the book to Mary.' b. Jânos Mari-nak adta a konyv-et. 'John gave the book to Mary.'

We will assume the following functional pattern for Hungarian: (69)

P2 , PI P0 V X , P3

A special property of PI in Hungarian is that it can accommodate more than one constituent at a time:27 (68) c. Jânos Mari-nak d. Mari-nak Jânos PI

a kônyv-et a kônyv-et P0

adta. adta. V

In contradistinction to PI, P0 does not have that special property, since only a single term can fill P0 position. Some terms will obligatorily be placed in P0 position, for instance, those with a question word: (70)

Jânos melyik kônyv-et adta Mari-nak ? John which book-ac gave Mary-dat 'Which book did John give to Mary ?'

Let us now consider an example of an embedded clause. It seems that the word order in finite embedded clauses follows the same pattern as that of main clauses. In accordance with LIPOC finite embedded clauses prefer the final clause position. Consider: (71)

Péter mondta, hogy Jânos Mari-nak a kônyv-et adta. Peter said that John Mary-dat the book-ac gave 'Peter said that John gave the book to Mary.'

If one wishes to use (71) as an answer to the question 'What did Peter say?' the contents of the embedded clause will be the focus of the sentence. Recall that focal elements are placed in P0 in Hungarian. In general, however, Hungarian does not allow finite embedded clauses in the position preceding the verb. In that case, a speaker of Hungarian will make use of a dummy element that represents the embedded clause. He will place the dummy element in P0 position to indicate that the embedded clause has Focus function, or in PI position to indicate that the embedded clause has Topic function. The dummy elements are marked by a case. The case corresponds to the semantic function of the embedded clause. In example

26 (71) the embedded clause functions as the Goal argument of the verb 'say\ Goal triggers the accusative case in Hungarian. The basic form of the dummy element az will therefore be extended by the accusative -i.28 Consider: (72)

Péter az-t mondta, hogy Jânos Mari-nak a konyv-et adta. Peter dum-ac said that John Maiy-dat the book-ac gave 'Peter said that, that John gave the book to Mary.'

1.2.8.9. Stress and intonation We will assume that the same type of rules presented above can also account for a number of stress and intonation phenomena. In our example, Topic and Focus function may trigger the introduction of some stress. Placement rules will put the stressed elements in the appropriate positions. Consider: (73) a. b.

T F

—> —>

F P

Top mid stress

— > mid stress - - > PI

(74) a. b.

T F

—> —>

F P

Foc — > high stress high stress — > P0

13. CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter we have presented an outline of a functional grammar of Hungarian. We have shown that Functional Grammar as developed by Simon Dik and others is applicable to the analysis of different semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic aspects of the grammar of Hungarian. FG is not only a holistic theory, but it is even an integrated theory in the sense that it assumes that there are no autonomous parts of grammar. We have illustrated this basic assumption of FG in the following fashion. We constructed a fully specified predication, which involves predicate-frames, terms, semantic and pragmatic functions, and a number of operators. After that, we have shown how expression rules can convert this predication into a linguistic expression. While discussing expression rules, we have argued that a distinction should be made between two types of expression rule, trigger rules and placement rules. A typology of expression rules based on the distinction between trigger rules and placement rules makes it possible to generalize over morphological and syntactical phenomena. Notwithstanding the explanatory and descriptive potential of FG for the entire grammar of a language, this work will only be concerned with a central notion in FG, the predicate-frame.

Functional Grammar of Hungarian

27

NOTES 1. Monographs and collections of articles within the framework of FG are: Auwera & Goossens eds. (1987), Bolkestein et al. (1981), Bolkestein et al. eds. (1985a, 1985b), Connolly & Dik eds. (1989), Dik (1978a, 1978b, 1980), Dik ed. (1983, 1985), Hannay (1985b), Hannay & Vester eds. (1989), Hoekstra et al. eds. (1981), Junger (1987), Lalleman (1986), Moutaouakil (1989), Nuyts (1988), Nuyts ed. (1985), Nuyts & De Schutter eds. (1987), Reesink (1987), Vester (1983). A full bibliography on FG is presented by De Groot (1989b). 2. We have used the following grammars and collections of articles as a general background: Abondolo (1988), Bdnhidi et al. (1965), Behrens (1982), Benkd & Imre eds. (1972), Biermann (1985), Beflthy (1983), D.Bartha (1958), Dezsfl (1982a), Dezsfl & Nemser eds. (1980), fi.Kiss (1987), Hadrovics (1969), Horvith (1985), Kiroly & Telegdi eds. (1969), Kenesei ed. (1985, 1987), Kiefer (1983), Kiefer ed. (1982), RScz ed. (1976), Szabolcsi (1986), Tompa (1968), Vago (1980). All examples used in this work have been examined by native speakers of Hungarian. Instead of collecting examples from existing texts, we generated many of the examples ourselves. By doing so, it was possible to illustrate the matters under consideration as directly as possible. 3. Cf. Dik (1979b, 1981), De Groot (1989a), Kahrel (1989), and Watters (1985). 4. Dik (1978a) gives the following interpretation of the term structure: "each ®(xj) indicates some 'open predication in Xj', that is, a predicate-frame all of whose argument positions have been bound except for Xj." 5. In this study we will not deal with the expression of term operators. For a discussion of term operators we refer to Brown (1985), Dik (1987a), Keizer (1988), and Rijkhoff (1987, 1988). 6. We refer to different types of operators, here, as predication operators in a general sense. We do not distinguish between different types of operators such as predicate, predication, and proposition operators (see Hengeveld (1988a) and Rijkhoff (1988)). 7. See also Dahl (1984, 1985), and Kiefer (1982, 1983, 1984). However, it also seems possible to express imperfective completed situations in Hungarian (cf. De Groot (1984), and Hetzron (1982)). We will mention two cases. Firstly, consider: (i)

JSnos majdnem meg-javit-ott-a az oreg 6r4-t John almost pf-repair-past-3s.2f the old clock-ac 'John almost repaired the old clock'

Sentence (i) is ambiguous in the following way: a. complete/perfective reading ("John intended to repair the old clock but changed his mind and did nothing at all"). b. completed/non-perfective reading ("John began to repair the old clock and he almost but not quite finished repairing it"). Secondly, consider the following sentence: (ii)

Jinos az oreg 6r4-t van meg-javft-ani John the old clock-ac be:3s pf-repair-inf 'John is away repairing the old clock'

Sentence (ii) has a progressive reading. By using the perfective converb meg the speaker expresses his assumption that John will actually repair the old clock. 8. The productivity and exact distribution of this construction is unknown and should be investigated. 9. Construction (13) resembles the following construction in Dutch:

28 (iii)

Jan is de klok maken John is the clock make 'John is away repairing the clock'

As in Hungarian, the Dutch construction expresses that John is not present; he is somewhere else at the moment, repairing the old clock. 10. cf. Comrie 1976: 32ff 11. The suffix -t is added directly to the base; the suffix -tt requires a linking vowel -o-, -e-, -o-. There are a few exceptions to this rule, for instance, Id-tt, nd-tt. Whether a verb takes the short or the long suffix is conditioned by certain morpho-phonemic properties of the stem. 12. In FG a distinction is made between several sub-types of Topic and Focus. Relevant sub-types of Topic seem to be (i) Discourse Topic, (ii) New Topic, (iii) Given Topic, (iv) Resumed Topic, (v) Sub-Topic. Relevant sub-types of Focus are (i) Completive Focus, (ii) Expansive Focus, (iii) Selective Focus, (iv) Restrictive Focus, (v) Replacive Focus. (Cf. Dik et al. (1981); Hannay (1985a); De Jong (1981); Watters (1979)). See De Groot (1981a) for a discussion of Theme constructions in Hungarian. 13. See De Groot (1989a) for further discussion. 14. A more elaborate typology of expression rules based on the distinction between trigger rules and placement rules may be the following (cf. De Groot 1989a): (iv)

Expression rules (a) Tj ~ > (B) F —>

(T 2 P

->)

F

Rule ( a ) in (iv) is to be understood as: T triggers the introduction of another Trigger or a Form; and rule (B) as: F will be put in position P. We will give an example of a secondary trigger here. In section 1.2.4 we presented an example of a remote progressive form in Hungarian. We will repeat example (15b) here as (v): (v)

Mari £nekel-ni van Mary sing-inf be:3s 'Mary is away singing'

We take (vi) to be the underlying representation of (v): (vi)

RemProg 6nekel v (dl^: Mari N (x^AgTop

In order to account for the form inekelni in the final expression, we will assume that the following rules apply: The RemProg operator (primary trigger) introduces the Infinitive operator; the Infinitive operator (secondary trigger) triggers the introduction the morpheme ni. (vii)

a. b.

Tj T2

—> —>

T2 F

RemProg Inf

—> —>

Inf ni

15. It is our opinion that the distinction between trigger rules and placement rules is highly relevant. The distinction enables us to formulate principles which apply to (viii)

a. b. c.

trigger rules placement rules interaction of trigger rules and placement rules

Functional Grammar of Hungarian

29

In section 1.2.8.8 we illustrated some of the principles proposed in Dik (1983b) which apply to placement rules. So far no principles have been proposed for trigger rules or for the interaction between trigger rules and placement rules. From a typological point of view it would be interesting to know (i) which elements function as triggers in a language, (ii) which forms can be introduced by trigger rules, and (iii) which ordering patterns occur in languages. From a theoretical point of view these rules may provide us with new insights into morphology and syntax and the relation between them, because the same type of rules apply to the level of words as well as to the level of sentences. We refer to De Groot (1989a) for further discussion on this subject. 16. Most suffixes have two overt shapes: one alternant with a front vowel and another with a bach vowel. The backness or frontness of the alternating suffix vowels is determined by the backness or frontness of the preceding vowel. This process is called vowel harmony. We refer to Vago (1980) for the fact of vowel harmony in Hungarian. When we refer to a suffix or a paradigm in a general way, we will give examples with back vowels; for instance: -nak and not -nak/-nek. 17. In Hungarian the first syllable of a word, including compound words, is always stressed. Cases do not have word stress, whereas postpositions do have word stress: (ix)

(x)

'Budapest-re Budapest-subl 'to Budapest' 'Budapest 'felé Budapest towards 'in the direction of Budapest'

A second argument that supports considering postpositions to be free morphemes is that postpositions are not sensitive to vowel harmony, whereas cases are. Consider: (xi)

(xii)

Budapest-re Budapest-subl 'to Budapest' Budapest fete Budapest towards 'towards Budapest

Visegrâd-ra Visegrad-subl 'to Visegrad' Visegrâd felé Visegrad towards 'towards Visegrad'

18. In constructions such as (45b) with postpositions such as keresztill 'through', the noun is marked by the superessive case. In order to account for those constructions it is necessary to assume that triggers may also introduce another trigger together with a formal element. The following sequence of rules then accounts for the expression of the semantic function of path in (45b) (De Groot 1989a): (xiii)

a. b.

Tj Path T2

—> —> - >

SUPERESSIVE

—>

T2 + F SUPERESSIVE +

keresztUl

F

-on/-en/-ön/-n

19. Cf. note 16. 20. There is an alternative approach which might be even better than the one proposed here. That approach is based on the consideration that cases are not introduced directly, but indirectly. Consider: (xiv)

a.

Tj

—>

T2

GO

—>

ACCUSATIVE

b.

T2

—>

F

ACCUSATIVE

—>

t

30 The distinction between primary and secondary triggers may, among other things, account for the difference between 'semantic case' on the one hand and 'case form' on the other. See De Groot (1989a) for further discussion. 21. See De Groot (1983c) for an explanation of the system of subject and object marking in Hungarian. See also Comrie (1981) and Moravcsik (1978a, 1978b). 22. We agree with Comrie (1975, 1977) that there are some exceptions to this list. He argued that the second form is sometimes not controlled by definiteness in the strict sense, but by the related notion of 'restricted superset*. For instance: (xv) a.

b.

Melyik-et akar-od which-ac want-2s.2f 'Which one do you want' Ut-t-a k£t barit-om-at see-past-3s.2f two friend-ls-ac 'He saw two friends of mine'

Another exception is the obligatory application of the first form conjugation in embedded clauses such as in (xvi): (xvi)

Jdnos nem 15t-t-a a film-et ami-t Mari tegnap tet-ott John neg see-past-3s.2f the film-ac that-ac Mary yesterday see-past-3s.lf 'John did not see the film that Mary saw yesterday*

23. Cf. note 16. 24. Second person singular can be marked on the verb by -/, or by -sz. The choice is conditioned by morpho-phonemic properties of the stem. 25. The unmarked position of the object in Hungarian is determined by definiteness. The unmarked position of indefinite objects is before the verb, whereas the unmarked position of definite objects is after the verb (cf. Bese et al. (1970: 115f), Dezsfl (1982a: 32f). Compare: (xvii)

Jinos konyvet olvas. John book:ac read:3s.lf 'John is reading a book.' (xviii) Jiinos olvassa a konyvet. John read:3s.2f the book 'John is reading the book.' 26. According to £.Kiss (1981a: 188) scrambling of constituents in 'topic'-position does not yield different interpretations, i.e. there is no difference in meaning between the following two sentences:

(xix) (xx)

PI J£nos Mari-nak John Mary-dat Mari-nak J&nos Mary-dat John

P0 konyv-et book-ac konyv-et book-ac

adott. give-past.3s adott give-past.3s

'John gave a book to Mary.' 27. The alternative word order of constituents in PI is difficult to account for. 28. A homonym of the dummy az is the definite article. We also find the form az in demonstratives, for instance : az a fiA 'that boy*.

Chapter 2

PREDICATE STRUCTURE

2.0. INTRODUCTION

In chapter 1 we summarized the standard view on predication in FG in the following way. Predications consist of predicates and terms. Terms refer to entities in some world, and predicates designate properties of, or relations between such entities. Predicates are contained in predicate-frames, i.e. structures which specify their fundamental semantic and syntactic properties such as (i) the syntactic category of the predicate (Verbal, Nominal, Adjectival), (ii) the number of arguments, (iii) the semantic functions of the arguments (Agent, Goal, Recipient, etc.), and (iv) the selection restrictions on the terms which are to fill the argument slots. The predicate-frame of Hungarian javit 'repair' has the following general form: (1)

javit v (xj : < human > (x,))^ (x2: < inanimate > (x2))Go 'repair'

Nuclear predicates can be extended with satellites (non-arguments). Consider predicate-frame javit 'repair' as given in (1), when extended with a satellite of Location: (2)

[javitv (xx : < human > (Xj))^ (x2: < inanimate > (x2))Go] ( y , ) ^ 'repair'

Predicate-frames such as (1) are given in the lexicon. The lexicon is considered to be the list of all basic predicates of a language. If one wishes to construct the lexicon of a language, it is necessary to answer the following two major questions: (3)

a. b.

What is the predicate-frame of each predicate? Which predicates are basic predicates, and which predicates can be derived by productive rules?

32 Discussions on predicates and predicate-frames within the framework of FG have shown that it is not always easy to decide (i) whether a predicate is basic or derived, or (ii) what predicate-frame a predicate has.1 Sometimes there are questions as to (i) the number of arguments a predicate has, (ii) the categorial status of the predicate, or (iii) the possibility of predicates having more than one predicate-frame. In order to answer the two questions raised in (3) above, it is necessary to develop a general theory of predicate structure. Such a theory should provide the principles that underlie predicate structure and the restrictions on predicate-frames and predicate formation rules. These principles and restrictions should offer tools to help us define predicate-frames. At the same time, these principles and restrictions together should limit the number of types of predicate-frames and predicate formation rules. In this chapter we will discuss a number of aspects of predicate-frames on the basis of which we will formulate some conditions on predicate structure. In chapter 5 we will discuss conditions relevant to predicate formation rules. Aspects of predicate structure that we will discuss in this chapter are: category of predicates (section 2.1) (i) (ii) states of affairs (section 2.2) (iii) number of arguments (section 2.3) (iv) semantic functions (section 2.4)

2.1. CATEGORIES OF PREDICATES

FG makes a basic distinction between lexical elements and grammatical elements. One of the characteristic differences between lexical and grammatical elements is that lexical elements belong to an open class, i.e. there is no limit to the number of elements, and that grammatical elements belong to a closed class, i.e. there is a limit to the number of elements. Lexical elements are represented as predicates. As mentioned earlier, all predicates are contained in predicate-frames. Predicateframes are mental constructs which can be considered to be the tools with which a language user can construct predicating expressions and referring expressions. Consider the predicate-frames of nd *woman' and orvos 'doctor' in Hungarian. The semantic function of the argument is Zero, indicated by 0: (4)

a. b.

nflN (x1)fJ okosA (x^)jj

The configurations in (4) express that the nominal predicate nd 'woman', respectively the adjectival predicate okos 'clever', apply to argument x t . Predicateframes such as (4a) can be used to create referring expressions. Consider the following term structure (cf. 1.2.3):

33

Predicate structure (5)

(dlx,: ndN (x^)

In (5), Xj is the term variable symbolizing the intended referent; predicate-frame ndN (xj)^ functions as a restrictor which specifies a property which Xj must have in order to qualify as a potential referent of the term. The variable indicating the argument in predicate-frames like (4b) (but not (4a) as will be shown in chapter 6) can be replaced by a term. If we do so, the result is a predication. Consider: (6)

okosA (dlx,: ndN &)„)„ 'clever' Voman'

Representation (6) may receive the following expression: (7)

A nd okos. the woman clever 'The woman is clever.'

Predications may also function as referring expressions. Consider the following dialogue: (8)

A: Pali javitotta az oreg 6rdt. 'Paul was repairing the old clock.' B: Ldt-t-am. see-past-ls.2f 'I have seen that.'

Note that speaker B refers to the predication uttered by A. It therefore seems possible to refer to first order entities (spatial) as in (5), and to second order entities (temporal) as in (8).2 After Vet (1986) and Hengeveld (1988a) we will use the following notation: a variable which refers to a first order entity will be indicated by Xjj a variable which refers to a second order entity (State of Affairs) will be indicated by e^ The representations of a term which refers to an entity and of a term which refers to a SoA will be, for instance: (9)

a. b.

(x^ ndN (Xj)^) (e(: [javitv (Pali)Ag (az oreg 6ra)Go] ( e ^ )

(cf.(5)) (cf.(8))

Terms such as (9b) may be used as complements of predicates such as lat 'to see'. We will see below that the distinction between Xj variables and et variables is relevant to a classification of predicates. Standard FG distinguishes between three categories of predicates, verbal, adjectival, and nominal predicates. We will give an example of each of them:

34

(10) a. javity (xt)Ag (x2)Go 'repair' b. szépA (XJ)JJ 'pretty' c. orvosN (Xj)^ 'doctor' However, in Hungarian we also find examples of predicates that are of a different type than the three types given above. Consider, for instance, the following nonverbal predications, in which fent 'upstairs' and ma 'today' function as predicate: (11) a.

b.

Péter fent van. Peter upstairs be:3s 'Peter is upstairs.' Milyen nap van ma? what day be:3s today 'What day is today ?'

It is not clear how predicates such as fent 'upstairs' and ma 'today' should be represented in a functional grammar. One of the reasons for not considering the Hungarian predicates in (11) as adjectival or nominal is that similar constructions which contain adjectival and nominal predicates do not require copula van support in present tense constructions. Both examples in (11) require the presence of copula van 'be'. The predicate in (11a), rather, is a locative predicate and the predicate in (lib) a temporal predicate. Let us assume that forms such as fent 'upstairs' and ma 'today' are given in the Lexicon as basic terms together with specifications for location and time, respectively, for instance, by means of a locational or temporal semantic function, respectively. In such an analysis, the underlying representations of the two clauses in (11) would be (12a) and (12b), respectively: (12) a. b.

Près {(x,: fent ( x ^ } (dix,: Péter N ty), Près {(Xj: ma ( x ^ ) ^ } (Qdlx,: napN (xj)^

If these representations are correct, we still do not know which category of predicates elements such as fent 'upstairs' and ma 'today' belong to. We do not wish to discuss the representation of adverbs such as fent 'upstairs' and ma 'today' any further here. However, it will be clear that the representation of these kinds of adverbs in FG is problematic. In chapter 6 we will discuss predicates which are similar to the 'adverbial-like' predicates presented above. We have seen that predicate-frames can be used to build predications and to build expressions referring to first order and second order entities. On the basis of

Predicate structure

35

these different applications of predicate-frames we can make a classification of predicates. Let us first consider the predicative use of predicate-frames. It seems that all verbal and most adjectival3 predicates can be used to build predications. Nominal predicates, however, behave differently. In some languages it is possible to use nominal predicates to build predications. In Hungarian it does not seem possible to construct bare nominal predications (a bare nominal predicate applies to an argument). In chapter 6 we will argue that the predicate in constructions such as (13) are non-specific terms (cf. (14a) where -S indicates non-specificity) and not bare nominal predicates (cf. (14b)). Consider: (13)

A nò orvos. the woman doctor 'The woman is a doctor.'

(14) a. Pres {(-SilXj: orvosN (x^)} (dlx^ ndN (x^),, b. * Pres orvosN (dlx^ nóN (Xj)^ We will refer to predicates such as orvos 'a doctor' in (13) as term predicates (represented as in (14a)). Above we made a distinction between expressions which refer to first order entities and expressions which refer to second order entities. Predicate-frames which can be used to construct expressions which refer to first order entities are predicate-frames which consist of a nominal predicate and not of another type of predicate. In other words, the restrictor of a Xj variable is always a nominal predicate, because verbal and adjectival predicates can only be used to build expressions which refer to second order entities. Consider: (15) a. (Xj: orvosN (x,)) b. (e,: [ {(-SilXi: orvosN (x,))} ( Xl ), ] (e,)) (16) a. * (x,: javit v (x^Ag (x2)Go) b. (e,: [ javit v fo)^ (x2)Go ] (e,)) (17) a. * (Xj.- szépA (Xj)) b. (e,: [ szépA ( x ^ ] (q)) Note that term predicates can also be used in expressions referring to second order entities (cf. (15b)).4 On the basis of their different applications, as shown in (17), a distinction can be made between nominal predicates on the one hand and verbal and adjectival predicates on the other. Now consider the following expression: (18)

a szep nd 'the pretty woman'

36 The standard FG analysis of constructions such as (18) is that the term variable is restricted twice. The first restrictor is nô and the second restrictor szép is stacked onto the first one (cf. Dik 1978a: 56f). Consider: (19)

(dix,: ndN (Xj): szépA (x,))

However, we have seen above that adjectival predicates can only be used as e, restrictors and not as x, restrictors. Therefore we propose to represent (18) as follows: (20)

(dix,: nôN (x,): (e,: [szépA (x,),] (e,)))

Note that the predicate-frame szépA (x,)^ in (20) functions as the restrictor of an e variable, whereas the SoA it designates functions as the second restrictor of the term variable. An advantage of analysing constructions such (18) as (20) is the close parallel between these constructions and constructions with a relative clause. Compare: (21) a. b.

a szép nô 'the pretty woman' a nd, aki szép the woman who pretty 'the woman who is pretty'

We suggest that the non-application of a tense operator on the level of e, in (21a) and the application of a tense operator on the level of ej in (21b) accounts for the difference between the two constructions. Note the absence of a tense operator on the level of ej in (20) and the presence of a tense operator on the level of ej in (22): (20)

(dix,: ndN (x,): (e,: [szépA (x,),] (e,)))

(22)

(dix,: ndN (x,): (Près e,: [szépA (x,),] (e,)))

A second advantage of analysing attributive adjectival predicates as in (20) is that it enables us to account for elements which modify the adjectival predicate, such as nagyon Very', in a unified way.5 Verbal predicate-frames may function as the restrictor of an e variable in the same way that adjectival predicate-frames do. Consider (23a), which is the underlying representation of (23b): (23) a.

(dlxi: ndN (x,): (e,: [énekelv (x,)AJ (e,)))

Predicate structure b.

37

az 6nekl-d nil the sing-pr.p woman 'the singing woman'

The finite counterpart of (23) is (24). Again, note the application of a tense operator in the embedded predication. (24)

a.

(dlxi: ndN (x,): (Pres e,: [6nekelv (x,)^] (e,)))

b.

a nd , aki ¿nekel the woman who sing:3s 'the woman who is singing'

Predicate-frames with term predicates may also occur as second restrictors in term structures. Consider, for instance, the following example of a predicate-frame with a locative term predicate functioning as second restrictor. (25)

a kert-ben levd fiu the garden-ines be:pr.p boy 'the boy in the garden' (lit. "the in the garden being boy")

We refer to chapter 6 for an exposition on the treatment of non-verbal predicates which includes examples such as (25). Not all predicate-frames can occur as second restrictors in constructions similar to (25),6 for instance: (26)

*a ma levd szunnap the today be:pr.p day off 'today's day off

In Hungarian we find examples of finite (cf. (27a)) but not of non-finite nominal predications functioning as second restrictors in term structures (cf. (27b-c)). Consider: (27) a.

a nd aki orvos the woman who doctor 'the woman who is a doctor' b. * az orvos nd 'the doctor woman' c. * az orvos levd nd the doctor be:pr.p woman 'the doctor being woman'

38 On the basis of the different applications predicate-frames can have with respect to (i) the construction of predications and (ii) Xj restrictors, we can establish the following typology of predicates: basic terms (such as fent 'above' (cf. (12))), Verbal, Adjectival, and Nominal predicates. Cf. the scheme below:

predicate

predicative use

basic term V A N

Xj restrictor _

-/+

+

-

+ /-

-

+

-

Table 1

2.2. STATES OF AFFAIRS

2.2.1. Typology of states of affairs Nuclear predications consist of predicates and terms. Terms refer to entities in some world, and predicates designate properties of, or relations between such entities. A nuclear predication as a whole designates a set of States of Affairs. The term State of Affairs (SoA) is used in the broad sense of 'the conception of something which can be the case in some world'.7 States of Affairs can be divided into different types, according to the values they have for a number of distinguishing parameters. Together these parameters and their different values define a semantic cross-classification of States of Affairs. The most important semantic parameters defining the typology of States of Affairs are given in (28); one test-frame is given for each of the parameters in (29) through (32): (28)

(29)

+ / - Dynamic + /-Momentaneous + /-Control + /- Telic

[dyn] [mom] [con] [tel]

Dynamism A [+dyn] SoA is a SoA which involves any kind of change. One criterion for distinguishing between [+dyn] and [-dyn] SoAs is that the former do but the latter do not combine with satellites of Speed: a. walk slowly [+dyn] b. * stand slowly [-dyn]

Predicate structure

39

(30) Momentaneousness Momentaneous SoAs are SoAs which last for only a moment. A test which distinguishes between [+mom] and [-mom] SoAs is the so-called 'almost-test'. Consider the following two sentences: a. b.

John almost reached the summit. John almost read a book.

[+mom] [-mom]

The first sentence tells us that John did not reach the summit. The second example is ambiguous in the following fashion: - John intended to read a book but changed his mind and did not read a book; - John began to read a book and he almost but not quite finished reading it. (31) Control A SoA is controlled when a participant has the power to determine whether the SoA will obtain. A test which distinguishes between [+con] and [-con] SoAs is based upon the consideration that [+con] SoAs can occur in the true imperative, whereas the other type cannot. For instance: a. go! b. * know!

[+con] [-con]

(32) Telicity A telic SoA is a SoA which, if it is fully achieved, reaches a natural terminal point. When a SoA does not have such terminal point, the SoA is non-telic or atelic. Telic SoAs can be extended with the Svithin an hour' phrase, atelic SoAs cannot.8 Consider: a. reach x within an hour b. * work within an hour

[+tel] [-tel]

It appears, however, that not all combinations of parameters within one SoA are possible. SoAs cannot be both non-dynamic and telic, or both momentaneous and atelic. It appears that some parameters entail others (cf. Vester 1983, De Groot 1983b). So: (33)

a. b.

[-dyn] [+mom]

> >

[-tel] [+tel]

40

2.2.2. The relation between parameters and predicates Nuclear predications designate sets of states of affairs. Which sets are designated, however, is partly determined by the predicates themselves. For instance, a predicate such as sétal Svalk' will only occur in dynamic SoAs and not in non-dynamic SoAs. In this light De Groot (1985) has argued that predicates can be characterized in terms of the parameters determining the typology of SoAs. We will refer to the specifications that predicates have for the SoAs they can designate as 'features of predicates'. Thus, we can say that the predicate sétal 'walk' has a feature [+dyn], A distinction can be made between two types of features: (i) inherent features ([dyn] and [mom]) and (ii) contingent features ([con] and [tei]). Predicates can only be used either to describe dynamic SoAs or non-dynamic SoAs, or either to describe momentaneous SoAs or non-momentaneous SoAs. We will therefore say that [dyn] and [mom] are inherent features of predicates. Consider: (34) a. b.

Péter sétâl. 'Peter is walking.' Mari âll. 'Mary is standing.'

[+dyn] [-dyn]

(35) a. b.

Lajos megiiti Kârolyt. 'Louis hits Charles.' Kati konyvet olvas. 'Kate is reading a book.'

[+mom] [-mom]

Contrary to what is said about predicates and about the features [dyn] and [mom], there are predicates which can occur both in controlled and in non-controlled SoAs, or both in telic and in atelic SoAs. For instance: (36) a.

A rendor a sarkon ¿11. 'The policeman is standing on the corner.' b. A szekrdny a sarokban ¿11. 'The cupboard is standing in the corner.'

(37) a.

J&ios megirja a levelet. 'John writes the letter.' b. Jdnos (levelet) ir. 'John is writing (a letter).'

[+con] [-con]

[+tel] [-tel]

The contingent features [con] and [tel] cannot be associated with lexical properties of the predicates (whereas inherent features can), but they can be associated with the arguments of predicates. For instance, the feature [con] always affects the first argument of a predicate and no other. We can say that [con] binds the first argument. Consider (38a), in which Jdnos 'John' is the controller of an Action, and (38b) in which Mori 'Mary' is a 'non-controller' in a Process:

Predicate structure (38) a.

b.

ad v 'give'

41 (Jànos)^ (a kònyv)Go (Mari)Rec 'John' 'the book' 'Mary'

kap v (Mari)Proc (a kònyv)Go (Jànos)^ 'receive"Mary' 'the book' 'John'

[+con]

[-con]

Telicity, sometimes also described as 'goal-orientedness', can be associated with those terms which set the terminal point in the SoA. In general, telicity binds the affected argument of a predicate or a term with the function of Direction in a predication. Consider the following examples, in which the underlined phrases define the terminal point: (39) a. b.

Jànos elolvassa az ujsàgotGo. 'John reads the newspaper.' Mari bemegy a szobabaDir. 'Mary enters the room.'

Note, however, that not all predicate-frames are compatible with both [+con] and [-con] or [+tel] and [-tei] SoAs. For instance, momentaneous predicate-frames always designate telic SoAs (cf. (40b)). Consider: (40) a. b.

létezik 'exist' elér 'reach'

[-con] / *[+con] [+tel] / *[-tel]

In these cases we may also say that [con] and [tei] are inherent features. What remains is the difference concerning the relation between the features and the predicate-frames: [dyn] and [mom] relate to lexical properties of predicates, [con] and [tei] relate to participants or entities involved in the SoA. Each contingent feature can be associated with only one argument of a predicate: [con] with Arg-1, and [tei] with the affected argument or with the argument denoting a direction. Consider the following two examples, in which two different predicates ir Svrite' are involved: a two-place predicate in (41a) and a three-place predicate in (41b). In section 2.3.1. below we will present our motivation for considering these predicates a two-place predicate and a three-place predicate, respectively. (41) a.

b.

Anikó ir-ja a level-et. Anikó write-3s.2f the letter-ac 'Anikó is writing the letter.' Péter ir-ja a példà-t a tàblà-ra. Peter write-3s.2f the example-ac the blackboard-subl 'Peter is writing the example on the blackboard.'

42 Telicity binds the second argument in (41a) and the third argument in (41b). This can best be illustrated by applying perfective aspect to both examples. Note that the first example takes perfective marker meg- and the second example marker/eZ. An explanation for the application of meg- in (42a) and fel- in (40b) will be given immediately below. (42) a.

b.

Anikô meg-ir-ja a level-et. Anikô pf-write-3s.2f the letter-ac 'Anikô writes the letter.' Péter fel-ir-ja a példâ-t a tâblâ-ra. Peter pf-write-3s.2f the example-ac the blackboard-subl 'Peter writes the example on the blackboard.'

It is clear that in (42a) it is the Goal argument that sets the terminal point in the SoA whereas in (42b) it is the argument with the function of Direction. Hungarian has a great number of perfective markers. The choice of marker is mainly determined by the semantic function of the argument which sets the terminal point. If telicity binds a directional argument, the perfective marker will correspond to the semantic function of that argument. Consider two examples of a two-place predicate. Example (43a) expresses a direction 'into', which is marked by the illative case -ba. The verb takes the perfective marker be-. The second example expresses the opposite direction 'out of, which is marked by the elative case -bôl. The verb takes the perfective marker fa-. (43) a.

b.

Laci be-men-t a lakâs-ba. Laci pf-go-past.3s the house-ill 'Lace went into the house.' Mari ki-men-t a lakâs-bôl. Mary pf-go-past.3s the house-el 'Mary went out of the house.'

The same holds for three-place predicates, in which telicity binds the third argument, which has the semantic function of direction.9 In the following example, the perfective marker again has the form be-: (44)

Péter be-dob-t-a a level-et a pôstalâdâ-ba. Peter pf-drop-past-3s.2f the letter-ac the letterbox-ill 'Peter dropped the letter into the letterbox.'

If telicity binds a Goal argument the perfective marker will be meg- or el-. See, for instance, the examples (42a) and (39a) above. Marker el- can be used both

Predicate structure

43

with Directional and with Goal arguments. It has the meaning of 'away' in the former case, but it has no meaning in the latter case. Consider: (45)

a.

b.

Jenfl el-men-t mozi-ba. Jend pf-go-past.3s cinema-ill 'Jend went away to the cinema.' Anikó el-olvas-t-a a konyv-et. Anikó pf-read-past-3s.2f the book-ac 'Anikó read the book to the end.'

Perfective markers which correspond to Directional arguments seem to have some meaning of their own, whereas meg- and el- do not: be- 'into', fel- 'onto', rà'onto', ki- 'out of. 10 After discussing the relation between predicates and the parameters that define the typology of SoAs, we conclude that there are two constraints on the relation between the parameters and certain properties of predicates: (46)

i.

Predicate-frames cannot be specified for both (opposite) values of inherent features (dynamism or momentaneousness). ii. Predicate-frames cannot be specified in such a way that the same feature binds different arguments.

The constraints formulated in (46) have diagnostic value in the sense that they can help us to decide whether two expressions relate to one or two predicates (cf. chapter 5, section 5.1.). In relevant cases, we will use the following notational convention for indicating the relation between features and predicate-frames: (47)

[ + dyn],[-mom] olvasv ([ + con] Xl ) Ag ([±tel] x2)Go 'read'

The information contained in predicate-frame (47) is relevant to a number of (grammatical) operations, such as the introduction of satellites, the application of operators, and predicate formation.

2.3. ARGUMENTS

2.3.0. Introduction Predicates designate properties of entities or relations between entities. The entities of which a predicate is predicated are referred to as arguments. Sometimes

44 there is no consensus about the number of arguments a predicate has. The distinction FG makes between arguments and satellites may be of help here. We will discuss the argument / satellite distinction in section 2.3.1. Another aspect of predicate structure is the way in which argument positions may be left unexpressed or even unspecified. Section 2.3.2. is dedicated to this subject. 2.3.1. Arguments versus satellites The difference between arguments and satellites is usually characterized as follows. Arguments relate to predicates and are obligatory elements which together with the predicate define some SoA. Satellites relate to predicate-frames and are optional elements which provide additions to the information contained in the nuclear predication.11 The following example illustrates the difference between an argument {Mori) and a satellite (a nagy medenceben): (49)

Man a nagy medenc6-ben usz-ik. Mary the big pool-ines swim-3s 'Mary is swimming in the big swimming pool.'

iiszik 'swim' takes an obligatory argument (Man); the location where the event takes place is defined by a satellite (a nagy medenceben). In the discussion on predicate structure we take the following position: (i) (ii) (iii)

All obligatory terms in a predication are arguments All optional terms in a predication are satellites Arguments may be left unspecified according to a number of conditions

We think that (i) and (ii) speak for themselves. We will therefore confine ourselves to the presentation of some examples illustrating (i) (cf. (50)) and (ii) (cf. (51)). Arguments are indicated by xs and satellites by ys. (50) a.

Pali Amszterdam-ban lak-ik. Paul Amsterdam-ines live-3s 'Paul lives in Amsterdam.'

a'. lak v (xj)Pos ( x ^ b.

Péter rossz-ul viselked-ik. Peter bad-adv behave-3s 'Peter behaves badly.'

b\ viselkedy ( x ^ g

(x2)Ma„„er

Predicate structure

45

Note that, irrespective of their semantic function, all obligatory terms are considered arguments.12 Examples illustrating (ii) are the following. The satellite ('in the garden') in (51a) relates to the SoA designated by the predicate-frame, and the satellite ('laughing') in (51b) relates to the term 'Peter':

(51)

a.

Pali kônyv-et olvas a kert-ben. Paul book-ac read:3s the garden-ines 'Paul is reading a book in the garden.'

a', olvasy (xi)^ (x2)Go b.

(yi)Loc

Péter nevet-ve bejôtt a szobâ-ba. Peter laugh-adv.part come in:past.3s the room-ill 'Peter came into the room laughing.'

b'. bejon v (xj)Ag (x2) Dir

(y^Manncr

The presence of a kertben 'in the garden' in (51a) is accounted for by the introduction of a satellite which is added to the predicate-frame (cf. (51a')). In other words, the presence or absence of a constituent such as a kertben is accounted for by the introduction or non-introduction, respectively, of a satellite. Other examples require another type of explanation to account for the presence or absence of terms. This type of explanation is based on the consideration that argument positions may be left unspecified (cf. e.g. Heberlein 1986). Consider the following examples: (52) a.

b.

Ildikô esz-ik egy almâ-t. Ildikô eat-3s a apple-ac 'Ildikô is eating an apple.' Ildikô esz-ik. Ildikô eat-3s 'Ildikô is eating.'

We would not consider egy aimât 'an apple' to be a satellite in (52a), because it does not specify a further property of the nuclear predication. We would rather say that esz(ik) 'eat' can only be understood as a two-place predicate, the second argument of which may be left unspecified (cf. (52b)). The difference between the "optionality" of a term such as a nagy medencében 'in the big swimming pool' in (49) and that of egy aimât 'an apple' in (52a) is accounted for in the following way:

46 (53) a. b.

pred v (xt term)^ (yj t e r m ) ^ pred v (xt term)^

(cf. (49))

(54) a. b.

pred v ( x i term)^ (x2 term)^ pred v ( x i term)^ (x2 0)Go

(cf. (52))

There is more evidence to consider esz(ik) 'eat' a two-place predicate. The evidence is provided by the following argumentation. Recall that predications as a whole designate sets of SoAs, and that we consider all obligatory terms in a predication to be arguments of a predicate. The predications underlying (52) designate atelic SoAs. However, basic predications constructed with the predicateframe of esz(ik) 'eat' may also designate telic SoAs. In those cases the predication must contain two specified term positions. If the second term position is not specified for a referent, the construction is ungrammatical (cf. (55b)). Consider the following examples: (55) a.

Ildik6 meg-esz-i az almii-t. Ildik6 pf-eat-3s.2f the apple-ac 'Ildik6 eats the apple.' b. * Ildik6 meg-esz. Ildik6 pf-eat-3s.lf 'Ildik6 eats.'

Since a predication with esz(ik) 'eat' may designate telic SoAs and since such a predication requires two terms, we conclude that esz(ik) in Hungarian has two argument positions. We have seen that the distinction of telic SoAs may be of help to establish predicate-frames. A test based on the consideration that all obligatory terms in telic SoAs are arguments is useful in other instances as well. In section 2.2.1. above we characterized telic SoAs in the following fashion: a telic SoA is a SoA which, if it is fully achieved, reaches a natural terminal point. A distinction can be made between two types of terminal points. The natural terminal point in a SoA 'John reads the book' will have been reached when John has read the last word on the last page of the book. The terminal point in 'Mary walks to the railway station' will have been reached the moment that Mary actually reaches the railway station. The aspectual operator perfectivity in Hungarian is sensitive to telicity, i.e. perfective aspect only applies to telic SoAs. Irrespective of the type of terminal point, perfective aspect in Hungarian presents a telic SoA is presented as a single unanalyzable whole. We may thus say that all obligatory terms in perfective expressions in Hungarian can be considered arguments of a predicate. Consider not only (55a) above, but also the following examples denoting perfective telic SoAs:

Predicate structure (56) a.

b.

47

Zsuzsa le-sétâl-t a pâlyaudvar-ra. Zsuzsa pf-walk-past.3s the station-subl 'Zsuzsa walked down to the railway station.' Péter ât-usz-ott a mâsik oldal-ra. Peter pf-swim-past.3s the other side-subl 'Peter swam across to the other side.'

As opposed to De Groot (1985) we now consider the predicates in (56) to be twoplace predicates. The following example shows a three-place predicate. The predicate require the specification of three terms in perfective SoAs: (57)

a.

b.

Péter oda-ad-t-a Mari-nak a konyv-et. Peter pf-give-past-3s.2f Mary-dat the book-ac 'Peter gave the book to Mary.' Jânos be-dob-t-a a level-et a pôstalâdâ-ba. John pf-drop-past-3s.2f the letter-ac the letterbox-ill 'John dropped the letter in the letterbox.'

According to the criterion that all obligatory terms in a perfective predication are arguments of a predicate, the predicates (oda-)ad 'give' and (be-)dob 'drop' in Hungarian must be considered three-place predicates. In section 2.2.2 we have shown that there is a correlation between the form of the perfective marker and the semantic role of the argument bound by telicity. We see that in the examples in (57) telicity binds the third argument with the function of Recipient and Illative, respectively marked by oda- in (57a) and be- in (57b). Specification of three arguments can also be required in cases in which telicity binds the Goal argument, for instance:13 (58) a.

Elemér kenyer-et ken meg a vaj-jal. Elmer bread-ac spread:3s.lf pf the butter-instr 'Elmer spread bread with the butter.' b. * Elemér kenyer-et ken meg. Elmer bread-ac spread:3s.lf pf 'Elmer spread the bread.'

Example (58) also illustrates that the argument bound by telicity does not have to be the last argument of the predicate. 2.3.2. On the expression of arguments In this section we will be concerned with overt, covert and non-expression of arguments in main predications. Argument positions can be specified by terms.

48 Specified terms can be expressed by means of content words, anaphoric elements, or are not expressed (= zero anaphora). We will give an example of each type. Note the expression of the argument with the function of Recipient: (59) a.

b.

c.

Laci mi-t ad a lany-nak ? Laci what-ac give.3s the girl-dat What does Laci give to the girl?' Laci konyv-et ad neki Laci book-ac give:3s her:dat 'Laci gives her a book.' Laci konyv-et ad 0 Laci book-ac give.3s 'Laci gives her a book.'

An answer to question (59a) may be both (59b) or (59c). Given the fact that ad 'give' has three argument positions, the representation of the Recipient in (57)ac will be respectively: (60) a.

(dlx,: Mny

(Xj))Rec

===>

a ldnynak

b.

WnecGivenTop

= = = >

neki

C

WlUcGrvcnTop

= = = >

0

-

Note that the anaphoric terms are represented by Xj only. The referent of the terms can be traced back in the context. This is formally accounted for by means of coindexation of the term variable. Overt or covert expression of the recipient, neki in (59b) and 0 in (59c), seems to be a matter of stylistic variation (A. Komldsy p.c.).14 Notwithstanding the absence of any Recipient marker in (59c), we still consider the argument to be specified in the underlying structure. We do not claim that the same analysis applies to other non-expressed arguments in Hungarian in the same way. The underlying representation of (59c) is the following: (61)

ad v (xk: LaciN

(xk))AgToP ( i l x j :

konyvN (xj))GoFoc (x,)Rec

Different from the constructions discussed above is the following: (62)

Ez a tan&r csak kettes-t ad. this teacher only two-ac give:3s 'This teacher gives only very low marks.'

In contradistinction to example (59c) the argument with the function of Recipient in (62) does not have a specific referent. On the other hand, an expression such as (62) can only be understood as "the teacher giving very low marks to pupils", i.e. a recipient is presupposed. Evidence for considering the predicate ad 'give' a three-

Predicate structure

49

place predicate was given above (cf. example (57a)). We may therefore say that the third argument position of ad in (62) is not specified by a term. The underlying representation of (62) is (63): (63)

ad v (+px k : tan£rN ( x ^ ) ^ ^ (ilxj: kettesN (xj))GoFoc (0)Rec

We have seen that the Recipient argument of the predicate ad 'give' can have zero expression in two cases: (i) (x^ = (zero) anaphor, and (ii) (0) = no specification (cf. (54) above). It seems that most third arguments of predicates have the same properties as Arg-3 of ad described above. In the following part we will investigate whether the first and second argument positions of Hungarian predicates have the same property as the argument with the function of Recipient, i.e. do they allow both types of zero expression or only one or none? We will summarize the possibilities considered. When we have two expressions, one consisting of a predicate and three terms and the other consisting of the same predicate but only two terms, and we wish to establish the status of term-3, we have the following options: (64) a. b. (i) (ii)

expression 1: predicate teririj term2 term 3 expression 2: predicate terrrij term2

term3 is a satellite; the predicate has two argument positions, or term 3 is an argument; the predicate has three argument positions. The zero expression of the third argument in (64b) is a case of zero anaphor or a case of non-specification.

Let us now consider an example without (overt expression of) the Arg-1 term: (65) a.

b.

J&nos dolgoz-ik. John work-3s 'John is working.' Dolgoz-ik. work-3s 'He/she is working.'

Given the three possible analyses to account for the alternative absence or presence of a term as presented above, the underlying representation of (65b) may be the following: (66) a. b. c.

dolgoz-v dolgoz-v (0)Ag dolgoz-v (Xj)Ag

50 As a matter of fact, none of these representations offers a satisfactory account of expression (65b). We refer to chapter 3 for a detailed discussion of the analysis of constructions such (65). In that chapter we argue that each first argument of a verbal predicate in Hungarian must be specified for person. Person is expressed by a referential affix on the predicate, and constituents such as Jdnos in (65a) are considered appositives to the referential affixes. Since affix -ik in (65) is taken to be the spelling out of the specification of person of Arg-1, none of the three representations fulfils this requirement. Although we refer to chapter 3 for a discussion of constructions such as (65b), we wish to say more about the representations in (66) here. Representation (66a) is based on the consideration that predicate dolgoz(ik) is a zero-place predicate which allows the optional extension of an agentive satellite (cf. Jdnos in (65a)). One may wonder whether it is correct to say that a predicate can be a zero-place predicate. A very strong reason for not doing so is that zero-place predicates do not fulfil the fundamental property of predicates. That is, they do not predicate over one or more arguments. Zero-place predicates would constitute a very particular class of predicates, namely a class of predicates that does not predicate. It therefore seems correct to say that all predicates have one or more arguments. As a counter example to the requirement that predicates must have at least one argument, the class of so-called weather verbs such as 'to rain' or 'to lighten' is often mentioned. English rain does not seem to allow an Arg-1 term: (67) a. It is raining. b. * The cloud / * the rain is raining. Similar examples of predicates which do not allow an Arg-1 term are found in Hungarian as well: esteled(ik) 'night is falling', hajnalod(ik) 'to dawn', virrad 'to dawn', pirkad 'to dawn', havazik 'to snow*, fagy 'to freeze', and villaml(ik) 'to lighten'. These examples seem to be zero-place predicates, and therefore constitute a counter-example to our claim that predicates must have at least one argument. However, the class of weather predicates consists of only a small number of predicates. The number of Hungarian predicates which belong to this class is largely restricted to the examples given above. So it seems that zero-place predicates are rather exceptional and belong to a closed class. On the other hand, there may be an alternative analysis of this class of predicates, which can be illustrated on the basis of the following pair of expressions: (68) a.

b.

Es-ik a h6. fall-3sthe snow "The snow is falling / it is snowing.' Havaz-ik. snow-3s 'It is snowing.'

Predicate structure

51

Although both expressions have the same (or similar ?) meaning, (68a) can be analysed as snow falling down, whereas (68b) rather refers to the event of snowing. This difference may be represented in the following way: (69) a. b.

Pres e,: [es-v (dx,: h6N (x1))Proc] ( ei ) Pres e^ havaz-v ( e ^

(69a) is the regular representation of a predication: es(ik) 'fall' predicates over an argument specified by a term which refers to ho 'snow'. The predication as a whole refers to an event. Representation (69b) is different. We suggest here that the event variable ej binds the argument position of the predicate havaz(ik) 'snow'. Such a representation accounts for the obligatory absence of an Arg-1 term (the argument position is blocked for term insertion by the q variable) and for the property weather predicates have, i.e. they refer to events. If analysis (69b) is correct, weather predicates do no longer constitute counter-examples to the requirement that verbs have to have at least one argument. Given the fundamental property that predicates predicate over one or more arguments, we conclude that each predicate, including the class of weather verbs, must have at least one argument. Therefore we reject representation (66a) as a possible analysis of construction (65b), since it does not express that fundamental property. This conclusion also implies that grammatical operations such as argument reduction predicate formation rules may not lead to zero-place predicateframes in the underlying represention of predications (cf. chapters 5 and 6). Let us now have a look at the second arguments of predicates. We will assume that in expressions consisting of a predicate and two terms, one term must be an argument (see the discussion above). The other term may either be an argument too, or a satellite (see section 2.3.1 above). It seems that second argument positions can have zero expression in the case of zero-anaphora or non-specification. Consider the following examples: (70) a.

b.

c.

Kclroly olvas-sa / el-olvas-sa az ujs&g-ot. Charles read-3s.2f pf-read-3s.2f the newspaper-ac 'Charles is reading / reads the newspaper.' Karoly olvas-sa. Charles read-3s.2f 'Charles is reading it.' Karoly olvas. Charles read:3s.lf 'Charles is reading.'

From example (70a) with perfective elolvas 'read' we see that olvas 'read' is a twoplace predicate. Example (70b) may be answered to the question 'Who is reading

52 the newspaper?'. Note the application of the second form paradigm of the verb, which indicates that the Goal counts as definite (cf. chapter 1, section 1.2.8.7). The underlying representation of (70b) might be (71). The referent of Xj can be traced back in the context. (71)

Pres olvas-v (dlx,: KdrolyN (x,))^ (x i ) Go

If one wishes to express that K&roly is reading without making any reference to what he is reading, example (70c) may be used as an answer to the question 'What is Kciroly doing?'. The underlying representation is: (72)

Pres olvas-v (dl^: KdrolyN ( x ^ (0) G o

Predicates with a directional second argument behave similarly. Consider: (73)

a.

b.

c.

Zsuzsa s6t£l-t / le-s6tdl-t a p&lyaudvar-ra. Zsuzsa walk-past.3s pf-walk-past.3s the railway station-subl 'Zsuzsa was walking / walked down to the railway station.' Zsuzsa le-s6tiil-t. Zsuzsa pf-walk-past.3s 'Zsuzsa walked down to it.' Zsuzsa setiil-t. Zsuzsa walk-past.3s 'Zsuzsa was walking.'

The underlying representations of examples (73a-c) may be (74a-c), respectively: (74)

a. b. c.

Past Impf/Pf s6tdl-v (Zsuzsa)^ (dlXj: p&lyaudvarN (xi))Subl Past Pf s Go > Rec > Ben > Dir, Loc

b.

syntactic function: Subj > Obj

Thus, Arg-1 is more likely to be coded on the verb than Go, Go is more likely to be coded on the verb than Rec, etc. Similarly, Subj is more likely to be coded on the verb than Obj. Affixes on Nouns typically have the function of expressing the Possessor. No particular semantic function can be assigned to the affixes on adpositions. It is claimed that constructions with affixes on adpositions originate from NPs (cf. De Groot & Limburg 1986: 57). Given the parameters (i) type of language (Free pronoun, Clitic, and Appositional type), (ii) category of the head (Verb, Noun, and Adposition), and (iii) function of the affix (Semantic: Arg-1, Go, Rec etc.; Syntactic: Subj. and Obj.), Hungarian can be typologically characterized as follows:

72 (11)

Pronominal elements in Hungarian Verb

>

Noun

type of language

appositional

appositional

function of affix

Arg-1 (Go)

Possessor

>

Adposition free pronoun

In section 3.4. we will present a more elaborated typology of pronominal elements and data which substantiate the typology.

3.2. THE REPRESENTATION OF 'PERSON' IN FG

A representation of person must account for two elements: the form and the meaning of 'person'. With regard to personal pronouns, the requirements of the formal expression of person are met by introducing them as basic terms of the following form, in which PRO indicates 'pronominal predicate' (cf. Dik 1980:54): (12)

(dlx,: he PRO (Xi))

The other requirement is fulfilled if such basic terms can be given an appropriate meaning definition. We assume that such a meaning definition can be given in terms of the notion S (Speaker) and A (Addressee), i.e. participants in communicative settings. A principle of functional explanation applied in FG is that a theory of language systems should most easily and realistically be incorporable into a wider theory of verbal interaction. This motivates us to adopt the general pragmatic notions of Speaker and Addressee to account for 'person' at the level of the language system. These notions are different from predicates with a lexical form and meaning. For instance, 'I' refers to the Speaker in a particular communicative setting in contradistinction to the lexical expression 'the speaker'. That is why we introduce them as 'abstract predicates', i.e. predicates without a lexical form but with the symbols ±S and ±A, 3 the function of which it is to index the participants in communicative settings. Abstract predicates are contained in basic terms of the following form: (13)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

(dlx ¡: [ + S, -A] (xi)) (dlx¡: [-S, + A] (x,)) (dlx ¡: [-S, -A] (Xi)) (d2xi: [ + S, +A] (xi)) (d2x¡: [+S, -A] (x,)) (dmxj: [-S, -A] (x¡))

(first person singular) (second person singular) (third person singular) (first person dual, inclusive) (first person dual, exclusive) (third person plural)

Person marking

73

The meaning definition of (12) can now be given in the form of representation (13c). Consider: (14)

(dlXj: he PRO (xj) df (dlx^ [-S, -A] (x,))

Insertion of (12) into the argument slot of work-y results in (15a); the expression rule component accounts for the introduction of the agreement morpheme in (15b): (15)

a. b.

work-y (dl^: hePRO ( x ^ he work-s

With regard to languages such as Hungarian, there remains the question of how to account for referential affixing on verbs. Recall the diachronic development of free pronouns into clitics and then into referential affixes which wear off to agreement affixes (section 3.1. above). As proposed above, free pronouns will be introduced as basic terms, i.e. lexically. Clitics can be introduced in the same way. Clitics differ from free pronouns in that clitics are attached to a (lexical) element and that they cannot be contrastively stressed. They may be weak forms of free pronouns. A phonological rule must account for weak forms of strong pronouns. In case weak pronouns or clitics cannot productively be derived from the strong pronouns, all different forms will be listed in the lexicon under one heading, for instance moi (T) and je (T) in Standard French. An expression rule will account for the location of clitics in the linguistic expression. It seems to us that referential affixes must be introduced differently because of the following considerations. In the development of free pronouns (through intermediate stages) into grammatical agreement affixes, there is a point at which the representation of person by lexical items (free pronouns) switches to non-lexical, grammatical forms, i.e. pronominal affixes. These grammatical forms will be introduced by expression rules and not by lexical insertion, since they are not basic terms. These grammatical forms can be taken to be the expression of participants in communicative settings, as their proposed form indicates. We will illustrate the application of such an expression with the following Hungarian example. Abstract predicates function as triggers. They introduce forms. Rule (16) accounts for the introduction of the referential affix 'first person singular'. After the affix has been placed in the appropriate position, form (17) arises. Consider: (16)

Pred v (dl^: [+S, -A]

(17)

olvas-ok

fr))^

(read-Is 'I read')

->

Pred -ok

74

The free pronoun en T is listed in the lexicon, and may be introduced in certain pragmatic circumstances in addition to the obligatory ending -ok. The rule that does this will not be discussed here. Note that this formalization captures the function of the pronominal affixes involved: the latter are the obligatory expressions of underlying referential elements and not the result of some rule that copies features of a constituent that is not be present at the surface. The concept of abstract predicates is not contradictory to the constraint on empty elements in the underlying structure mentioned in section 1.1 above, because abstract predicates are not empty elements. Moreover, the person system is a closed, limited system and not an open system. Finally, the concept of abstract predicates is necessary. Consider the following two cases: (i) zero-marking, and (ii) expressions with covert anaphoric or deictic reference. (i) In Hungarian there is person-marking on the verb in all cases, except for third person singular subjects. In that case there is in general zero-marking. Consider the following examples: (18) a. b. c.

olvas-ok olvas-ol olvas-0

(read-Is 'I read') (read-2s 'you read') (read-3s 'he/she reads')

Since (18c) has the specific interpretation 'he/she reads', this must somehow be represented in the underlying form. This is comparable to (19a), in which the noun kabat with no ending has the specific interpretation of 'coat singular'. Just as the term operator 1 ('singular') expressed by 0 accounts for the number interpretation, so the abstract predicate in (18c) expressed as 0 accounts for the interpretation 'third person singular'. (19) a. b.

a kab£t-0 a kabcit-ok

(the coat-sg 'the coat') (the coat-pl 'the coats')

(ii) The concept of abstract predicates seems to be warranted in order to account for 'empty anaphoric arguments' and 'empty deictic arguments' in, for instance, the Dutch utterance (20), made by a person who looks at a plate with oysters in front of him:4 (20)

0 Lust ik niet. like I not 'I do not like them.'

This concludes the discussion of the representation of person. In the next section we will look at the representation in FG of constructions traditionally labelled

Person marking

75

'apposition' so as to be able to formalize the constructions of free NP forms in apposition to pronominal affixes in section 3.4. 3.3. THE REPRESENTATION OF APPOSITION

In this section we will mainly follow Quirk et al. (1985:1300ff); we refer to their exposition for further information on this subject. For linguistic units to be 'appositives', i.e. in apposition, they must normally be identical in reference. Thus John and the winner in (21) are preferential: (21)

John, the winner, got flowers.

For the constituents in constructions such as (21) we will use the term 'appositives' after Quirk et al. and not 'head' and 'apposition', because it is syntactically impossible to decide which element is the head and which element is the apposition. Properties of constructions such as (21) are: (i) Each of the appositives can be separately omitted without affecting the acceptability of the sentence; (ii) Each fulfils the same syntactic function in the resulting sentences; (iii) It can be assumed that there is no difference between the original sentence and either of the resulting sentences in extralinguistic reference. For example, by omitting each appositive in turn from (21) we obtain two sentences (22a) and (22b): (22)

a. b.

John got flowers. The winner got flowers.

The relation between the two appositives is judged differently in the linguistic literature. Quirk et al. mention that the relationship denoted by apposition is analogous to a copular relationship. Pinkster (1984:118ff) characterizes apposition in terms of head and attribute in the following fashion. Semantically, appositions contain a predicate of the head; together with the head they form one referential unit. Although they resemble the head-attribute structure, they are different: in appositional constructions the head is omissible, whereas this is impossible in constructions with an attribute. At this point it is important to note that a distinction can be made between restrictive and non-restrictive appositions. Semantically, they differ in the same way that restrictive relative clauses differ from non-restrictive relative clauses (cf. Hannay & Vester 1987). Consider (23a) with a restrictive (Pinkster 1984:119) or close (Bloomfield 1933:186) apposition and (23b) with a non-restrictive apposition: (23)

a. b.

John's brother Charles lives in London, Charles, John's brother, lives in London.

76

As opposed to non-restrictive apposition (e.g. (23b)), in restrictive appositional constructions the relation between the two appositives can indeed be considered a relation of head and attribute, i.e. head and restrictor. Given the mechanism of term predicate formation (cf. (8) chapter 1), the restrictive appositional construction John's brother Charles can be straightforwardly assigned the following structure: (24)

(dlXji brother N (xj (dlxj: JohnN

(Xj))Ref:

{(dlxk: CharlesN (xk))„} (x^)

This structure reads as "the singular entity Xj such that jq is brother of John such that Xj is Charles". The head of the term is the two-place predicate brother (cf. Mackenzie 1983). The apposition Charles is represented as a restrictor in the shape of a term predicate which has Xj as its argument. This structure accounts for the view that the apposition is a kind of attributive adjunct and that the apposition contains a predicate of the head. The other type, the non-restrictive apposition, causes more difficulties. In this case, of course, the appositives cannot be represented as head and restrictor. Although (23b) entails that 'Charles is John's brother', no predicative relation between the two appositives is expressed. It cannot be represented as an instance of non-verbal predication in which one appositive is the predicate and the other its argument. We conclude that the relation between the appositives in non-restrictive appositional constructions is neither a relation of head and restrictor nor a relation of predicate and argument. The solution we propose shows some similarity to the coordination of terms, by which two or more independent terms are joined to form a new term. We can treat apposition in terms of expansions of given elements of structure into appositional series of similar elements in a way similar to that which Dik (1980:191) proposed for term coordination. This can be done by adopting the following general appositional schema (25): (25)

(Xj) - >

((x,)1, (x,)2, ... (Xi)n)

(n > 2)

which, operating on some element Xj, expands this element within the term into an n-ary series of appositional elements of the same type. The relation of non-restrictive apposition (indicated by a [,] in (25)) is of a pragmatic-semantic nature.5 The Speaker, in using the second (or third, etc.) term, gives further information about the referent of the first term in order to improve its identifiability for the Addressee. He may also use the first term to introduce a referent and the second (or third, etc.) to comment on its characteristics (cf. (26)), or to give a different characterization or appellation (cf. (27)).6 (26)

John, the bastard, never puts out a hand to help me.

Person marking (27)

77

The Netherlands, often called Holland, borders on the North Sea.

Note the similarity of this definition of non-restrictive apposition to those of Theme and Tail. We assume that appositives fulfil pragmatic functions within terms that are similar to the pragmatic functions Theme and Tail at the sentence level. A difference between apposition and coordination is that coordinated elements do not refer to one and the same entity, as is the case for appositions. Neither can the second element in a coordination be a term that refers to a set of entities of which the term referred to by the first element is a member. Consider: (28) a. Johiij & the winner^ b. * Johiij & the winner| (29) a.

John and the football players (= John is not one of the football players) b. * John and the football players (= John is one of the football players)

According to scheme (25) the representation of (30a) will be (30b): (30) a. b.

The winner, John ((dlXj: winnerN (jq)) , (dl^: JohnN (x^))

Representations such as (30b) account for the following properties of appositional constructions: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

the two elements united in one term can take one structural position in the clause; both elements refer to the same entity; the relation between the two elements is neither the relation of head and restrictor nor that of predication; the two elements are loosely related; the relation is of a pragmatic / semantic nature, either appositive can be taken as the nucleus of information.

From this discussion of 'apposition' we conclude that a basic distinction should be made between restrictive and non-restrictive appositions. The difference can be accounted for in the following way. The appositive Xj is presented as a restrictor in (31a); the non-restrictive appositive is presented as an expansion of an element with the same referent ( x j within a term:

78

(31) a. restrictive apposition (x,: PredN1 (x,): { PredN2 (x^)} (xj) b. non-restrictive apposition ( PredN1 (x,)) , ( PredN2 &)) We have proposed that referential affixes can be considered to be the spelling out of terms consisting of an abstract predicate. For instance, as discussed in section 3.0. above, -nak in (3) is the spelling out of the first argument by a rule such as (16). Free pronouns and NPs can be added as appositives to the referential affixes. An example is (32), in which the NP a fiuk 'the boys' is the appositive: (32)

A fiuk dolgoz-nak. the boys work-3p 'The boys work.'

We will now relate the Appositional construction in APPOSITIONAL TYPE languages to the two types of appositive: restrictive and non-restrictive appositives. The following example from Hungarian illustrates that the appositional construction is not a restrictive apposition. Note that the appositives refer to first person singular: (33)

£n tegnap a konyvt&r-ban dolgoz-t-am. I yesterday the library-ines work-past-lsg 'I worked in the library yesterday.'

"I" in (33) must be an extension to the verbal form, because the analysis of en as a restrictive appositive would lead to a term structure in which the same restrictor occurs twice: Xj such that Xj is / such that Xj is I. The Appositional construction can be related to non-restrictive apposition. The NPs or free pronouns give a further semantic or pragmatic specification of the intended referent.7 This type of apposition, however, does not share all the properties of non-restrictive apposition (cf (21)): (i) the person marking suffix on the verb is not omissible, whereas the free pronoun is; (ii) the two forms often do not occur next to each other in the sentence. The Appositional construction, then, may be considered a sub-type of non-restrictive apposition. We will call it 'grammatical apposition'. It can be formalized in the following way (P indicates 'person'): (34)

Grammatical apposition (pronominal affixes on verbs and appositive) [ Pred v (xi: P (x()) ... (x„: P (xj) , (xi) ... ( x j ]

Person marking

79

(34) expresses the following: the (Verbal) predicate has a number of arguments. These argument positions contain a term. The first restrictor of each term consists of an abstract predicate (P, which indicates 'person'), which is to be expressed as an affix on the verbal form. Optionally, coreferential free NP-forms can be added in apposition to these arguments. The formalization of pronominal affixes on nouns (i.e. heads of NPs) can be represented in the following way. Terms which function as possessive restrictors contain an abstract predicate (P). The abstract predicate is to be expressed as affix on the head.8 The coreferential free form of the Possessor can be added in apposition to the term which contains the possessive restrictor (cf. (35a)). There is also the possibility that the possessive appositive forms one syntactic unit with the term which contains the possessive restrictor. In that case we suggest that the appositive be located within the term and not outside the term (cf. (35b)). We will see in section 3.4.3. below that the distinction made between (35a) and (35b) is relevant to a description of possessive constructions in Hungarian. Consider the following two possibilities of grammatical apposition with pronominal affixes on nouns (P indicates 'person'): (35)

Grammatical apposition (pronominal affixes on nouns and appositive) a. ft: Pred N ft): { f t : P (xj))Poss} ft)) , ft)Poss b. ft: Pred N ft): { f t : P (Xj) , (xj))Poss} ft))

In the following section we will discuss a number of examples of constructions with referential affixes on verbs and nouns.

3.4. TYPOLOGY OF PERSON MARKING IN HUNGARIAN

3.4.0. Introduction In this section we will list all constructions with a person marker (PM) in Hungarian (cf. Vago 1980). A more detailed discussion of some of the constructions will be given in chapter 4, section 4.3.3.3.2. From a morphological point of view, a distinction can be made between four classes of pronominal elements in Hungarian. One class consists of free pronouns, the other three consist of bound morphemes. Two of them are used in combination with verbs, the other one is used with nouns. We will refer to the first two classes as verbal PMs, and we will refer to the third one as nominal PMs.9

80 (36)

Pronominal elements in Hungarian verbal PM

free pronoun

first form

second form

nominal PM possessive

Is 2s 3s

én te 6

-ok/-om -ol/-SZ -0 /-ik

-om -od

-om -od

-0)a

-G>

IP

mi ti

-unk -tok -nak

-juk -játok -ják

-unk -tok -uk

2p 3p

ók

A survey of constructions with a PM in Hungarian is the following: (37)

i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi.

finite verb participle noun infinitive nominalization case/adposition

+ + + + + +

verbal PM verbal PM nominal PM nominal PM nominal PM nominal PM

In section 3.1. we have given a characterization of the PM system in Hungarian based on two hierarchies. One hierarchy concerns the categorial status of the element to which the affix is attached (Verb, Noun, or Adposition), the other hierarchy concerns the semantic or syntactic function of the term expressed by the affix (Arg-1, Go, Rec etc., or Subj, Obj). Note that the first hierarchy is based on word class distinctions. From a typological point of view it seems more correct to establish such a hierarchy on functional notions and not on morphological notions. Instead of 'Verb' it is better to take "predicate' as the first candidate in the hierarchy. Predicates can be verbal, adjectival, or nominal. The distinction between the three types of predicate constitutes a first hierarchy.10 For the second candidate, we suggest 'first restrictor of a term variable Xj' (head of an NP) and not 'Noun', because a noun may function as a predicate as well.11 We therefore suggest that a language independent typology of referential affixing can best be given along the dimensions of 'Domain' (Predication or Term), 'Head' (Predicate or First restrictor), 'Semantic function' (Arg-1, Go, Rec etc.), and 'Syntactic function' (Subj or Obj) (cf. (38) below). A discussion of the six types of construction in Hungarian mentioned under (37) above, will show that the typology of referential affixing in Hungarian can be

Person marking

81

presented in the following way (the dotted line indicates the cut-off point of the hierarchy): (38)

Referential affixes in Hungarian

Domain

Head

Semantic function

Predication

Predicate 1 Verb | > Adj > Noun 1

Term position

first restrictor 1 Noun | > denominai | Adposition

non-first restrictor 1 Poss I 1

Term

1 Arg-1 | > Go > Rec, Ben > Dir, Loc 1

3.4.1. Finite verb + verbal PMs Consider the following examples of finite expressions of constructions with a oneplace verbal predicate. The semantic functions of Arg-1 are respectively Agent, Process, and Positioner: (39)

a. b. c.

kirändul-ok öregsz-em ül-ök

(make a trip-Is) (get old-Is) (sit-ls)

'I make a trip' 'I am getting old' 'I am sitting'

These examples show that irrespective of the semantic function of the first argument, Arg-1 is expressed by a PM suffix on the verb. The same holds for all other person and number distinctions (cf. (36) above). Arg-1 of non-verbal predicates is not expressed on the non-verbal form but on a verbal auxiliary. Consider: (40) a. b.

mernök vagyok merges vagyok

(engineer be: Is) (angry be: Is)

'I am an engineer' 'I am angry'

All expressions presented here can be extended with the free pronoun en T. We will give two examples: (41)

a. b.

én kirändul-ok én mernök vagyok

(I make a trip-Is) (I engineer be: Is)

'I make a trip' 'I am an engineer'

82 The representation of (39a) together with (41a) will be the following: (42) a. b.

kirdndul-v (dlx,: [+S.-A] ( x j ) ^ kirdndul-y (dl^: [+S,-A] (x,))^ , (dl^: 6nPRO (x,))^

In section 3.3. we have called an example such as (42b) 'grammatical appositions' (cf. (34)). Arg-1 of two-place predicates (or more) is also expressed on the verbal form. In some cases the expression is the same as that of Arg-1 of one-place predicates, in other cases the expression is different. The choice between the two expressions depends on the type of Goal argument. If the argument with the function of Goal counts as definite, the expression of Arg-1 on the verb will take the second form paradigm (cf. section 1.2.8.7 above). As an illustration of both forms consider the following examples: (43) a.

b.

A l&nyok film-et ldt-t-ak. the girls movie-ac see-past-3p.lf 'The girls saw a movie.' A lilnyok l£t-t-&k a film-et. the girls see-past-3p.2f the movie-ac "The girls saw the movie.'

The question arises whether grammatical apposition is also relevant to the argument with the function of Goal. This does not seem to be the case. We have seen that there is a unique expression for Arg-1 on the verb. There is no such unique expression for Goal. Consider, for instance, the following expressions in Hungarian, which are complete in themselves: (44) a.

b.

Ldt-t-ak. see-past-3p.lf 'They were capable of seeing.' 'They saw me/you/us/you/something.' Ldt-t-dk. see-past-3p.2f 'They saw it/them.'

As to the subjects of these examples, (44a) and (44b) are not ambiguous. In both examples Arg-1 refers to third person plural. As to the objects, the examples are ambiguous or even multiply ambiguous (cf. (44a)). In order to disambiguate examples such as (44), a speaker of Hungarian will overtly express the object, e.g.

Person marking

83

(45) a.

L&t-t-ak engem. see-past-3p.lf me 'They saw me.' b. Ldt-t-dk dk-et / a didkok-at. see-past-3p.2f they-ac the pupils-ac 'They saw them / the pupils.'

Sofar, we can conclude that grammatical apposition in Hungarian is relevant to Arg-1 and not to Goal. The representation of (43) can now be formulated as follows: (46) a.

Past mt-v (dm^: [-S.-A] (x,))^ (ilXji filmN (Xj))^ , (x,: ldnyN ( x j ) ^

b. Past Mt-V (dmXji [-S,-A] (x,))^ (dlx^ filmN (xj))Go , ft: ldnyN (x,))^ Let us return to example (44a), which is multiply ambiguous. We suggest that (44a) be accounted for in the following way: (i) The Goal argument is not specified at all. This accounts for the interpretation 'they were capable of seeing' (see (47a)). (ii) The Goal argument is specified by means of an anaphor. The entity which functions as Goal is known to the Addressee. The Speaker therefore may leave the Goal argument unexpressed, (see (47b)).12 (47) a. b.

Past tet-v (dnuq: [-S,-A] ( x ^ (0)Go Past mt-v (dmx,: [-S.-A] (x,))^ (xj)Go where the referent of (Xj) is specified in the context

However, there does seem to be one instance of grammatical apposition of Goal. In expressions in which the subject refers to the Speaker (singular) and the object refers to the Addressee (singular or plural) we find affixes which correspond to subject and object independently. Consider: (48) a.

Szeret-l-ek. love-2s/p-ls 'I love you.' b. fin szeret-l-ek t6ged. I love-2s/p-ls you:ac 'I love you.'

Thus -I- is the unique expression for second person Goal arguments. However, the expression does not differentiate between singular and plural. We suggest the following representations:

84 (49)

a. b.

szeret-v (dlx,: [+S.-A] ( j q ) ) ^ (dl/mxj: [-S.+A] (x j )) Go szeret-v (dlx^: [+S,-A] (Xj))^ (dl^: [-S,+A] (Xj))^ , ¿nPRO (Xi))Exp

(>S :

tePRO

(Xj))Go

Note that the semantic functions of the appositives will trigger the expression rules which will introduce the cases. This concludes the section on verbal PMs on finite verb forms. 3.4.2. Participle + verbal PMs The other type of construction in which we find verbal PMs in Hungarian is the past participle construction. We will give one example here of such a past participle construction (50a) together with an alternative expression of the same construction without a verbal PM on the past participle (50b). Compare: (50)

a.

b.

Az 6n iddz-t-em pelda. the I quote-pa.part-ls example "The example quoted by me.' Egy (ciltal-am) id6z-ett pilda. a by-Is quote-pa.part example 'An example quoted (by me).'

A detailed discussion of these constructions will be given in chapter 4, section 4.3.3.3.2. 3.4.3. Noun + nominal PMs As a first example of a construction with nominal PMs, consider the possessive construction.13 In Hungarian we find the following expression of a possessive relation: (51)

a kabdt-ja the coat-3s 'his coat.'

An expression such as (51) can be used when the Addressee is supposed to be able to identify the possessor of the coat indicated by the 3rd person nominal PM attached to the noun. The intended referent can be made more specific by adding the overt expression of the possessor. The term which gives this information occurs with a nominative case or a dative case.14 Compare:

Person marking

85

(52) a.

Jdnos kab&t-ja John coat-3s 'John's coat' b. J^nos-nak a kab&t-ja John-dat the coat-3s 'John's coat'

Note that (51) is in itself a complete expression. Therefore, we will analyse the examples in (52) as constructions which contain an apposition. Before we do so, let us first have a look at the syntax of the two constructions. There are several reasons for considering (52a) to consist of one constituent and (52b) to consist of two constituents (cf. Szabolcsi 1986: 37-47). We will mention two of them. Firstly, the dative possessor phrase may precede but also follow the possessed. It is also possible to place other constituents between the possessor and the possessed. Consider: (53) a.

A kab^t-ja Jdnos-nak el-vesz-ett. the coat-3s John-dat pf-get lost-past.3s 'John's coat got lost.' b. J&nos-nak nem l&t-t-am a kab^t-jd-t. John-dat not see-past-ls.2f the coat-3s-ac 'I have not seen John's coat.'

The other type of construction (52a) does not allow the kind of permutation in (53a) or the discontinuous expression in (53b). Consider: (54) a. * a kaMt-ja Jdnos the coat-3s John 'John's coat' b. * Jcinos nem l&ttam a kabdt-jd-t. John not see-past-ls.2f the coat-3s-ac 'I did not see John's coat.' A second example which supports the analysis of (52a) as one constituent and (52b) as two constituents relates to the position of the article. The expression of terms in Hungarian follows the following pattern: (55)

[ article, numeral, attribute, head ]

The following example illustrates the basic word order within NPs in Hungarian:

86 (56)

a k6t oreg vastag fa the two old massive tree 'the two old massive trees'

Note that the article takes the initial position within the NP in Hungarian. An article in any other position than the initial position yields an ungrammatical expression, e.g.: (57)

* k6t oreg vastag a fa two old massive the tree 'the two old massive trees'

Now consider the two types of possessive expression as given in (58) again, in particular the position of the article: (58) a.

Jdnos-nak a kab&t-ja John-dat the coat-3s 'John's coat' a'.* a JiLnos-nak kaMt-ja the John-dat coat-3s 'John's coat' b. a J&nos kab&t-ja the John coat-3s 'John's coat' b'.* J&nos a kaMt-ja John the coat-3s 'John' coat'

The canonical position of the article in NPs, i.e. initial position, reinforces the analysis of (58a) as involving two constituents: Janosnak and a kabatja. How do we account for Janosnak and a kabatja as being two constituents in constructions such as (53b)? One suggestion may be that there is no appositional relation between the two constituents. The NP marked by the dative case may in that view be considered an argument of the sentence predicate or a satellite of the nuclear predication. Biermann (1985: 43ff) and Szabolcsi (1986: 40) proved such a view to be incorrect. We do not think that there are reasons for not assuming the relation between the two NPs to be an appositional one. The close, appositional relation between the two constituent is proved by the fact that the two constituents together may occupy the P0 position, the position which is said to allow only one constituent. Recall the functional pattern of Hungarian (section 1.2.8.8. above): (59)

PI

P0

V

X

Person marking

87

It is possible to put either Jdnosnak or a kabatja in P0 position, but it is also possible to put the two constituents in P0 together, i.e. Jdnosnak a kabatja. Compare: (60) a.

b.

c.

PI P0 V Man [a kab&t-jd-t] vit-t-e Mary the coat-3s-ac take-past-3s.2f 'Mary took John's coat away.' PI P0 V Man [J&nos-nak] vit-t-e Mary John-dat take-past-3s.2f 'Mary took John 'i coat away.' PI Mari [Jdnos-nak Mary John-dat 'Mary took John's

el Jdnos-nak. away John-dat

el a kabdt-jd-t. away the coat-3s-ac

P0 V a kab&t-jci-t] vit-t-e the coat-3s-ac take-past-3s.2f coat away.'

el. away

We do not consider construction (60c) a counterexample to the property of the P0 position (i.e. that it can accommodate only one and not two or more constituents) because Jdnosnak is an appositive of a kabatja. Given the syntactic difference between the two constructions (52a) and (52b) we propose to account for the difference in the following way: Jdnos-nak in (52a) is an appositive outside the term and therefore marked by a dative case, whereas Jdnos in (52b) is an appositive within the term. The difference is schematically represented in (61); a full representation is given in (62): (61) a. b.

(coat: 3s) , (John: dat) (coat: (3s , John))

(62) a.

(ilxji katat N ft): {(dft: [-S,-A] (xj))Poss) ft)) , ft: JSnos ft))Poss

b.

( i f t : kaMtN ft): {(dft: [-S.-A] ft) , ft: Jdnos ft)))Poss} ft))

This analysis of the possessive construction offers a functional explanation for the occurrence of a dative case in (52a). It has to do with recoverability. The appositive possessor which is outside the term can be identified by the dative case. The appositive possessor which is within the term together with the possessed does/ not need such a marker. Moreover, the analysis accounts for a syntactic difference as well. The appositive which is outside a term is syntactically free with respect to the position of the head of the term, the possessed.

88 Note that we have presented the possessive restrictor as a restrictor of the term variable x and not as an embedded predication indicated by an e variable. The explanation for this will be given in chapter 6 section 6.5.3. 3.4.4. Infinitive + nominal PMs As a second example of a construction with nominal PMs we will mention the infinitive + PM construction. For instance:15 (63) a.

b.

(Nek-em) szabad el-men-n-em ? dat-ls free away-go-inf-ls 'Am I allowed to leave ?' A fiuk-nak nem volt szabad vâr-ni-uk. the boys-dat not be:past.3s free wait-inf.3p "The boys were not allowed to wait.'

We do not claim to give a full account of this type of construction here, because we know too little about the properties of the construction, in particular about its relation to finite constructions and about the modal interpretations the construction can have. We will give our view on this construction by discussing examples with ke.ll 'must'. Rett 'must' is a modal verb which can be used in constructions expressing different types of modality, such as deontic, epistemic and other modalities (cf. Kiefer 1981b, 1985b, and Komlôsi 1983). Constructions with kell can be paraphrased as 'the obligation that a SoA takes place' ( = deontic modality), or 'the estimation that a SoA takes place' (= epistemic modality). It seems that in all constructions with kell the scope of the modality is a predication or a proposition (cf. Hengeveld (1987b) for modality and scope). First consider the following example of a construction with kell and a (finite) /iogy-clause: (64)

Kell, hogy Péter ir-j-a meg a level-et. must that Peter write-imp.3s.2fpf the letter-ac 'It is necessary / it must be the case that Peter writes the letter.'

Sentence (64) expresses the necessity or estimation that some SoA will take place, in this particular case that Peter will write the letter. We suggest the following representation:16 (65)

kell v (Sub q : [Imp ir v (dl^: Péter (dlxk: levélN (xk))Go] ( e ^

(Xj))AgF
===>

nak/nek m

3.5. CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the proposals of De Groot & Limburg (1986), the following central claim has been made in this chapter. Person marking suffixes on verbs and nouns in Hungarian should not be considered to be agreement markers but referential affixes which are the spelling out of terms. These terms themselves consist of an abstract predicate which is specified for person and number distinctions. Referential suffixes may be extended with pronouns and NPs. These pronouns and NPs are considered to be appositives to the referential suffixes. Since the presence of person marking suffixes is obligatory and the presence of pronouns and NPs in apposition to these suffixes is optional, this phenomenon has been called grammatical apposition. Grammatical apposition in Hungarian occurs in constructions with verbal predicates and in constructions with possessive restrictors. We have claimed that Arg-1 of predicates in finite constructions and possessive restrictors of term variables must be specified by a term which consist of an abstract predicate that indicates a person. The discussion of six types of construction has shown that the typology of referential suffixing in Hungarian is in agreement with the general tendencies presented by De Groot & Limburg. The typology of referential suffixing in Hungarian can be presented in the following way (the dotted line indicates the cutoff point of the hierarchy):

Person marking (77)

93

REFERENTIAL AFFIXES IN HUNGARIAN

Domain

Head

Semantic function

Predication

Predicate

Term position 1

1 Verb | > Adj > Noun 1 Term

Arg-1 | > Go > Rec, Ben > Dir, Loc 1

first restrictor

non-first restrictor

1 Noun | > denominai | Adposition

Poss I

1 1

In chapter 2 we have shown that arguments can be overtly or covertly expressed, or that arguments can be left unspecified. The first argument must be specified. Non-first arguments may be left unspecified. In this chapter we have claimed that first arguments and possessive restrictors are specified by terms. These terms themselves consist of abstract predicates which are specified for person and number distinctions. Putting together these conclusions, we can summarize the relation between underlying representations and expressions in the following way: (78)

type

representation

expression

person anaphor unspecified argument

(x^ [±S,±A](Xj)) (Xj) or (Xj) (0)

referential suffix pronoun, zero none

NOTES 1. 'Die Verbalformen sind ja zumeist durch Anlehnung eines Personalpronomens an den Tempusstamm entstanden (...). Die Weiterentwicklung geht dann aus von einer Doppelsetzung des Subjekts, wozu es auch auf modernen Sprachstufen Analogien gibt (...)' Paul 19205: 310-311. Translation De Groot & Limburg. 2. Concerning American Indian languages, Boas (1969: 573) states that 'All the syntactic relations between the verb and the nouns of a sentence must be expressed by means of pronominal or adverbial elements incorporated in the verb, so that the verb is a skeleton of the sentence, while the nouns or noun groups held together by possessive pronouns, are mere appositions.'. 3. The two features S and A seem to be necessary and sufficient for an account of all form of person across languages as given in Ingram (1978). Cf. De Groot & Limburg (1986: 65, note 28). 4. See Jansen (1981) for a discussion of this construction in Dutch. See also Lyons (1977: 636f). 5. A reason for using this symbol to indicate the appositional relation is that there exist explicit indicators of apposition such as namely, that is etc. (Cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1307).

94 6. Cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1309). 7. Galand (1964), for instance, translates the Berber Appositional construction i-krz urgaz (3sm-worked man) as 'he, namely the man, worked'. 8. We refer to De Groot and Limburg (1986: 55ff) for further details. 9. Cf. chapter 1, note 16. 10. In Hungarian only verbal predicates but not adjectival and nominal predicates combine with referential affixes. In Japanese all three types of predicates combine with referential affixes. The difference between the two languages can be indicated in the following way: Predy-PM > PredA-PM > Pred^PM Japanese + > + > + Hungarian + > > 11. See section 2.1. of chapter 2 for a discussion on the category of predicates and the status of first and non-first restrictors in terms. 12. We refer to chapter 2, sections 2.3.1 and 23.2 for a discussion of non-specified argument positions and non-expression of specified argument positions. See in particular example (52) of ch. 2. 13. See for discussions on possessives in Hungarian: Biermann (1985), GaSl (1978), Kiefer (1985a), Melcuk (1973), Szabolcsi (1981,1986),and Tompa (1982). For a discussion of possessive constructions in FG, we refer to Bolkestein (1983) and Vet (1983). See also Limburg (1985). 14. We refer to Biermann (1985: 48ff) for a discussion of the different applications of constructions such as (52a) and (52b). 15. See Biermann (1985:109ff, 130ff), Dalmi (1981), and ¿.Kiss (1986) for a discussion of infinitive constructions with person marking in Hungarian. 16. Sub indicates the subordinate operator which will trigger hogy 'that'. 17. See De Groot (1981), ¿.Kiss (1981a) Other examples of displacement will be discussed in ch. 4. 18. Similar examples are presented by Koml6si (1983). He claims that the displaced elements such as Piter in (66a) are in Focus position (i.e. in P0 position). 19. One reason is that agent oriented modality cannot be associated with constructions that express epistemic modality. 20. We refer to chapter 6, sections 6.5.2 and 6.5.3 for further details. 21. However, there is one type of construction in Hungarian which involves an appositional relation between a postposition and an NP. The postposition is marked with a nominal PM and the NP is marked with a dative case (cf. Biermann 1985: 79f). The postposition has Focus function and must be in P0 position. Consider the following examples: (i)

(ii)

A macska mogott-e ill a szekr6ny-nek. the cat behind:locative-3s sit:3s the cupboard-dat 'The cat is sitting behind the cupboard.' A macska mog£-je bfij-ik a szekrdny-nek. the cat behind:lative-3s hide-3s the cupboard-dat 'The cat hides itself behind the cupboard.'

The PM marker in locative constructions such as (i) is obligatory but optional in directional constructions such as (ii) (cf. Biermann 1985:79). In constructions in which NPs and postpositions form one constituent, the postpositions cannot be marked with PMs. Consider: (iii)

(iv)

A macska a szekrdny mogott (*mogott-e) iil the cat the cupboard behind:locative (behind-3s) sit:3s 'The cat is sitting behind the cupboard.' A macska a szekrdny mog6 (*mog6-je) btij-ik the cat the cupboard behind:lative (behind-3s) hide-3s 'The cat hides itself behind the cupboard.'

Chapter 4

PERSPECTIVE

4.0. INTRODUCTION

In this chapter we will investigate the relevance of syntactic or 'perspectivizing' functions in a functional grammar of Hungarian. It will be shown that a description of Hungarian that does justice to both semantic and syntactic properties does not require the syntactic function of Object (Obj). The role Subject (Subj) plays in Hungarian is almost nil. Furthermore, it will be shown that, as opposed to other languages such as English, the analyses of a number of constructions which involve passive-like embedded predications and raising phenomena depend on predicate structure and not on syntactic functions. In FG the syntactic functions are defined in terms of primary and secondary vantage point from which a SoA is presented1. Consider the following English constructions: (1)

a. b. c.

Peter gave the book to the girl. The book was given to the girl by Peter. Peter gave the girl the book.

In each of the constructions of (1) the same participants are involved in the same type of SoA, with the same distribution of semantic functions. The differences between these constructions is a matter of the 'perspective' from which the SoA is presented. In (la) the SoA is presented from the point of view of the Agent; in (lb) it is presented from the point of view of the Goal. The primary vantage point from which a SoA is presented is called Subject. Now consider (la) and (lc). In each of these constructions the SoA is presented from the point of view of the Agent. There is, however, a secondary difference in perspective: in (la) the secondary vantage point is the book; in (lc) it is the girl. The secondary vantage point from which a SoA is presented is called Object. Subject (primary vantage point) and Object (secondary vantage point) trace a path through the SoAs designated by the predication (Dik 1980: 14).

96 The differences in perspective are captured by the alternative assignment of Subject and Object function. The underlying representations of the constructions in (1) are: (2)

a. b. c.

Past givev (Peter)AgSubj (the book)GoQbj (the girl)Rec Past givev (Peter)^ (the book)GoSubj (the girl)Rec Past givev (Peter)AgSubj (the book)Go (the girl)Rec0bj

There is evidence to suggest that the assignment of Subj and Obj function is crosslinguistically sensitive to the Semantic Function Hierarchy (SFH) in the following way (Dik 1978a: chapter 5): Arg-1

(3) Subj Obj

+

Go >

Ben

Rec

Loc

Ins

Temp

+

>

+

>

+

>

+

>

+

>

+

+

>

+

>

+

>

+

>

+

>

+

This schema expresses the following: in principle, Subj function can be assigned to any semantic function in the SFH, and Obj function can be assigned to any semantic function except Arg-1. In both cases, however, these assignments become more and more 'difficult' or 'marked' as we proceed from the more central to the more peripheral semantic functions of the SFH. As any hierarchy of this kind, (3) implies the following Continuity Hypothesis (Dik 1978a: 76): (4)

For any language, if Subj/Obj can be assigned to some semantic function in the SFH, then they can be assigned to all semantic functions earlier in the SFH.

Thus, when Subj can be assigned to Ben in some language, it is predicted that Subj can also be assigned to Rec, Go, and Arg-1. Subj and Obj assignment may have a number of consequences for the form and the order in which the constituents of the predication will be realized. For English they involve the following aspects of sentence structure: (5)

a. b.

c.

d.

The voice of the verb will be passive when Subj has not been assigned to the Agent term. Constituent ordering rules will give specific positions to Subj and Obj terms, while constituents with a semantic function only may be positioned more freely. The form of the term in question will be influenced by Subj and Obj assignment. Formal differences connected with underlying semantic functions will typically be neutralized. Agreement will obtain between the verb and the Subj term.

97

Perspective

Discussions on syntactic function assignment within the framework of FG all seem to be based on the underlying assumption that syntactic functions (Subj or Obj, or both Subj and Obj) are either relevant to the description of a certain language or not at all. According to this assumption and the assumption that Obj is not relevant unless Subj is, there are three types of language along the two parameters + / Subj and + /-Obj assignment: (6) language type 1 language type 2 language type 3

Subj + + -

Obj +

Most investigations concerning Subj and Obj assignment are limited to one linguistic domain such as main predication or embedded predication. We could say that they present partial typologies. Given the definitions of syntactic functions as the primary and secondary vantage point from which a SoA is presented, the relevance of syntactic functions can be investigated in all those constructions which designate SoAs, such as main predications, finite embedded predications, non-finite embedded predications (constructions with an infinitive or a participle), and nominalizations. If we do so, we may establish holistic typologies. In those cases it may turn out, for instance, that a language Lj cannot be characterized as a type 1 language according to schema (6) for all the different domains in which syntactic functions may be relevant. Language Lj may be a type 1 language at the level of finite predications but a type 2 language at the other levels. Language Lj may be a type 3 language at the level of embedded non-finite predications and a type 2 language at some other levels. If these observations can really be made, we cannot use Subj and Obj assignment in the absolute sense any longer. Then we should establish the relevance of syntactic functions at all the different levels for each language. The results of these investigations may be presented in terms of the relative relevance of syntactic functions in languages. If the relevance of syntactic functions can indeed be established for different kinds of domains in a number of languages, we may wonder whether it is possible to derive preferred variations across languages from these data or even implicational rules of the type: if a language has syntactic function assignment in linguistic domain D2, it also has syntactic function assignment in linguistic domain Dj. Furthermore, we may wonder what kind of interaction there may exist between the relative relevance of syntactic function assignment across linguistic domains and the Continuity Hypothesis presented in (4) above. Consider:

98 (7)

SUBJECT ASSIGNMENT

main predication finite emb. pred. non-finite pred. etc.

Arg-1 + > + > + >

Go + > + > + >

Rec + > + > + >

Ben + > + > + >

Ins + > + > + >

Loc + > + > + >

Temp + + +

Note that the cut-off point may differ across domains. In this chapter we will discuss syntactic function assignment in the following constructions in Hungarian: main predications (section 4.1.), finite embedded predications (section 4.2.), non-finite embedded predications (section 4.3.), constructions with an infinitive (section 4.3.2.), constructions with a participle (section 4.3.3.), and nominalizations (section 4.3.4.).

4.1. MAIN PREDICATION

In present-day Hungarian there is no opposition between constructions which correspond to English (8a) and (8b): (8)

a. b.

Peter read the book. The book was read by Peter.

There used to be such an opposition in older forms of Hungarian. The passive construction, however, became obsolete during the last hundred years. Consider: (9)

a.

b.

Péter csuk-ja az ajt6-t. Peter close-3s.2f the door-ac 'Peter closes the door.' Az ajtô csuk-at-ik (Péter âltal). the door close-pass-3s.lf (Peter by) "The door is closed (by Peter).'

(archaic)

Example (9b) exhibits a prototypical passive construction: the subject in this clause is the direct object in the corresponding active construction; the subject of the active clause is expressed in the form of an agentive adjunct and can be left unspecified; the verb is marked passive. An FG account of this structure would certainly be that Subj has been assigned to the argument with the function of Goal. However, speakers of Hungarian judge example (9b) to be very archaic, and they would not use such a structure in actual speech. The structure is found only in fixed expressions (set phrases).

Perspective

99

Constructions corresponding to English (10a) in which Subj has been assigned to Rec, and (10b) in which Subj has been assigned to Ben, do not occur in Hungarian (and never did as far as we know): (10)

a. MaryRecSubj was given a book by Peter, b. ? J o h n ^ s ^ was bought a book by Mike.

Hungarian counterparts of English (11a) and (lib) do not occur either. Note that Obj has been assigned to Go in (11a) and to Rec in (lib): (11) a. b.

Peter gave the b o o k , ^ ^ to Mary, Peter gave MaryRec0bj the book.

The Goal argument and the Recipient argument in Hungarian will always be expressed by the accusative and dative case, respectively: (12)

Péter oda-ad-t-a Mari-nak a konyv-et. Peter pf-give-past-3s.2f Mary-dat the book-ac 'Peter gave the book to Mary.'

So far we conclude that Arg-1 is the only candidate for Subj function and that Go is the only candidate for Obj function. Consider: (13) Subj Obj

Arg-1 +

Go

Rec +

Ben .

-

Ins -

Loc -

Temp .

According to schema (13) Hungarian does not have alternative Subj assignment in the sense that Subj can be assigned to Arg-1 and to Goal alternatively. However, Hungarian may have another type of alternative function assignment in the following sense: assignment of Subj versus non-assignment of Subj. Compare the two types of alternative Subj assignment: (14) a. b.

Alternative Subj assignment Type I: Arg-lSubj versus GoSubj Type II: Arg-lSubj versus Arg-1

It may be possible that alternative Subj assignment in Hungarian is limited to Arg1, i.e. that there are two options, (i) Subj assignment to Arg-1, or (ii) no Subj assignment at all. Type II alternative assignment, for instance, is relevant in order to account for the difference between active and passive expressions of intransitive verbs in Dutch.2 Consider the active constructions (15a) and (16a) as opposed to the passive constructions (15b) and (16b):

100 (15)

a.

b.

(16)

a.

b.

Ze dansen. they dance 'They dance.' Er wordt gedanst. there becomes dance:pa.part 'There is dancing going on.' De vrouw gil-de. the woman scream-past 'The woman screamed.' Er werd door de vrouw gegild. there became by the woman scream:pa.part "There was screaming by the woman.'

The active/passive opposition in these pairs of sentences is accounted for in the following way: in (15a) and (16a) Subj has been assigned to Arg-1; in (15b) and (16b) no Subj has been assigned. Consider the underlying representations of (15a) and (15b): (17)

a. b.

dans v (3p) AgSubj dans v (3p) Ag

The non-assignment of Subj to Arg-1 in (17b) triggers the introduction of a passive auxiliary verb in Dutch. Hungarian, however, only has expressions which correspond to the Dutch active examples and not to the passives: (18)

a.

dk t&icol-nak. they dance-3p.lf 'They dance.'

b. (19)

a.

A nd kiSlt-0. the woman cry-3s.lf 'The woman cries.'

b. It seems that no alternative expression for (19a) is available in Hungarian as an appropriate translation of the Dutch (16b). Instead, an alternative strategy is followed: if one does not want to refer to the Agent, the third person plural first form of the verb can be used. Only in the personal interpretation can (20) be extended with dk 'they', because then there would be an identifiable agent. This

Perspective

101

construction is ambiguous in the following sense: (i) the personal interpretation is 'they dance', and (ii) impersonal interpretation is 'there is dancing going on': (20)

Tdncol-nak dance-3p.lf 'They dance.' or 'There is dancing going on.'

The difference between the personal and the impersonal interpretation of (20) is not due to different Subj assignment but to the different sets of entities that Arg1 refers to. The number of people or the particular group of people dancing is known to, or is assumed to be known, by the Speaker and Addressee in the personal interpretation of (20). In the impersonal interpretation there is no reference to a particular number or group of people. This difference can be accounted for by the application of a definite or an indefinite term operator to Arg-1, which yields the personal and the impersonal reading respectively. Consider: (21) i. ii.

tdncolv (dmXj: [-S, -A] ( x j ) ^ tcincolv (imXj: [-S, -A] (Xj))^

(tdncol-nak) (tdncol-nak)

The structure (dmXj: [-S, -A] (Xj)) in (i) can be read as 'the definite plural entity Xj such that it is a person who is neither Speaker nor Addressee'. The structure (irnxj: [-S, -A] (Xj)) in (ii) can be read as 'the indefinite plural entity Xj such that it is a person who is neither Speaker nor Addressee. The expression of both structures is the same because the restrictor which consists of the abstract predicate [-S, -A] together with the plural operator'm' triggers the expression -nak. The different use of term operators is no alternative for Subj assignment, as we can see in Dutch, in which both term operator differences and Subj can be relevant at the same time. The examples presented in (22) illustrate that the (in)definiteness of Arg-1 and Subj assignment is no matter of complementary distribution. (22) a.

b.

c.

d.

De mensen gillen. (definite) + Subj the people scream "The people are screaming.' Er gillen mensen. (indefinite) + Subj there scream people "There are people screaming.' Er wordt door het kind gegild. (definite) - Subj there become by the child scream:pa.part 'There is screaming by the child.' Er wordt door een kind gegild. (indefinite) - Subj there become by a child scream:pa.part 'There is screaming by a child.'

102 Another type of opposition between two constructions in which syntactic assignment might be supposed to be involved is constituted by (23) (Subj assignment) and (24) (Obj assignment). Differences between the constructions (a) as opposed to (b), however, are not due to syntactic function assignment but to the fact that different predicates are involved (cf. Fillmore 1968). Consider: (23) a.

b.

A kert rajz-ik a m6hek-tdl. the garden swarm-3s the bees-abl 'The garden is swarming with the bees.' A mehek rajz-anak a kert-ben. the bees swarm-3p the garden-ines 'The bees are swarming the garden.'

Secondly, consider the following pair of sentences: (24) a.

J&nos Mk-at iiltet a kert-ben. John trees-ac plant:3s.lf the garden-ines 'John plants trees in the garden.' b. J&nos be-iiltet-i a kert-et flk-kal. John in-plant-3s.2f the garden-ac trees-instr 'John plants the garden with trees.'

At first sight, the relation between (23a) and (23b) may be seen as due to alternative Subj assignment to 'garden' in (23a) and to 'bees' in (23b). In a similar way, one may be under the impression that Obj assignment to 'trees' in (24a) and to 'garden' in (24b) explains for the different expressions. This view is not correct because of the following reasons. An account of the difference between these constructions in terms of alternative Subj or Obj assignment is only possible when the predications designate the same set of SoAs with the same distribution of semantic functions. The pairs of predications discussed above do not meet these requirements. Predication (23a) designates a Process SoA and predication (23b) an Action SoA. Moreover, the distribution of semantic functions differs: Processed and Source functions are involved in (23a) and Agent and Locative functions in (23b). The predications (24a) and (24b) designate the same type of SoA but not the same set. There is a different distribution of semantic functions: in (24a) 'plants' functions as Goal and 'garden' as Location, whereas in (24b) 'garden' functions as Goal and 'trees' as Instrument. Because of the different underlying semantic structures, the constructions cannot be treated as the result of alternative syntactic function assignments. So far we conclude that if there is syntactic function assignment at the level of the main predication in Hungarian, Subj must be assigned to Arg-1, and Obj must be assigned to Go. Therefore, no opposition is involved. Consequently we conclude

Perspective

103

that, for this linguistic domain, neither alternative Subj assignment nor alternative Obj assignment belong to the synchronic Hungarian language system. 4.2. FINITE EMBEDDED PREDICATIONS

4.2.1. Predications in term positions Terms are defined as structures with referential potential. The referent may be a first order entity or a second order entity. Variables for terms which refer to first order entities are indicated by x, variables for terms which refer to second order entities are indicated by e (cf. chapter 2, section 2.1.). In the latter case the term position may be filled with a predication. We will call this an embedded predication. Consider the following example: (25)

see v ( x ^ (e,: [PREDICATION] ( e i ) ) G o John saw that Mary went to the library.

indicates a position in which a full new predication can be inserted, expressing the content of what is seen. Note that the second argument will therefore be a term referring to some event e^, where this event is described as a predication. Terms referring to events may in principle occupy any term position in a predication (cf. Dik 1987b). PREDICATION

(i) First arguments First argument positions of verbal and non-verbal predicates can accommodate a predication. Consider: (26) a.

(27)

Pres tdnik v (e(: [ Past elmegyv (dlxj: J&ios (Xj))^ ] ( e ^ (x2)Manoer

b.

ugy tdnik , hogy J&nos elment. so appear that John left 'It appears that John has left.'

a.

Pres fontosA (e^ [ Past elmegyv (dl^: Jdnos (Xj))Ag ] (e^)^

b.

Az fontos , hogy J&nos elment. that important that John left 'It is important that John has left.'

(ii) Second arguments Verbal and also nominal predicates can take a predication as their second argument:

104

(28)

a.

Past mondy (dlx k : Péter (xk))Ag (e;: [ Past elmegyv (dlx^ Jânos (Xj))^ ] (e;))Go Péter az-t mondta , hogy Jânos elment. Peter that-ac said that John left 'Peter said that John had left.'

(29)

a.

tervN (xj),, (ek: [ Près jôn v (dlx^ Jânos (Xj))^ ] ( e j ^

b.

A terv a z , hogy Jânos jôn. the plan that that John come 'The plan that John comes.'

(iii) Satellites Satellite positions can also consist of predications. We will give one example here: (30)

a.

Past becsuk v (dix,,,: Mari (xm))Ag (dlx k : ablak N (xk))Go (e,: [ Past elmegy v (dlXj: Jânos (Xj))^ ] (e i )) Xemp

b.

Mielôtt Jânos elment, Mari bescuk-t-a before John leave:past.3s Mary close-past-3s.2f 'Mary closed the window before John had left.'

az ablak-ot. the window-ac

Finite embedded predications do not behave differently from main predications with respect to syntactic function assignment, i.e. no alternative function assignment is possible. However, there is one type of construction the analysis of which may possibly require the use of syntactic functions. We will discuss this type of construction in the next section. 4.2.2. Displacement In Hungarian most embedded predications can be represented by a dummy element in the main clause. The semantic function of the embedded predication is marked on the dummy element by means of a case marker. Consider the following example in which the term which contains an embedded predication has the semantic function of Source. The dummy representation of the embedded predication receives ablative case as the marker of the semantic function of Source: (31)

At-t61 fél-ek, hogy jôn. that-abl be afraid-Is that come:3s 'I am afraid that he comes.'

Perspective

105

The pragmatic function of the embedded predication (Topic or Focus) is marked by the position of the dummy element in the main clause. In chapter 1 (cf. (68)) we presented the following Functional Pattern of Hungarian: (32)

P2

,

PI

P(ï

V

X

,

P3

Some characteristics of Hungarian word order are that topical elements are placed in PI position and focal elements in P0, the position immediately preceding the verb. Finite complement clauses in Hungarian prefer the final position in the clause. When, for instance, an embedded predication with Goal function is Topic, a dummy element which represents the embedded predication will be placed in PI, while the embedded predication itself will be expressed at the end of the clause. In case it is Focus, the pragmatic status of the embedded predication will be expressed by a dummy element in P0 of the main clause. Consider: (33) a.

b.

Past mond v (dlxk: Péter (xk))AgTop (e,: [ Past elmegyv (dlXj: Jânos ( x ^ ] (ei))GoFoc Péter az-t mond-t-a , hogy Jânos elmen-t. Peter that-ac say-past-3s.2f that John leave-past:3s 'Peter said that John had left.'

The basic form of the dummy is az 'that-nom'. The Goal function triggers the accusative, i.e. az + t. The Focus function triggers the position, i.e. the position immediately preceding the verb. Conditioned by certain pragmatic rules, a constituent of the embedded predication can take the position otherwise occupied by the dummy. Consider (34a) and (34b) which express the same semantic (but not pragmatic) contents:3 (34) a.

b.

Az-t nem hisz-em, hogy Mari ismer-i that-ac not believe-ls.2f that Mary:nom know-3s.2f 'I do not believe that Mary knows Feri.' Mari nem hisz-em, hogy ismer-i Feri-t. Mary:nom not believe-ls.2f that know-3s2f Feri-ac 'I do not believe that Mary knows Feri.'

Feri-t. Feri-ac

Note that Mari in (34b) is expressed by the nominative case because of the semantic function the term fulfils in the embedded predication. However, morphological adjustment of 'displaced constituents' does occur. Consider: (35)

a.

Péter az-t akar-ja, hogy én vezes-s-ek. Peter that-ac want-3s.2f that I drive-imp-Is 'Peter wants that I drive the car.'

106 b.

Péter engem akar , hogy vezes-s-ek. Peter me:ac want:3s.lf that drive-imp-ls 'Peter wants me to drive the car.'

One possible way of accounting for engem in (35b) would be that Obj function at the level of the main predication has been assigned to the Agent of the embedded predication. An analysis based on this possibility is proposed by Dik (1979a) for 'raising' constructions with believe in English. Such an analysis may be correct for English, but it does not hold for Hungarian because of the following reasons. Suppose we try to handle these phenomena by Obj assignment. Then: (i) Obj assignment is only possible if, in this case, Focus has been assigned to that particular term in advance.4 So in this case, syntactic function assignment would be governed by pragmatic function assignment. (ii) The way Obj is used here does not conform to the idea that it is a syntactic function, which, together with the Subj, 'traces a path' through the SoA designated by the predication. (iii) Obj would have different expressions: accusative in (35b) and, for instance, superessive in (36b). (36) a.

Az-on gondolkoz-om, hogy Péter megve-tt-e-e that-sup.es wonder-Is. If that Peter buy-past-3s.2f-QM a kabât-ot ? the coat-ac 'I wonder whether Peter bought the coat ?' b. A kabât-on gondolkoz-om , hogy Péter megve-tt-e-e ? the coat-sup.es wonder-ls.lf that Peter bought-past-3s.2f-QM 'I wonder, whether Peter bought the coat ?'

We see that the displaced constituent takes on the form appropriate to the higher verb. The difference between (36a) and (36b) cannot be accounted for by assuming that there is a two-place and a three-place predicate gondollcoz(ik). The assignment of superessive case to kabât in (36b) is an adjustment that is applied after displacement, whereas displacement itself is triggered by a certain constellation of pragmatic functions. In the examples we have given here, morphological adjustment applies when a displaced constituent may function as Arg-2 of the matrix predicate itself. We will illustrate this by comparing two predicate-frames hisz 'believe' (cf. (34)) and gondolkoz(ik) Svonder' (cf. (36)). Hisz always selects a predication as its second argument, whereas gondolkozfik) has two options: Arg-2 may refer to a first order entity or to a second order entity. Consider: (37) a. b.

hiszv (xx)Ag (e2: PREDICATION (e2))Go gondolkozv (Xl)Ag (x2)Superessive g o n d o l k o z v ( X l ) A g (e 2 : PREDICATION (e 2 )) S u p e r e s s i v e

Perspective

107

Given these predicate-frames of hisz and gondolkoz(ik) we see that Man 'Mary' in (34) cannot function as Arg-2 of the predicate hisz, whereas kabat 'coat' in (36) can function as Arg-2 of the predicate gondolkoz(ik). These facts explain the assignment of nominative case to Man in (34b) (= expression of the semantic function of Arg-1 of the embedded predicate ismer 'know') and the superessive case to kabat in (36b) (= expression of the semantic function of Arg-2 of the matrix predicate gondolkoz(ik) 'wonder'). In this section we have shown that the analyses of constructions which involve 'sentence-intertwining' (i.e. raising and displacement phenomena) do not depend on the syntactic functions as defined in FG.

4.3. NON-FINITE EMBEDDED PREDICATIONS

4.3.0. Introduction In this section we will try to give an answer to the question whether we need syntactic, i.e. perspectivizing, functions for an adequate description of constructions with an infinitive or participle in Hungarian.5 The difficult problem of whether infinitives and participles are inflected verbal forms, derived forms, or sometimes inflected, sometimes derived forms, will not be dealt with. Although a definitive analysis of the constructions at issue will heavily depend on the status - inflected or derived - of the infinitives and participles, we think that a discussion of syntactic function assignment within infinitival and participle constructions can do without this knowledge. Analyses suggested in this section will therefore not always be fully accounted for. However, we will assume that the analyses proposed are basically correct, and might prove to be the correct representation in future research. We will see that in most constructions discussed here a term within an embedded predication is coreferential with one of the arguments of the main predicate. We can say that the coreferential term has anaphoric status. We will account for the anaphoric relation by assigning the same variable [e.g. xt or Xj] to both terms, because the terms have the same referent. 6 4.3.1. Constructions with an infinitive In this sub-section we will discuss some aspects of a number of constructions with an infinitive in Hungarian.7 Infinitives in Hungarian are marked by the suffix -ni. The introduction of the suffix -ni will be formally accounted for by the predicate operator 'Inf. Infinitives have verbal and nominal properties. Infinitives have in common with verbal predicates that they designate SoAs. Infinitives have in common with nominal predicates that they can occur with nominal personal endings (cf. 3.4.4). They differ in that nominal predicates can be used to build expressions which refer to first order entities, whereas infinitives cannot. Infinitives

108 in Hungarian cannot be combined with articles. We will consider infinitives to be verbal nouns, i.e. non-verbal predicates. It will be shown that syntactic function assignment does not apply to constructions with an infinitive. 4.3.1.1. Infinitive + copula Stephanides (1980:117) mentions examples of constructions which involve an infinitive and the copula van 'be'. Consider: (38) a.

b.

Van mi-t en-ni. be:3s what-ac eat-inf 'There is something to eat.' Nines mi-t in-ni. be.neg:3s what-ac drink-inf "There is nothing to drink.'

Examples such as (38a) cannot be analysed as SoA-existentials in the sense of Hannay (1985b), because construction (38a) can be paraphrased as 'there is something to eat' and not as 'there is eating going on'. We suggest that the constructions in (38) are analysed as existential constructions in the following way.8 The predicate consists of an empty locative term. The argument position is filled by a term. The first restrictor of that term variable is not specified, i.e. the term is headless.9 The second restrictor is a non-finite predication. The Goal argument of the embedded predicate is bound by the term variable. (39) a. b-

{(0)^} (Xj: 0 (xj: (e,: [Inf en v (x,)^ (x,: mi (x^)^] (e^))^ Neg {(0)^} (xi: 0 (x,): ( ej : [Inf en v ( x ^ ft: mi (xi))Go] (e;)))0

The forms given above differ from the construction which we have called the 'remote progressive construction' in chapter 1 (section 1.2.4.): (40)

Anik6 visdrol-ni van. Anik6 shop-inf be:3s 'Anik6 is away shopping.'

This construction cannot be analysed as an existential construction, because (40) cannot be paraphrased as 'there is Anik6 shopping'. We do not think that constructions such as (40) contain embedded predications. We suggest that these constructions are analysed as follows: (41) a. b. c.

RemProg vds£rolv (dlx^ Anik6 (xi))Ag Inf vds^rolv (dlxj: Anik6 ( x j ) ^ van v viisiLrolyni (dlx^ Anik6 (xj))^

===> ===>

Perspective

109

Aspect operator RemProg triggers the introduction of the Infinitive operator. The status of the predicate will then be a that of non-finite predicate which triggers the introduction of a copula. Hungarian does not provide alternative passive constructions of constructions such as (38) or (40), or examples that could be considered as such. 4.3.1.2. Infinitive + modal verbs Consider the following two examples: (42) a.

az kell, hogy Péter level-et ir-j-on. that:nom must that Peter letter-ac write-imp-3s.lf 'It is necessary that Peter writes a letter.' b. Péter-nek level-et kell ir-ni-a. Peter-dat letter-ac must write-inf-3s 'Peter must write a letter.'

It seems that there is no relation between these two expressions in terms of alternative syntactic function assignment. On such an account, Subj function at the level of the main predication of (42b) would be assigned to Arg-1 of the embedded predicate. In chapter 3 we have suggested that the following representations should be assigned to examples such as (42): (43) a. b.

kell v (Sub

: [Imp ir v (dlxj: Péter (xj))Ag (ilxk: levélN (xk))Go] ( e ^

kell v (e; : [Inf ir v (ilxk: levélN (xk))GJ (e;) : {(dlxj: [-S.-A] (xj))Poss} (xj), , (dix- PéterN (xj))Poss

We refer to section 3.4.4. of chapter 3 for a discussion of these constructions. We have not encountered constructions in Hungarian which could be considered alternative constructions of constructions such as (42). 4.3.1.3. Infinitive + adjectival or nominal predicate The following examples illustrate constructions with an infinitive. The infinitive functions as an argument of an adjectival predicate and a nominal predicate respectively: (44) a.

Kônnyd Jânos-t meggydz-ni. easy John-ac convince-inf 'It is easy to convince John.' b. Ostobasâg elindul-ni ilyen esd-ben. stupidity start-inf such rain-ines 'It is stupid to start in such heavy rain.'

110

The two expressions do not have alternative expressions, in which Arg-1 of the embedded predication functions as Subj of the adjectival or nominal predicate. 4.3.1.4. Infinitive + verbs of volition and perception In section 4.2.2. above we discussed some displacement phenomena. One of the constructions discussed concerned the verbal predicate akar Vant'. The predicate akar can take finite embedded predications but also non-finite predications as a second argument. The non-finite form in those cases is an infinitive. Consider the following two examples with a one-place and a two-place embedded predication, respectively: (45) a.

b.

Péte^ usz-nij Peter swim-inf 'Peter wants to Mari; kônyv-et Mary book-ac 'Mary wants to

akart. want:3s.lf swim.' akars olvas-nij. read-inf want:3s.lf read a book.'

A property of this type of construction is that Arg-1 of the embedded predicate (=infinitive) must be coreferential with Arg-1 of the main predicate. The following examples are ungrammatical, because Arg-1 of the embedded predicate is not coreferential with Arg-1 of the main predicate: (46) a. * Péter; Jânosj ûsz-nij akar^ Peter John swim-inf want:3s.lf 'Peter wants John to swim.' b. * Marij Jânosj kônyv-et olvas-nij akar^ Mary John book-ac read-inf want:3s.lf 'Mary wants John to read a book.' When Arg-1 of the main predicate and Arg-1 of the embedded predicate have different referents, as in ((46), the construction with a /icgy-clause must be used in Hungarian. Compare: (47) a.

b.

Péter akar-ja , hogy Jânos ussz-on. Peter want-3s.2f that John swim:imp-3s 'Peter wants John to swim.' Mari akar-ja , hogy Jânos kônyv-et olvas-s-on. Mary want-3s.2f that John book-ac read-imp-3s 'Mary wants Peter to read a book.'

Perspective

111

In fact, constructions (45) and (47) are in complementary distribution. When Arg1 of akar Svant' is coreferential with Arg-1 of the embedded predicate, the construction with an infinitive must be used. In case the two arguments have their own referent, i.e. are not coreferential, the construction with a finite /iogy-clause must be used. Note also that Hungarian does not have an expression which corresponds to the English passive infinitival construction (48): (48)

Mary wants the book to be read.

We suggest the following underlying representation of example (45a): (49)

Près akar v (dix, : Péter (x,))^ (e,: [Inf usz v ( x ^ ] ( ej )) Go

Note that the coreferential status of Arg-1 of the embedded predication is only indicated by x,. Constructions with an infinitive plus verbs of perception such as lot 'see', hall 'hear', and érez 'feel' behave differently. They cannot be analysed in the same way as the constructions with akar "want* discussed above. Consider example (50a) together with (50b): (50)

a.

b.

Jânos lât-t-a Péter-t elmen-ni. John see-past-3s.2f Peter-ac leave-inf 'John saw Peter leave.' Jânos lât-t-a , hogy Péter elmen-t. John saw-past-3s.2f that Peter leave-past:3s.lf 'John saw that Peter had left.'

Note that Arg-1 of the embedded predicate is not coreferential with Arg-1 of the main predicate. This does not challenge the observation that the terms of verbs such as akar Vant' are coreferential, because of the following reason. It seems to us that the predicate lât 'see' in (50) is not a two-place predicate but a three-place predicate. Semantically, Péter is the Goal of the predicate lât 'see' and the Agent of the predicate elmegy 'leave'. An explanation for the cooccurrence of expressions such as (50a) and (50b) can be given in terms of a semantic difference. Predication (50a) is true only if John actually saw Peter. There is no such truth-condition for (50b). John may have seen that Peter's car was not in the parking-place in front of the office, from which he concluded that Peter had left the office.10 We think that the following representations account for most aspects of the examples given in (50):11

112 (51)

a. b.

Past lât v (dl^: Jânos ft))^ (dl^: Péter (Xj))Go (ek: [Inf elmegy v (xj)^] ( e k ) ) c o m p l Past lât v (dl^: Jânos (Xj))^ (Sub e k : [Past elmegy v (dlXji Péter ( x ^ ] (e k )) Go

Expressions of verbs of volition and perception plus an infinitive as discussed in this section do not have alternative expressions that can be considered the passive counterparts of these constructions. 4.3.1.5. Infinitive + phasal verb Constructions denoting some phase, such as the beginning or end of an action, can be composed of a phased verb plus an infinitive in Hungarian. Consider, for instance, the following two examples: (52)

(53)

Laci elmen-t ujsâg-ot ven-ni. Laci go-past:3s.lf newspaper-ac buy-inf 'Laci went out to buy a newspaper.' Péter dolgoz-ni jâr. Peter work-inf go:3s.lf 'Peter goes to work.'

We do not know yet whether these constructions should be analysed as constructions which consist of predications on two levels, i.e. a main predication and an embedded predication, or as constructions which consist of a main predication only, in which the phasal verb will be introduced by means of an aspectual predicate operator. In the former analysis, Arg-1 of the embedded predication will always be coreferential with Arg-1 of the main predicate, i.e. 'go out' in (52) and 'go' in (53). 4.3.1.6. Infinitive as 3rd argument A final category of constructions with an infinitive in Hungarian is constituted by a construction with an infinitive as third argument. One example of such a construction has already been given in (51a) above. The following two examples are other examples of this type of construction: (54)

(55)

A tanâr elenged-t-e a gyermek-ek-et jâtsz-ani. the teacher allow-past-3s.2f the child-pl-ac play-inf "The teacher allowed the children to play.' Mari elkùld-ôtt engem vâsârol-ni. Mary send-past:3s.lf me:ac shop-inf 'Mary sent me shopping.'

113

Perspective

A property of this type of infinitive construction is that Arg-1 of the verbal predicate which is expressed by the infinitive is coreferential with the second argument of the main predicate. Again, passive infinitives do not occur here. The underlying representation of (54) is (56): (56)

Past elengedy (dl^: tanàrN (jq))^ (dm^: gyermekN (ek: [ Inf jàtsz(ik)v (Xj)^ ] ( e j ) ^

(Xj))Go

4.3.1.7. Conclusions of this section In this section we have discussed six different types of infinitive constructions. In none of these constructions was Subj assignment proven to be relevant. Three of these infinitive constructions have finite counterparts. Explanations for the differences between these pairs of constructions can be given in terms of differences in underlying predicate-frames and not in terms of alternative Subj assignment. We refer to section 4.5. for a survey of predicate-frames. 4.3.2. Constructions with a participle 4.3.2.1. Introduction Participles in Hungarian fall into two major groups, adverbial participles and adjectival participles.12 Adverbial participles combine characteristics of verbs and adverbials, i.e. they express verbal content while modifying a verb with reference to manner or circumstance. In the sentence they function as adverbials (cf. (57a)), but they also occur as predicates (cf. (57b)). Consider: (57) a.

b.

Énekel-ve dolgoz-unk. sing-adv.part work-lp. If 'We work, singing.' Az ajt6 nines be-csuk-va. the door be:neg.3s pf-close-adv.part 'The door has not been closed.'

(adverbial use)

(predicative use)

Adjectival participles function as attributes and some of them also function as predicates. A distinction can be made between three types of adjectival participles: (i) present participles (58), (ii) past participles (59), and (iii) future participles (60). Consider: (58)

a.

ez énekl-d lâny the sing-pr.part girl 'the singing girl' b. * a lâny énekl-d the girl sing-pr.part

(pres.part. attribute)

(pres.part. predicate)

114

(59) a.

b.

(60) a.

b.

az elhagy-ott h£z the abandon-pa.part house 'the abandoned house' A hdz elhagy-ott volt. the house abandon-pa.part be:past.3s 'The house was abandoned.' a kifizet-endd szimla the pay-fut.part bill 'the bill to be paid' A szdmla kifizet-endd the bill pay-fut.part "The bill is to be paid.'

(past part, attribute)

(past part, predicate)

(fut. part, attribute)

(fut. part, predicate)

In the following sections we will discuss the relevant properties of non-predicative participle constructions. Predicative constructions will be discussed in chapter 6. 4.3.2.2. Adverbial participles A property of adverbial participles is that one of their arguments is coreferential with an argument of the main predicate. Consider for instance: (61)

A szobd-ba belep-ve megpillant-ott-a a szobro-t. the room-ill enter-adv.part catch sight-past-3s.2f the sculpture-ac 'Entering the room, he caught sight of the sculpture.'

(62)

A betegs6g-tdl legyongul-ve m&r nem gondol-hat-t-am the disease-abl weaken-adv.part already not think-mod-past-ls versenyz6s-re. race-subl 'Weakened by the disease, I could not even think of participating in the race.'

However, there is one construction which does not have this property of coreferentiality. (63) displays this absolute construction: (63)

a gyerekek a szobd-ban le-v6n, a szuldk nem the children the room-ines be-adv.part the parents not akar-t-ak veszeked-ni. want-past-3pquarrel-inf 'The children being in the room, the parents did not want to quarrel.'

Constructions such as (63) with leven 'being', the verbal adverbial form of van 'be' form the only exception to the coreferentiality constraint. Compare for instance:

115

Perspective (64)

* Mari 6nekel-ve J&nos dolgoz-ott. Mary sing-adv.part John work-past:3s 'John was working, while Mary was singing.'

Let us return to the general pattern. We have seen that one of the arguments of the verbal adverb is coreferential with an argument of the main predicate: it is a case of 'zero-anaphora'. Consider (65a) and its representation (65b): (65)

a.

A gyerekek besz61get-ve s6t£l-t-ak. the children talk-adv.part walk-past-3p 'The children walked, talking.'

b.

Past s6t£lv (dmxj: gyerekN (Xj))Ag ( ei : [besz61getv (x,)^)] (ej)) arc

Note that the adverbial construction is represented as an embedded predication which functions semantically as a circumstantial satellite of the main predication. The following pair of sentences illustrates that it is not necessary that Arg-1 of the verbal adverb is coreferential with an argument of the main predicate. This is the case in (66a) but not in (66b). (66)

a.

b.

A katoncLk a v&ros-t bekerit-ve harcol-t-ak. the soldiers the town-ac surround-adv.part fight-past-3p.lf 'The soldiers, surrounding the town, fought.' A katondk (az ellens6g dltal) bekerit-ve harcol-t-ak. the soldiers:nom the enemy by surround-adv.part fight-past-3p.lf "The soldiers, surrounded (by the enemy), fought.'

The soldiers in (66a) functions as the Agent of both the predicate fight and the predicate surround. In (66b), however, the soldiers functions as the Agent of fight and as the Goal of surround. (66b) therefore has a passive reading. Note, however, that there is no passive marker on the participle. The following underlying representations of (66a) and (66b) account for the different anaphoric relations: (66)

a'. Past harcol v (drnx;: katonaN (x,))Ag (^•.[Pf bekerity ( x ^ (dlxj: vlros N ( X j ) ) ] ( q ) ) ^ b'. Past harcol v (dmxj: katonaN (Xj))^ (c,:[Pf bekeritv (dl^: ellens6gN ( x ^ ( x ^ J ( ei )) Circ Go

From the examples presented here, we conclude that a passive interpretation of constructions with a verbal adverb is due to the fact that the term with Goal function has anaphoric status.

116

The second argument of the verbal adverb may also be coreferential with the second argument of the matrix predicate. Consider, for instance, the following example: (67) a.

b.

J&nos a kcive-t meg-dar£l-va hoz-t-a be. John the coffee-ac pf-grind-adv.part bring-past-3s.2f in 'John brought in the coffee (that was) ground.' Past behoz v (dlxj: J&nosN fa))^ (dxji k£veN ( X j ) ) (e,: [Pf dardl v (0)^ (xj)Go] ( e ^

Go

A difference between constructions such as (66b) and (67a) is that the latter type of construction does not allow the presence of an Agent phrase (cf. (68)), whereas the former does (cf. (66b)). Consider (68) which is ungrammatical (A. Koml6sy p.c.): (68)

* Jcinos a kcive-t Mari dltal meg-dardl-va hoz-t-a be. John the coffee-ac Mary by pf-grind-adv.part bring-past-3s.2f in 'John brought the coffee ground by Mary in.'

In chapter 6 we will see that predicatively used verbal adverbs do not allow the presence of an Agent phrase either. We have seen that the construction exemplified in (66b) allows a so-called Agent phrase, in Hungarian a phrase with the postposition altal.13 The different expression of Agenthood by a nominative case in the one case and by an adposition in the other is, in the FG view, usually taken to be the result of an Agent term with Subj function as opposed to an Agent term without Subj function. Consider, for instance, the following examples from English: (69) a. JohnAgSubj painted the doorGo. b. The d o o r G o S u b j was painted by JohnAg. We could say that Subj function is responsible for the different expression of the Agent in (69). In example (69b) the function of Agent is expressed by the preposition by. The expression of the semantic function is prevented by the Subject function in (69a), i.e. the function of Subj masks the function of Agent in (69a). The fact that Hungarian has both types of expression may point in the direction of the relevance of Subj function in this type of construction. Note, however, that the verb is not marked for passive voice in Hungarian. We will return to this matter in section 4.3.2.3.2. below.

Perspective

117

4.3.2.3. Adjectival participles In Hungarian there are three types of adjectival participles. We will refer to them as present, past and future participles (cf. Dezsfl 1982b: 94f). The discussion will be limited to those constructions in which the participles are used as attributes. 4.3.2.3.1. Present participle Present participles are only used attributively in Hungarian. The head of the NP always functions as Arg-1 of the predicate expressed as present participle. We will give two examples here: (70)

az indul-6 vonat the leave-pr.part train 'the leaving train' (konyv-et) olvas-6 fiu book-ac read-pr.part boy 'a book reading boy'

(71)

Hungarian does not have passive present participle constructions or other constructions involving present participles which, due to alternative Subj assignment, could be considered alternatives of constructions such as (70) and (71). 4.3.3.3.2. Past participle Before we will discuss constructions with past participles, we will first make a remark on the forms of past participles and on morphological categories in Hungarian. Recall that the verb in Hungarian has two conjugations or forms. The second form is used when the Goal argument of a predicate counts as definite (see chapter 1, section 1.2.8.7.). The first form is used in all other cases. The possessive form in Hungarian is similar to the second form of the verb, but there are differences. Consider the following past tense paradigms of the Verb idez 'quote' together with the possessive paradigm of the Noun idezet 'quote':

Is 2s 3s IP 2p 3p

first form Past idéz 'quote' (Verb) idéz-t-em idéz-t-él idéz-ett idéz-t-unk idéz-t-etek idéz-t-ek

second form Past idéz 'quote' (Verb) idéz-t-em idéz-t-ed idéz-t-e idéz-t-ùk idéz-t-étek idéz-t-ék

possessive form idézet 'quote' (Noun) idézet-em idézet-ed idézet-e idézet-iink idézet-etek idézet-iik

Past participles in Hungarian usually have the form ending in -(Vt)t, the form which is identical to the past tense first form 3s. However, we also find forms that are also considered past participles and that are identical to each of the past tense

118

second forms. In other words, past participles in Hungarian do not have a distinct form. Although the status of the participles is not clear, we will gloss the so-called past participle forms in the following way: past participle first form = pa.part.lf; past participle second form = pa.part.2f. The head of the NP may function as Arg-1 of the verbal predicate. Consider the following examples:14 (73)

egy tapasztal-t vadâsz a experience-pa.part.lf hunter 'an experienced hunter* frissen hull-ott h6 fresh fall-pa.part.lf snow 'new-fallen snow'

(74)

We also find idiomatic expressions that consist of constructions with the past participles of two-place predicates. One such example is: (75)

vilâg(-ot) lât-ott ember world(-ac)see-pa.part.lf person 'a man who has seen the world'

Note that the accusative case is optional in this type of construction. Since Arg-2 of the verbal predicate can be expressed by the accusative case, we do not consider (75) to be an example of Goal incorporation in the sense of: (76)

(ilXj: emberN (xj : Past vilâgN-lâtv ( x j ^ ) 'person'

Svorld-see'

We therefore propose to analyse construction (75) in the following way: (77)

(ilxji emberN (xj : (e,: [Past lât v ( x , ) ^ (Xj : vilâgN (x]))Go] (e,))

Note that the second restrictor is presented as a predication and that Arg-1 of the embedded predicate is anaphorically bound by the term variable X;. The head of the NP may also function as Arg-2 of the verbal predicate, as is shown in the following two examples: (78) a.

b.

a Péter âltal idéz-ett példa the Peter by quote-pa.part.lf example 'the example quoted by Peter' az âltal-uk idéz-ett példa the by-3p quote-pa.part.lf example 'the example quoted by them'

Perspective

119

A straightforward analysis of constructions such as (78a) and (78b) may be the following: (79)

(dix,: példaN (x,): (e,: [idézv ( d f t : Péter N ft))^ ft)Go] (e,))

in which the second restrictor is again presented as a predication. Arg-2 of the embedded predicate is anaphorically bound by the term variable Xj. So it seems that we find the same type of opposition in constructions with the past participle of two-place predicates that we find in the constructions with the adverbial participles of two-place predicates discussed in section 4.3.2.2. above. The similarities between the types of participle construction with two-place predicates can be summarized in the following way: (i)

Both Arg-1 and Arg-2 of the embedded predicate can be anaphorically bound by the term variable: a. ft: PredN (x,): (e,: [Pred v ft) (x2)] (e,)) b. ft: PredN ft): (e,: [Pred v ( Xl ) ft)] (e,))

(ii) (iii)

In both types of construction Agent function is expressed by means of the postposition âltal 'by' (cf. (67 and (78)). In both types of construction (ia) and (ib) the participles are marked in the same way, i.e. there is no difference between, for instance, active versus passive participles.

However, parallel to constructions such as (78) we also find forms of participles which do correspond to the past tense second form paradigm. We will refer to the verbal forms in (80) as past participles. However, later on in this section we will suggest that constructions with these forms might be analysed as constructions involving finite parenthetical constructions and not as non-finite participle constructions. Consider the following two examples, which are alternative expressions of (78a) and (78b): (80) a.

b.

a Péter idéz-t-e példa the Peter quote-pa.part-3s.2f example 'the example quoted by Peter' az d idéz-t-ék példa the theyquote-pa.part-3p.2fexample 'the example quoted by them'

How do we have to interpret the forms marked for person in (80) ?15 There seem to be two possibilities:

120 (i) (ii)

past participle + possessive suffix past tense forms of the second conjugation

Because forms such as idézte in (80a) correspond to the second form conjugation of the verb and because constructions such as Péter idézte in (80a) behave syntactically as attributive participle constructions, Râcz ed. (1976: 195) describes examples such as (80) under the heading of 'participial verbal person marking' (igenévi igei személyragozâs). In other words, Râcz ed. considers the forms marked for person in (80) to be both (i) and (ii). Bânhidi (1965: 408) and Radies (1980: 22,1982:491) refer to the person marking affix on the participle as a possessive marker. This does not seem to be correct, since the affix used with a plural Agent is definitely not the possessive suffix but an affix which belongs to the second form paradigm. The possessive form of third person plural is -uk/-iik, whereas the form used in (80b) ends in -ék, which is not a possessive suffix (cf. (72) above). A second argument against analysis (i) is the following. In possessive constructions in Hungarian the possessor may be marked by a dative case, for instance: (81)

Feri-nek egyik barât-ja Feri-dat a/one friend-3s 'one of the friends of Feri'

If the person marking affix in (80a) is a possessive affix, we might expect that it is allowed to extend the possessor by a dative case (cf. 3.4.3). This is not correct (cf. Laczkô ms.:16): (82)

* Péter-nek idéz-t-e Peter-dat quote-pa.part-3s.2f

példa example

We will discuss the second analysis together with a second question. Namely, how do we account for the different expression of Agent in (78) and (80)? As an answer to this question let us assume that the underlying difference between (78) and (80) is that Subj has been assigned to the Goal in (78) and to the Agent in (80). Respectively: (83) a. b.

(dlXj: példaN (x): (e,: [Past idéz v (x]: Péter N (Xj))Ag (x,)GoSUBJ] (e,)) (dix;: példaN (x,): ( ej : [Past idéz v fy: Péter N

(Xj))AgSUBJ

(x,)Go] ( e j )

In the introduction to this chapter we have mentioned that the function of Subj is to perspectivize SoAs, i.e. Subj defines the vantage point from which a SoA is presented. We have also mentioned that Subj assignment can have different effects

Perspective

121

on the sentence structure of a language, for instance with respect to verb agreement, expression of the semantic function of the argument to which Subj has been assigned, and voice differences. We will summarize the effects caused by Subj assignment as follows: (i) perspectivization of the SoA (ii) agreement with the verb (here: grammatical apposition (cf.ch.3) (iii) masking of semantic function (iv) triggering of voice (e.g. active or passive voice) We will discuss the two constructions under consideration here on the basis of these four types of effects. (I) Construction (78) = (83a): Perspective. There is de-perspectivization of the Agent. Grammatical apposition. There is no grammatical apposition or agreement between the Subj and the participle. The form of the participle in (78) is the same in case of a plural head: (84)

a Péter âltal idéz-ett példa/példâ-k the Peter by quote-pa.part.lf example/example-pl 'the example/examples quoted by Peter'

Masking semantic function. It is not clear whether Subj assignment masks the function of Goal here, because there is no overt expression of the Goal argument. The function of Agent, however, is overtly expressed. Voice. There is no passive voice. (II) Construction (80) = (83b): Perspective. Agent is perspectivized. Grammatical apposition. If the second form of the participle is taken to be the result of the grammatical apposition of a Subj with a definite Goal, what kind of grammatical apposition then does occur in cases with an indefinite Goal? Consider: (85)

egy Péter idéz-t-e példa a Peter quote-pa.part.2f.3s example 'an example quoted by Peter'

Example (85) shows that, as to grammatical apposition, there is no difference between constructions with a definite or indefinite Goal. However, it may be argued that, in constructions with a relativization of the Goal, the Goal counts as definite within the relative clause. Consider (86), which may be the underlying representation of (85):

122 (86)

(ilx,: példaN

(x,):

(e,: [Past idéz v (dl^: Péter N

(Xj)) Ag (x,) G o ] ( e ) ) )

Note that the embedded predication is presented as the second restrictor in a term structure. The second argument of the embedded verbal predicate is anaphorically bound by the term variable. If this is the case in Hungarian, then we have an explanation for the second form participles in constructions such as (85), i.e. grammatical apposition of the Subj with a definite Goal. Unfortunately there is counter-evidence in the form of postposed finite relative clauses. Compare (87)

egy/a példa , ami-t Péter idéz-ett a/the example , that-ac Peter quote-3s.lf 'an/the example that Peter quoted'

(88)

(ilXji példaN (x,): (e,: [Past idéz v (dlXji Péter N (Xj))Ag (xj)Go (e,)))

The finite verb of the relative clause in which the Goal is relativized always takes the first form conjugation and not the second. Masking of semantic function. Assignment of Subj function indeed masks the function of Agent. The function of Agent is not expressed. Voice. There is active voice. Note, however, that Hungarian does not have voice differences. We will summarize our findings in the following scheme: (89)

Construction I perspective

grammatical apposition masking semantic functions voice

Construction II

+

+

de-perspective of Agent

perspective of Agent

-

+ ?

-

+

+

+ ?

Since construction I and II are presented here as alternative expressions of the same SoA, the findings about the two constructions as presented in scheme (89)

Perspective

123

must be interpreted in relation to each other and not independently. The evaluation is as follows: (i) Perspective. We can say that Subj is assigned to the Agent in construction II. The only thing we can say about construction I is that Subj has not been assigned to the Agent. We cannot say that Subj has been assigned to the Goal argument. (ii) Grammatical apposition. There is no grammatical apposition in construction I. In construction II there is grammatical apposition, although we have no explanation for the occurrence of the second form conjugation. (iii) Masking semantic function. The Agent function is masked in construction II. In construction I it is not clear whether Goal function is masked by Subj assignment, because there is no overt expression of the Goal argument here. The expression of the Agent function only indicates that Subj has not been assigned to the Agent. (iv) Voice. Since there is only one voice in Hungarian, the occurrence of the active voice in both constructions cannot be considered to be the result of Subj assignment to the Agent. It seems that in construction I there is an absence of Subj rather than alternative assignment of Subj to the Goal argument. The function of Subj seems to be relevant for an account of construction II. We therefore conclude that the difference between construction I and II cannot be accounted for in terms of alternative Subj assignment to Agent and Goal, but should be accounted for in terms of the assignment or non-assignment of Subj function to the Agent (cf. (14b)). Before we will conclude this section we will suggest another analysis. Perhaps, constructions (85) and (80a) should be paraphrased in another way, for instance, as involving a parenthetical construction (90)

"a/the - Peter quoted it - example"

If this is correct then the problem can be solved without the need for Subject assignment. In this analysis the difference between constructions such as (91a) and (92a) would be that (91a) involves a non-finite embedded predication and that (92a) involves a non-embedded main predication. Consider examples (91a) and (92a) together with the underlying representations they would receive on the basis of the hypothesis put forward here: (91)

a.

a Jancsd ¿Ital rendez-ett film the Jancs6 by direct-pa.part.lf film 'the film directed by Jancs6'

124

(92)

b.

(dlXj: film N (x,): (e,: [ rendez v (dlx k : Jancsô ( x j ) ^ (Xj)Go ] (e^)

a.

a Jancsô rendezte film the Jancsô direct-past-3s.2f film 'the - Jancsô directed it - film'

b.

(dix;: film N ( x j - [ Past rendez v (dlx k : Jancsô ( x j ) ^ (xi)Go ] -

4.3.2.3.3. Future participle As a third type of participle we will mention the so-called future participle. In attributive use, the head of the NP always functions as the Goal argument of the predicate that is expressed as future participle. Some examples are: (93)

a.

b.

a (Mari âltal) meg-ir-andô levél the Mary by pf-write-fut.part letter 'the letter to be written (by Mary)' a meg-vâlaszt-andô elnôk the pf-elect-fut.part president 'the president to be elected'

The function of Subj is not required to arrive at constructions such as (93). The underlying representation of (93a) is given in (94), in which the second restrictor is a predication in which the Goal argument is anaphorically bound by the term variable: (94)

(dix,: levélN (x,): (e,: [Perf Fut ir v (xj: Mari ( x ^ ( x ^ J (e,))

4.4. NOMINALIZATIONS

Within the theory of FG, nominalizations are considered to either originate from verbal predicate-frames or to be given in the lexicon. Two examples of a very productive type of nominalization in Hungarian are: (95)

a.

b.

Péter indul-âs-a Peter leave-nzn-3s 'Peter's leaving' Jânos megver-és-e (Péter âltal) John beat up-nzn-3s Peter by 'John's being beaten up (by Peter)'

Note that in the corresponding verbal predication of the nominalizations (95a) and (95b), Péter functions as Arg-1 of the predicate indul 'start' and Jânos as Goal of

Perspective

125

the predicate megver 'beat up'. Hungarian (95b) does not allow the interpretation in which Jànos is the Agent of the hitting. Consider: (96) a.

b.

Péter indul. Peter leave:3s.lf 'Peter leaves.' Péter megver-i Jànos-t. Peter hit-3s.2f John-ac 'Peter hits John.'

The nominalizations which can be productively derived from verbal predicateframes are accounted for by the mechanism of predicate formation (see chapter 5). Syntactic functions are not relevant here.

4.5. CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter we have concerned ourselves with syntactic function assignment. We have raised the question whether syntactic function assignment should be interpreted in an absolute sense, i.e. whether syntactic function assignment is either relevant or not relevant to the description of languages, or in a relative sense, i.e. whether syntactic function assignment is relevant to one or some but not to all constructions which designate SoAs in a language. As for Hungarian the results are as follows. Obj is not relevant, which is an absolute statement. Subj function is only relevant in attributive past participle constructions. Subj assignment within this type of construction is limited: Subj may be assigned to the Agent if the Agent is anaphorically bound by the term variable. Notwithstanding these limitations, Subj function is proven to be relevant here, which then altogether constitutes an example of relative relevance. However, if these so-called past participle constructions can be analysed as constructions involving a parenthetical construction (as indicated in (92)) Subj assignment is not relevant in the domain of participle constructions in Hungarian either. In that case we would conclude that syntactic functions are not relevant to the description of Hungarian in the absolute sense. The distribution of Subj assignment over a number of construction types is presented in the following scheme:

126 (97)

SUBJECT ASSIGNMENT IN HUNGARIAN

Linguistic domain main

embedded predication finite

non-finite predication infinitive

participle construction adverbial

adjectival près past

Arg-1 Go Rec Ben Instr _ Loc Temp

nominalization

fut

+ ? -

-

-

_

We have also raised the question whether there is a relation between relative relevance and the Continuity hypothesis. It has not been our intention to actually give an answer to this question, because an answer can only be given on the basis of data from a representative sample of languages. We have examined only one language. The Hungarian data do not give us an indication of the kind of relation there may exist between relative relevance and the Continuity hypothesis, because we have found only one example of Syntactic function assignment. By way of contrast compare Subj assignment in Dutch and English:

Perspective (98)

127

SUBJECT ASSIGNMENT IN ENGLISH

Linguistic domain main

embedded predication finite

non-finite predication infinitive

adverbial

adjectival près past

Arg-1 + + Go + Ree Ben Instr Loc Temp

(99)

nominalization

participle construction

fut

+

+

-

-

-

-

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

SUBJECT ASSIGNMENT IN DUTCH

Linguistic domain main

embedded predication finite

non-finite predication infinitive

nominalization

participle construction adjectival

adverbial

près past fut Arg-1 + + Go Ree Ben Instr Loc Temp

+ +

+ +

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+ +

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

128 Some of the constructions we have discussed in this chapter are usually referred to as constructions which contain (some kind of) passive, in particular those constructions which allow the Agent function to be overtly expressed. Overt expression of the Agent is accounted for in the following way. If the argument with Agent function of an embedded predicate is anaphorically bound, term insertion is prohibited. In that case Agent function is not expressed. If the argument with Agent function of an embedded predicate is not anaphorically bound, term insertion is possible. In case the argument is filled lexically, Agent function will be expressed. A difference between lexical Agents of embedded predicates and lexical Agents of main predicates is that the semantic function of Agent is expressed in the former type and not in the latter type. A functional explanation for the differential marking of Agent terms may be that terms marked with altal can be recognized as the Agent terms of embedded predicates. In constructions with two Agent terms ambiguity does then not arise, because the term marked with altal is the Agent term of the embedded predicate. A survey of the structures presented is the following: INFINITIVE pred v (Xj) (e2: [ Inf pred v (x() ] (e2)) pred v (Xj) (Xj) (e3: [ Inf pred v (xj ] (e3)) PARTICIPLES Adverbial pred v (xi) ( e i : [ predv-va (x,) ] ( ei )) Circ Pred v 0 0 ( e i : [ Predv-va (x, altal)Ag (Xi)Go Pred v (*i) (e;: [ predv-va (0)Ag (x;)Go Adjectival Present: (nxji predN Past-. (Ox,: predN ( i ^ : pred N (i2xi: predN (QXj: predN Future: (£Jxi: predN

(Xj): (e^ [ pred v -o (x() (x;): ( ej : (xj: (e^ (x^: (e^ (Xj): (e;:

[ predv-ott [ predv-off [ predv-ott [ predv-i-a

] (e;))^ ] ( ei )) Circ

] (e,)))

(xj ] (e^)) (x,) (x2) ] ( ei ))) (xj altal) (x;)Go ] (ei))) ( x ^ (x^ ] (e^))

(Xj): (q: [ predv-and6 (^ altal) (x;)Go

NOMINALIZATION («X;: [ predy-djN (x^ ] (x;)) (QXj: [ predv-dsN (x2)Go (xt dltal)Ag ] (xj)

] ( ei )))

(rare) (lexicalized)

Perspective

129

NOTES 1. See for a discussion of 'perspective' and 'passive' in FG: Auwera (1988), Bolkestein & Risselada (1987), Dik (1978a, 1980), Dik & Gvozdanovic (1981), Kucanda (1984), Moutaouakil (1984, 1985, 1986a), Risselada (1987), Vester (1985), and De Vries (1985). For a discussion of passive and passive-like constructions in Hungarian we refer to Abaffy (1978), Fiiredi (1976), Kâroly (1967, 1975), and Klemm (1942). 2. Cf. Gielen (1979). See Vet (1981a, 1981b) for a discussion of alternative Subj assignment according to Type II in French. 3. A first discussion of constructions which involve 'sentence-intertwining' in Hungarian is presented by Zolnai (1926). Similar and other constructions referred to as raising constructions have received enormous attention in the last decade, in particular in the works of É. Kiss (1981a, 1981b, 1987), but also De Groot (1981b), Horvâth (1985), Kenesei (1980, 1984). For discussions of raising phenomena within the framework of FG we refer to Bolkestein et al. (1981) and Dik (1979a). 4. A predication similar to (35b) without Focus assignment to Argl of the embedded predicate yields an ungrammatical output: (i)

* Péter akar engem, hogy vezessek

A term without a pragmatic function will be placed in the neutral territory after the verb. See De Groot (1981b) for further discussion on this particular construction. 5. See Dezsd & Nemser eds. (1980) for a description of a number of embedded predications in Hungarian. 6. Cf. Dik (1985b). We refer to É. Kiss (1985) for a discussion on anaphorical relations in Hungarian. 7. See Stephanides (1980) for a typology of constructions with an infinitive in Hungarian. 8. For a discussion of existential constructions in FG see Dik (1980: chapter 2, 1983), De Groot (1983a), and Hannay (1985b). See also chapter 6. 9. Headless constructions have not been dealt with within the framework of FG other then Dik (1983d). According to his analysis of headless relative clauses, construction (38a) may be alternatively analysed as follows: (")

{(0W

(Xj: Inf e n v ( X l ) A g ( x , ) ^

10. See Bolkestein et al. (1981), Auwera (1985a, 1985b) for further discussion. 11. See section 4.3.1.6 for other examples of predicates which take infinitives as third arguments. 12. See É. Kiss (1980) for a discussion of participles in Hungarian. 13. Agent phrases with postposition âltal alternate with phrases in which the Agent is marked by the ablative case -tôl/-tôl, e.g. Jânos âltal or Jânos-tôl. 14. Past participles of two-place predicates with an active sense occur only exceptionally (É. Kiss 1980: 80): (iii)

olvas-ott ember read-pa.part man 'a well-read person'

15. The construction such as in (80) has been the subject of discussion since the last part of the last century. We refer to Szepesy (1982) for a summary of this discussion. Reactions to this paper are Jankowski (1983,1989) and Szepesy (1985). The construction is considered bookish, and seems to be mainly used with third person singular marking.

Chapter 5

PREDICATE FORMATION

5.0. INTRODUCTION

Language users have a large number of basic predicates at their disposal. Basic predicates are those predicates which a language user must know in order to be able to use them. We can refer to the collection of basic predicates of a language as the lexicon of the language. The set of basic predicates can be extended with a set of derived predicates by means of a number of synchronically productive rules - predicate formation rules.1 First, consider the following examples of Hungarian: (1)

Mari sz6p. Mary pretty 'Mary is pretty.' Mari sz6p-iil. Mary pretty-inch 'Mary gets pretty.' A kozmetikus sz6p-it-i Mari-t. the beauty specialist pretty-caus-3s.2f Mary-ac 'The beauty specialist beautifies Mary Feri sz6p-it-tet-i Mari-t a kozmetikus-sal. Feri pretty-caus-caus-3s.2f Mary-ac the beauty specialist-instr 'Feri has the beauty specialist beautify Mari.'

(2)

(3)

(4)

The relation between the predicates used in these examples is a relation of productive derivation.2 Examples of other such quartets are, for instance: (5)

a. b.

rovid 'short' szabad 'free'

rovidul 'become shorter' szabadul 'be set free'

rovidit 'shorten' szabadit 'liberate'

ròvidittet 'make shorten' szabadittat 'have liberate'

132 mély 'deep' kék 'blue' vak 'blind'

mélyiil 'get deeper' kékiil 'turn blue' vakul 'become blind'

mélyit 'deepen' kékit 'make blue' vakit 'make blind

mdlyittet 'make deepen' kSkittet 'have make blue' vakittat 'cause to make blind'

These examples illustrate (i) that different forms can be derived from one predicate (see (6a)) 3 and (ii) that predicates can be derived from basic predicates but also from derived predicates (see (6b)): (6)

a.

—>

szépiil 'get pretty

szép 'pretty' > b.

szépit 'beautify'

—>

szépit 'beautify' szépittet 'have beautify'

An account of the relation between the predicates in (6a) and (6b) merely in terms of 'stem/root + affix' is, of course, not sufficient, because it does not do justice to relevant properties such as valency, nor to the relation between the predicates and the states of affairs which they can designate. Recall, however, that all predicates are contained in predicate-frames, structures which specify their fundamental semantic and syntactic properties. It is therefore claimed that predicate formation rules take predicate-frames as input and generate predicateframes as output (Dik 1980, De Groot 1987a). The input of a predicate formation rule can consist of basic or derived predicate-frames.4 The output predicate-frames of a predicate formation rule are necessarily derived. Predicate formation can be schematically represented as follows:

input predicateframes

t

•

predicate formation rules

•

output predicateframes

Figure 1. Predicate formation In chapter 2 we discussed the general properties of predicate-frames. These properties are relevant to both basic and derived predicate-frames. In fact, we will assume that predicate formation rules only create predicate-frames which are possible frames for basic predicates.5

Predicate formation

133

Let us return to examples (1) and (3) above, in which we find a basic predicate szep 'pretty' (cf. (1)) and a derived predicate szepit 'beautify' (cf. (3)). In a functional grammar of Hungarian the predicate szep 'pretty' is in the lexicon, whereas the predicate szepit 'beautify' is introduced by a formation rule. The way in which the grammar accounts for the relation between the two predicates may be represented in the following way:

Lexicon szépA (xj),,

Derived predicates — rules — >

szépíty (xj)^ (x2)Go

Figure 2. However, the mental lexicons of individual language users need not necessarily be organized this way. A Speaker may have both predicates in his lexicon, because we do not think that a Speaker derives the form szepit on each occasion that he uses it. Once the Speaker has derived the form szepit he may add this form to his lexicon.6 In such cases predicate formation rules are not applied in order to derive new predicates. However, a language user may use these rules to interpret the predicates and the relation between them as redundancy rules in the lexicon.7 In that case the following picture arises:

Mental lexicon szépA (xO,)

szépitv (x^Ag (x2) Go


V Examples of this type of relation are, for instance: (44)

a. zdr 'close' b. toriil 'dry'

— > zarod(ik) 'close (intr.)' —> tdrulkdz(ik) 'dry oneself

For further details and a discussion of these examples we refer to the sections 5.2.2.1. and 5.2.2.2. above. II. A—> V Examples of this type of relation are, for instance: (45) a. rovid 'short' b. rovid 'short'

-

rovid-ul 'become shorter' rovid-it 'make shorter'

For further details and a discussion of these examples we refer to the sections 5.O., 5.1., and 5.2.1.2. above. III. N — > V Verbal predicates can be formed productively from nominal predicates. The following two formative suffixes mark the denominai status of verbs in Hungarian: z and -I. Consider the following examples: (46) a. kavé 'coffee' b. vég 'end' c. szâm 'number d. séta "walk'

-

kâvé-z(ik) 'to have coffee' vég-ez 'to end' szam-ol 'to count' sétâ-l 'to walk'

Although the formation with -z and -I is extremely productive, it is difficult to formulate a single predicate formation rule which can account for the applications. One of the difficulties is that there is a wide variety of relations between the input and output predicates. Tompa (1968: 115f) mentions the following types, which do not seem to be equally productive (A. Komlôsy p.c.): (47)

with -z to supply with (productive) cukor 'sugar' - cukroz(ik) 'to sugar' b. be active with (non-productive) âgyû 'cannon' - âgyûz 'to cannon' c. to play / to make music with (productive) zongora 'piano' - zongorâz(ik) 'play the piano' a.

148

d.

to drive / to sail with (productive) hajô 'ship' - hajôz(ik) 'to sail' e. produce (? productive) lârma 'noise' - lârmâz(ik) 'make a noise' f. to name / call someone (productive) bâcsi 'uncle' - bâcst(ik) 'to say uncle to someone' g. to take away from (? productive) - galfyaz 'to prune' gaily 'twig' h. to drink / to eat from (non-productive) szalonna 'bacon' - szalonnàz(ik) 'to eat bacon' i. used to take part in / to do (non-productive) bed 'ball' - bcdoz(ik) 'to attend balls' j. to spend a time interval (non-productive) éjszaka 'evening' - éjszakâz(ik) 'be up all night' (48)

with -/ be active with (productive) borotva 'rasor' - borotvâl 'to shave' b. to supply with (non-productive) abrak 'fodder' - abrakol 'to fodder' c. role of (? productive) elnok 'chairman' - elnôkôl 'to act as a chairman' d. to achieve (? productive) darab 'piece' - darabol 'to cut into pieces' a.

Moreover, the output predicates may sometimes be one-place predicates and sometimes two-place predicates. Consider the following two examples: (49) a.

b.

Mari zongor&zik. Mary play the piano 'Mary plays the piano.' A kertdsz tek-at gallyaz. the gardener trees-ac prune 'The gardener is pruning trees.'

(one-place predicate)

(two-place predicate)

In other cases, the output may consist of a number of different predicate-frames. The predicate vegez 'to end' (from veg 'end') has many applications, including the following: (50) a.

Egyetem-et végz-ett. university-ac end-past.3s 'He finished university.'

Predicate formation b.

c.

149

Negyedik hely-en v6gz-ett. fourth place-sup.es end-past.3s 'He finished fourth.' V6gz-ett mag A

Hungarian grammarians usually refer to present and past participles as adjectival participles.16 This name might suggest that these participles are (derived) adjectival predicates. It is our opinion that this is not the case. There are two reasons for analysing participles in Hungarian as non-finite embedded predications and not as derived constructions. The first reason is that participle constructions closely parallel relative constructions, which are not derived constructions. The second reason is that an analysis based on embedding easily accounts for the application of the aspectual operator in participle constructions, whereas this would be rather difficult in an analysis based on derivation. We will present examples which support our standpoint.

150 Present participles Present participles or participles of incomplete action in Hungarian are formed with -6/-6. For instance: (52) a. b.

olvas 'read' el' live'

-

olvasd eld

'reading' 'living'

Unlike adjectives, Hungarian present participles can only be used attributively and not predicatively. Compare the following examples: (53) a.

az olvas-6 fiu the read-pr.part boy 'the reading boy.' b. az okos fiu. 'the clever boy.' (54) a. * A fiu olvas-6. the boy read-pr.part The boy is reading.' b. A fiu okos. the boy clever 'The boy is clever.' The finite counterpart of (53a) is (55a), a construction with a relative clause. The construction is similar to the finite counterpart of (53b), as is shown by example (55b). Compare: (55) a.

b.

a fiu ,aki the boy who 'the boy, who a fiu ,aki the boy who 'the boy, who

olvas read:3s.lf is reading' okos clever is clever'

Given the analysis of relative constructions such as (55a) as we proposed in chapter 2 (cf. chapter 2, (18)-(20)), we suggest that (53a) be analysed as (56a) and (55a) as (56b): (56) a. b.

(dlxj: fiuN (xi): ( ei : [olvasv (x,)^ (x2)Go] (e,))) ( d ^ : fiiijsj (Xj): (Pres e,: [olvasv ( x ^ (x2)Go] (e^))

The introduction of the form -o/-6 is conditioned by (i) the absence of a tense operator on the level of e^ and (ii) Arg-1 of the embedded predicate is bound by

Predicate formation

151

the term variable. An example which support the second claim is (57), which shows that the term variable may not bind the second argument of the embedded predicate. (57)

* az olvas6 konyv the read-pr.part book 'the reading book'

In general participles of incomplete action do not combine with perfective aspect. We will account for the non-applicability of perfective aspect by claiming that the SoAs designated by the embedded predications are atelic. Perfective aspect is not compatible with atelic SoAs (cf. chapter 1). Consider the following examples: (58)

a.

a borotvdl-koz-6 f6rfi the shave-refl-pr.part man 'the (himself) shaving man'

b.

(dlXjt f6rfiN (Xj): (e,: [impf borotvdlkozv ([-telft)^] (e^)

(59) a.* a meg-borotvdl-koz-6 f6rfi the pf-shave-refl-pr.part man 'the (himself) shaving man' b. * (dlXj: f6rfiN ft): (e^ [pf borotvdlkozv ( [ - t e l ] ^ ] (e^) In certain contexts it is possible to combine present participles with perfective aspect. In those cases the speaker expresses his assumption that the action performed by the agent of the embedded predicate will be completed.17 Consider example (60a) and its underlying representation (60b): (60) a.

A Dund-t meg-draszt-6 sz61 tavasz-ra the Danube-ac pf-cause to overflow-pr.part wind spring-subl meg-6rkez-ik pf-arrive-3s "The wind, which will cause the Danube to overflow its banks, will arrive with spring.'

b.

Pres Pf 6rkez v (dbq: [-S.-A] (xi))Proc (iyi: tavaszN (yi))Subl, (*I: SZ61n ft): (ej: [ pf drasztv (xi)Proc (dlxk: Duna N (xk))Go ] (ei))Proc

Past participles Past participles or participles of completed action are formed by -t/-tt. Similar to the analysis of the present participle we will consider the past participle to be

152 the result of expression rules and not the result of predicate formation rules. Predicative use of past participles in Hungarian is rather exceptional. We suggest that these forms are accounted for as illustrated in the following example: (61)

a.

a nyomtat-ott konyv the print-pa.part book 'the printed book'

b.

(dlXj: konyvN ft): ( e j : [nyomtatv ( x ^ (x,)Go] (q)))

The introduction of the form -t/-tt is conditioned (i) by the absence of a tense operator on the level of e^ and (ii) by the coreferentiality of the second argument of the embedded predicate (which is bound by telicity) with the term variable. We will give examples which substantiate the claim made here. The following example shows that the term variable is preferential with the second argument of the embedded predication. Compare (61) with (62): (62)

* a nyomtat-ott f6rfi the print-pa.part man 'the printed man'

The semantic function of the argument bound seems to be limited to the function of Goal. Compare the following examples: (63)

a.* a (le-)s6tdl-t pdlyaudvar the (pf)walk-pa.part station 'the railway station walked to' b. a (tdbld-ra) fel-ir-t szoveg the blackboard-subl pf-write-pa.part text "The text written on (the blackboard).' c. * a fel-ir-t tdbla the pf-write-pa.part blackboard 'the blackboard written on'

The next two examples show that the imperfective and perfective aspectual distinctions can be made in past participle constructions: (64)

a.

a fdrfi dltal rendel-t k6p the man by order-pa.part picture 'the picture ordered (impf) by the man'

b.

(dlXj: k6pN (xj): (e,: [ impf rendelv (dlx,: ttrfiN (xi)Ag ( t + t e l ^ ) ^ ] (e,)))

Predicate formation (65)

153

a.

a f6rfi dltal meg-rendel-t k6p the man by pf-order-pa.part picture 'the picture ordered (pf) by the man'

b.

(dlXj: k6pN (x): (e,: [pf rendel v (dl*,: fcrfiN ( x ^

([+tel]Xj)Go]

(ej))

If participle constructions would arise through predicate formation rules, it would be difficult to account for aspectual differences which hold between constructions such as (64) and (65). The input of such rules should then consist of predications which are specified for perfective or imperfective aspect by means of aspect operators. The analysis based on the expression of embedded predications easily accounts for the aspectual differences, as examples (64) and (65) show. After discussing participles in Hungarian let us have a look at three examples of rules which we consider to be predicate formation rules. These rules change verbal input predicates into adjectival output predicates. (i) -hatô/-hetô A very productive rule which derives adjectival predicates from verbal predicates is the formation with -hatô/-hetô}% Some examples are: (66)

a. lát 'see' b. olvas 'read' c. tanit 'teach' d. mér 'measure' e. elfog 'accept'

lát-ható Visible' olvas-ható 'readable' tanít-ható 'teachable' mér-hetô 'measurable' elfog-ható 'acceptable'

Deverbal forms with -hato/-het& can be used both attributively and predicatively. Consider the following examples together with their underlying representations: (67) a.

b. (68) a.

b.

egy elfogható ajánlat an acceptable suggestion 'an acceptable suggestion' (ix¡: ajánlatN (x¡): (e¡: [elfoghatóA (x^] (e¡)) Ez az ajánlat elfogható this suggestion acceptable 'This sugestión is acceptable.' Pres elfoghatóA (+pdXj: ajánlatN (x¡)),,

Derived predicates with -hatö/-hetö have a modal value and express that some entity may function semantically as the Goal of the SoA designated by the verbal

154

input predicate-frame and that such a SoA can be actually performed or may take place. The predicate formation rule may have the following form: (69)

MODAL ADJECTIVE PREDICATE FORMATION IN HUNGARIAN

Input: Output:

pred v (xx) (x2)Go ... ( x j pred-FA (x2)p F = hatd/hetd Meaning: x2 has the property that it can be subjected to the SoAs designated by the input predicate.

The negative counterparts of these adjectival predicates can be formed with the privative formants -hatatlan/-hetetlen. Consider: (70) a. b. c. d. e.

lot 'see' olvas 'read tanit 'teach' mér 'measure' fest 'dye'

-

lât-hatatlan 'invisible' olvas-hatatlan 'non-readable' tanit-hatatlan 'non-teachable' mér-hetetlen 'non-measurable' fest-hetetlen 'non-colourable'

(ii) -ÓS/-ÓS The contents of verbal predicates may be presented as a property or habit that a person or a thing has. In Hungarian this can be done means of by a predicate formation rule which takes verbal predicates as input and delivers adjectival predicates as output. Consider: (71) a. harap "bite' b. ragad 'stick' c. tart 'keep'

-

harapós 'biting' ragadós 'sticky' tartós 'lasting'

Adjectival predicates ending in -ós/-ós can be used attributively (cf. (72a-b)) as well as predicatively (cf. (72c)): (72) a.

b.

c.

egy harap6s kutya a biting dog 'a snapper' tart6s tej tenable milk 'tenable milk' a nevetds ragad6s the laughter sticky 'laughter is infectuous'

Predicate formation

155

A formation rule which accounts for this relation between verbal and adjectival predicates may be formalized as follows: (73)

HABITUAL PROPERTY PREDICATE FORMATION IN HUNGARIAN

Input: Output:

Pred v (xx) ... ( x j Pred-FA (xj,, F = -os/-es, and in which x„ corresponds to an argument position of the input predicate-frame Meaning: The content of the input predicate is presented as a property or habit predicated of x,,.

The relation between the argument of the output predicate and one of the arguments of the input predicate, here globally indicated as x,,, which corresponds to an argument, must be made precise. We do not know the exact relation yet. (iii) -ekony/-ekeny Derived adjectival predicates with -ekony/-ekeny denote that somebody or something is inclined or ready to perform the action designated by the input predicate-frame or is inclined to be in the process designated thereby, for instance: (74) a. tanul 'learn' b. foly(ik) 'flow' c. talal 'find' -

tanul-ekony 'apt to learn' foly-ekony 'liquid' talal-ekony 'inventive,'

The derivational process does not seem to be fully productive (Tompa 1968: 124). The formation rule may have the following form: (75)

VIRTUAL PREDICATE FORMATION IN HUNGARIAN

Pred v ( x i) - OO Pred-FA ( x ^ F = -ekony/-ekeny Meaning: The referent of xt of the output predicate-frame is inclined (willing) or ready to perform the action, or is inclined to be in the process designated by the input predicate-frame.

Input: Output:

V. A —> A

An example of this type of relation has been given in section 5.2.1.3. above: (76)

nagy 'big'

-

nagy-obb 'bigger'

VI. N —> A

Grammarians of Hungarian mention a great number of denominal adjectives. Tompa (1968) distinguishes between thirteen different formative suffixes, some of

156 which can be semantically divided into smaller classes. We will give an example of eight of these forms here. (77)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

az erkély-es hâz a kert-i hâz a fâ-tlan kert a mult szâzad-beli épitészet a Newton-féle elmélet egy film-szertì téma egy magam-fajta ember két kanâl-nyi cukor

'the balconied house' 'the garden house' 'the treeless garden' 'the architecture of the last century' 'the Newtonian theory' 'a filmic theme' 'a man like me' 'two spoonful of sugar'

The predicative uses of these forms (if possible) are not equally productive (cf. Dezsó 1982b). Predicative constructions with forms ending in -s ((77a)), -tlan/-tlen ((77c)), and -szeril ((77)f) are often found. Consider for instance: (78) a.

b.

c.

A hàz erkély-es. the house balconi-ed 'The house has a balcony.' Az a kert fà-tlan. that garden tree-less "That garden is treeless.' Ez a téma film-szenl. this theme film-ic This theme is filmic.'

Predicate formation rules can account for the formation of the types of denominai adjective given in (78). Other types of denominai adjective mentioned in (77) cannot be used predicatively.19 For instance: (79) a. * A hàz kert-i. the house garden-sx 'The house has a garden.' b. * Ez az épitészet mult szàzad-beli. this architecture last century-within 'This architecture is from the last century.' c. * Ez az ember magam-fajta. this man me-like "This man is like me.' If all denominai adjectives mentioned in (77) are considered to be output predicates of predicate formation rules, the predicate formation rules should

157

Predicate formation

specify which predicates can be used predicatively and which cannot. Such a specification can be given in the following way. If a derived adjectival predicate can be used predicatively, then the argument position of that predicate is open to term insertion. If a derived adjectival predicate cannot be used predicatively, then the argument position of that predicate is not open to term insertion. We can formulate the latter restriction on argument positions by saying that the argument position must be bound by a term variable. In such an analysis the predicate-frames of erkéfyes 'balconied' and kerti Svith garden' would be the following: (80)

a. b.

erkélyesA kertiA ( x ^

where X; is bound by a term variable

The representations in (80) account for the occurrence of (77a-b), and (78a) and for the non-occurrence of (79a) in Hungarian, repeated here as (81) and (82): (81)

a.

az erkély-es hàz the balconi-ed house 'the balconied house' b. a kert-i hàz the garden-sx house 'the garden house' (82) a. A hàz erkély-es. the house balconi-ed 'The house has a balcony.' b. * A hàz kert-i. the house garden-sx 'The house has a garden.' The underlying representation of (81b) in this analysis would be the following: (83)

(dlx ; : hiz N (xi): ( e j : [ kertiA (xi)„ ] (e,)))

Another difference between forms such as erkefyes and kerti is that forms ending in -i immediately precede the head noun in nominal phrases, whereas forms ending in -s may also take other positions preceding the head noun (cf. Dezsd 1982b: 76f). Consider: (84)

a. b. c. (85) a. b. * c. *

a nagy erkélyes hàz az erkélyes nagy hàz az erkélyes kerti hàz a nagy kerti hàz a kerti nagy hàz a kerti erkélyes hâz

'the big balconied house' 'the balconied big house' 'the balconied garden house' 'the big garden house' [the garden big house] [the garden balconied house]

158

Given the fact that forms ending in -i immediately precede the head noun, we might propose an alternative analysis of constructions such as (81b). Instead of considering kerti to be a derived adjectival predicate, we might consider kerti to be a nominal predicate which functions as the second restrictor of a term variable. The formal element -i could then be considered to mark nominal predicates which function as second restrictors. In this analysis, the underlying representation of (81b) would be (86): (86)

(dlXji hdzN ft): kertN (x,))

In chapter 2 we have said that nominal predicates typically function as first and not as second restrictors of term variables. Analysis (86) of the construction with / represents a counter example to this general statement. Analysis (86) accounts for: (i) The difference between a nominal predicate that is a first restrictor and a nominal predicate that is a non-first restrictor is morphologically marked (a nonfirst restrictor is marked by -i); (ii) The fact that no tense operator can be assigned here, and consequently that no relative clause can be formed, since predicate-frame kert in representation (86) is a restrictor of an x variable: (87)

* a Mz , amely kert-i the house that garden-with 'the house that is with a garden'

Note that the alternative analysis based on representation (83) does not prohibit the production of the ungrammatical expression (87); (iii) The fact that the semantic relation between the nominal predicates is not fixed. This kind of representation seems appropriate, because most examples of this type of construction are open to a number of interpretations. For instance, the expression a Parizs-i vonat (the Paris-suffix train) may refer to train going to or coming from Paris, the train built in Paris, etc.20 Another reason for not considering forms ending in -i to be derivational forms is the following. In some constructions, other than (81b), the form -i alternates with vald, which is a present participle form of the copula van 'be' (see Laczk6 (1985) for details).21 Consider: (88) a.

b.

a bolt-nak a v£s£rl6k dltal-i kirabl-4s-a the shop-dat the customers by-suffixrob-nzn-3s 'the robbing of the shop by the customers' a bolt-nak a v5sdrl6k dltal val6 kirabl-is-a the shop-dat the customers by be:pr.part rob-nzn-3s 'the robbing of the shop by the customers'

Predicate formation

159

The introduction of valo in (88b) is accounted for by expression rules and not by predicate formation rules (see the discussion in the introduction to this section, and see chapter 6, section 6.7.)- If the agent phrase a vdsarlok altali in (88a) is an alternative expression of the agent phrase a vasarldk altal valo in (88b) and if the latter form is accounted for by expression rules and not by predicate formation rules, then we also consider the form ending in -i in (88a) to be the result of expression rules and not that of predicate formation rules. 5.2.5.3. Derived nominal predicates VII. V — > N

There are several examples of formation rules which derive nominal predicates from verbal predicates. (i) -as/-es Nominalizations in -as/-es can be productively derived from verbal predicates. As a result of the derivation an argument of the input predicate may be presented as 'possessor', as if it were the possessor of the nominalized predication. Normally, Arg-1 of one-place predicates functions as the 'possessor'. In case of two-place predicates, the Goal will take that function. We will give some examples, together with the corresponding finite constructions. Example (90c) is ungrammatical when interpreted in the sense in which 'Feri is the Agent of the hitting'. (89)

a.

Mari nevet. Mary laugh:3s 'Mary is laughing.' b. Mari(-nak a) nevet-es-e Mary(-dat the) laugh-nzn-3s 'Mary's laughing' (90) a. Feri meg-ver-i Zoli-t. Feri pf-beat-3s.2f Zoli-ac 'Feri beats up Zoli.' b. Zoli(-nak a) meg-ver-es-e (Feri dltal) Zoli(-dat the) pf-beat-nzn-3s Feri by 'Zoli's beating up' c. * Feri meg-ver-es-e Feri pf-beat-nzn-3s 'Feri's beating up' Note that the person marking suffixes on the nominalized forms belong to the paradigm of nominal person markers. Note also that the 'possessor' of the nominalized actions can be marked by a dative case (cf. section 3.4.5). Nominalizations ending in -as/-es differ from other nominal predicates, such as asztal 'table', in that they do not refer to first order entities. Although the examples

160 (89) and (90) illustrate the general characterization of the nominalizations ending in -ds/-es in Hungarian, the derivation is much more complex. We do not want to formulate a possible predicate formation rule here, because we know too little about the construction in Hungarian.22 Firstly, it is not clear whether argument reduction is involved or not. Secondly, in some cases both the first and second arguments of two-place predicates may function as "possessor* of the nominalized actions. An example is, for instance: (91) a.

b.

a lev61 ir-ds-a. the letter write-nzn-3s 'the writing of the letter.' Fista ir-ds-a. Steve write-nzn-3s 'Steve's (hand-)writing.'

We have seen that the predicate megver 'beat up' does not allow a construction such as (91b) (cf. example (90c)). Perhaps, this can be explained as follows. The second argument of ir "write' can be left unspecified, whereas the second argument of ver 'hit' cannot. It may therefore be the case that ir "write' allows two kinds of nominalization, one based on an underlying structure that consists of a two-place predicate-frame with a specified Goal argument and the other on a two-place predicate-frame with an unspecified Goal argument. What we suggest here is that there is the following relation between finite predications and nominalizations: (92) a. b.

Jcinos irja a levelet. 'John writes the letter.' J&nos ir. 'John writes.'

(93) a.

Feri megveri Zolit. 'Feri hits Zoli.' b. * Feri (meg)ver 0. 'Feri hits.'

a lev61 ir&sa 'the writing of the letter' Jdnos irdsa 'John's (hand)writing' Zoli megverése 'Zoli's hitting' Feri megverése 'Feri's hitting'

(ii) -many/-meny or -vany/-veny A second example of the formation of a nominal predicate from a verbal predicate is the derivation ending in -many/-meny or -vany/-veny23 These nominal predicates express the result of some dynamic SoA indicated by the input verbal predicate. The derived predicates are typically used in constructions which refer to first order entities. We will give some examples: (94) a. jest 'paint' b. silt 'bake'

-

fest-meny 'painting' siit-emeny 'cake'

Predicate formation c. ker 'request' d. kiad 'give out'

161 -

ker-veny 'request' laad-vdny 'publication'

The following resultative predicate formation rule captures most properties of this type of nominalization: (95)

RESULTATIVE NOUN PREDICATE FORMATION IN HUNGARIAN

input: output:

pred v ( x ^ ([+tel] x ^ pred-FN (x2)j, F = -mdny/-meny or -vany/-veny meaning: 'The output predicate is the result of a completed action designated by the input predicate.'

(iii) -ek/-dek/-lek More deverbal nominal formative suffixes can be found in Hungarian. The formation with -ek/-dek/-lek is also considered productive (cf. Tompa 1968: 121). Its application, however, seems to be limited. Most derived forms with this suffix are lexicalized. Some examples are: (96) a. marad 'remain' b. told 'lengthen' c. fSz 'cook'

-

marad-ek 'remainder' told-alek 'appendage' fdz-elek 'cooked vegetables'

v m . A —> N

An example of the change of adjectival predicates into nominal predicates is, for instance, the formation of abstract nouns from adjectives: (97)

(98)

a. jo 'good' b. beteg 'ill' c. hiifye 'imbecile'

-

jo-sag 'goodness' beteg-seg 'ill-ness' hiifye-seg 'imbecility*

ABSTRACT NOUN PREDICATE FORMATION IN HUNGARIAN

Input: Output:

predA ( x ^ pred.pN (xj)„ F = -sag/-seg Meaning: "The output predicate refers in an abstract sense to the property designated by the input predicate.'

IX. N —> N

Examples of formation rules in which both input and output predicates are nominal predicates have been given in section 5.2.4. above.

162 5.2.6. Effects on the set of SoAs the predicate designates We have seen that predicate formation rules can have a number of effects on input predicate-frames. As a last type of effect we will mention the effects that predicate formation can have on the set of SoAs that the input predicate designates. In chapter 2 we discussed the relation between the typology of SoAs and predicate structure. We argued that predicates can be characterized in terms of the parameters that determine the typology of SoAs. We concluded that the following two constraints hold on the relation between the parameters and certain properties of predicates (cf. section 2.2.2.): (99) (i) (ii)

Predicate-frames cannot be specified for both (opposite) values of inherent features. Predicate-frames cannot be specified in such a way that the same feature binds different arguments.

One effect predicate formation rules can have on the input predicate frames is that the value of an inherent feature changes into its opposite, or that contingent features bind some other argument. In previous sections we have already presented examples of each of these effects. We will give examples of pairs of input and output predicates here to illustrate the effects. 5.2.6.1. Change in value of inherent features (i) Dynamic versus non-dynamic The following examples illustrate a type of predicate formation which changes dynamic predicate-frames into non-dynamic predicate-frames (cf. section 5.2.5.3.): (100)

[+dyn] fest v ( x ^ (x2)Go

===>

'paint'

[-dyn] festményN (Xl),, 'picture'

An example of a change in the opposite direction is the following: (101)

[-dyn] 'coffee' kàvéN (x,),

===>

[+dyn] 'have kàvéz(ik) v (x,)^ coffee'

(ii) Momentaneousness versus non-momentaneousness A second example of a change in value of an inherent feature is exhibited by the following pair of predicates. The negative value of the inherent feature [-mom] in (102a) changes into the positive value [+mom] in (102b): (102)

[-mom] ismerv ( x ^ (x2)Go 'know'

==>

[+mom] megismerv ( x ^ ( x ^ 'recognize'

163

Predicate formation

There seems to be a productive relation between verbs of perception and cognition such as ismer 'know* and megismer 'recognize' in Hungarian. 5.2.6.2. Contingent features binding different arguments The contingent feature of control always binds the first argument of a predicateframe. If a predicate formation rule introduces a new first argument, then the feature of control will bind another argument in the output predicate-frame than in the input predicate-frame. The value of the feature is not relevant here. Consider the following- two examples: (103)

s6tdlv ([+con] x,)^ Svalk'

= = = > s&41tatv ([+con] x , , ) ^ ^ (xi)AgCausee 'have walk'

(104)

z i i v ([+con] Xj)^ (x2)Go 'close' (tr.)

===>

z£r6d(ik)v ([-con] x2)Proc 'close' (intr.)

A second example shows that the contingent feature of telicity binds the second argument of the input predicate-frame and the first argument of the output predicate-frame: (105)

borotv&v ( x ^ ([±tel] x2)Go 'shave'

===>

borotv£lkoz(ik)v ([±tel] x ^ 'shave' (refl.)

53. DERIVED PREDICATES ARE COMPLEX

The input of predicate formation rules may be basic predicates but also derived predicates, i.e. the output of some predicate formation rule may form the input of some other predicate formation rule. Consider, for instance, the following example which illustrates the process of recursiveness in predicate formation:

(106)

tart v -6Sa -it v keep | durable | conserve

-hat6A -s£gN | conservable | conservability

The verbal basic predicate tart 'keep' is taken as the input of a predicate formation rule (cf. (71) above) which derives the adjectival predicate tartos 'durable'. The derived predicate-frame tartos 'durable' fulfils the requirements imposed on predicate-frames that the should be able to serve as input to the predicate formation rule (107) in the same way that basic adjectival predicates such as meleg Svarm' and szep 'pretty' do (cf. 5.O., 5.1., and 5.2.1.2. above). Compare:

164

(107)

pred A ( x ^ .... -> tart-ós 'durable' meleg Svanii' szép 'pretty'

->

pred v (x,,)^ (x^QO

-> -> ->

tart-ós-it 'conserve' meleg-it Svanii up' szép-ù 'beautify'

From example (107) we conclude that derived predicates may be classified into one and the same group with basic predicates. In the case of tartós and meleg it is not necessary to differentiate between the one being a derived predicate and the other a basic predicate. Both predicates may serve as input to one and the same predicate formation rule. Again the output of such a rule may form the input to another predicate formation rule together with other basic predicates. Consider:

(108)

pred v (*i)Ag (x2> Go -> tartós-it 'conserve' -> meleg-it Svarm up' húz 'stretch' zár 'close'

pred A (x2)„ -> -> -> ->

tart-ós-ít-ható 'conservable' meleg-ít-hetü 'heatable' húz-ható 'tensible' zár-ható "close-able"

We have seen that predicate formation rules may take both basic and derived predicate-frames as their input. However, this does not hold for all predicate formation rules. We will give two examples. We have said that predicates such as tartos and meleg may form a particular class of predicates, since both predicates may serve as input to the de-adjectival transitive predicate formation rule (cf. (107)). In other cases they do not form one class of predicates. Consider, for instance, the application of the de-adjectival intransitive predicate formation. It is possible to derive forms such as meleged(ik) 'get warm' and szepul 'get pretty' from the basic adjectival predicates meleg Svarm' and szep 'pretty' (cf. (9) section 5.1 above). This is not possible with forms such as tartos 'durable'. Consider:

Predicate formation (109)

165

predA (xi)„ .... -> tart-os 'durable' meleg "warm' szep 'pretty'

->

pred v (xi)Proc

-> * tart-os-od(ik) / * tart-ds-ul24 'become durable' -> meleg-ed(ik) "become warm' -> szepiil *become pretty"

The second example is the following. Derived predicate-frames such as tartósit 'conserve' and melegit Svarm up' are of the same form as the input predicate-frame of the detransitive predicate formation rule (cf. (26) section 5.2.2.1). This rule derives one-place Process predicates from two-place Action predicates (e.g. hùzód(ik) 'stretch (intr.)' from huz 'stretch (tr.)'). We might therefore expect that derived predicates such as tartósit 'conserve' and melegit Svarm up' can form the input to the intransitive predicate formation in Hungarian as well. This expectation, however, is false. Consider the following examples:

(110)

predy (xi)as (*2) Go -> tartós-it 'conserve' -> meleg-it "warm up' huz 'stretch' zar 'close'

predv (x2)proc -> * tartós-ti-ód(ik) 'be conserved' -> * melegit-dd(ik) *be warmed up' huz-ód(ik) 'stretch' -> zdr-ód(ik) 'close' ->

A straightforward explanation of the fact that Hungarian does not allow the formation of forms such as 'melegitdd(ik) may be that Process predicates can directly be derived from Adjectival predicates: meleg "warm' -> meleged(ik) 'get warm' (cf. (108)). The production of predicates such as "melegittid(ik) is not blocked by a morphological constraint on input predicates (according to which predicates ending in -it would not be allowed as input), because the following pair of predicates is found in Hungarian: (111)

szdmit 'count'

-> szamit-od(ik) 'be counted'

Note that szdmit 'count' differs from predicates such as melegit *warm up' in that the former is a basic and the latter a derived predicate. The form szdmit 'count' originates from a nominal predicate and has been lexicalized. Consider: (112) a. szamN 'number' b. melegA Svarm'

-> szamitv 'count' - > melegitw Svarm up'

(non-productive) (productive)

166 In order to use the appropriate Process predicate formation rule (109) or (110) a speaker of Hungarian must know whether the input predicate is a basic verbal predicate or a derived de-adjectival predicate. The following survey summarizes the possible relations mentioned here: (113) ....

pred A (Xl)„

tart

-> tartós

pred v (Xl)Proc

pred v fo)^ (x2)Go

pred v (x2)Proc

/-> 0 X

> tartósit

-> 0

> melegit

-> 0

/•> meleged(ik) meleg szipiil — >

szipit

(ii)

sz6p — > sz6pit

sz£piil

—>

Another type of input is involved in the so-called 'term predicate formation rule' (cf. chapter 6,

section 6.2.). 5.

One reason for assuming this is that language users may store derived predicate-frames in their

mental lexicon. However, four-place predicates, which can be derived by predicate formation rules (e.g. causatives), do not (or hardly) occur as basic predicates. 6.

After a while, the language user may even reinterpret the derived form as a basic predicate.

7.

This type of rule resembles Jackendoffs redundancy rules (1975).

8.

Of course, the relation between the predicates may be that of predicate formation.

9.

W e refer to Hetzron (1976) for the description of basic and derived causatives in Hungarian.

Hetzron also discusses the way in which Causee is expressed. See also Baboss (1938), and Szabo (1966). 10.

The form beivdd(ik) is derived from the root beiv.

11.

Such a rule does not only involve the reduction of the first argument of the input predicate but

also the extension of the predicate-frame with an argument with the function of 'Manner' (cf. Kahrel 1985a, 1985b). Some predicates may serve as input of both rules. The derived process predicate will be marked by the formative suffix -6d(ik)/-6d(ik)\ the derived stative predicate will no be marked by the formative affix. Compare: (iii)

a.

Mari

level-et

ir.

Mary

letter-ac

write:3s.lf

'Mary is writing a letter.' b.

Mikor ir-6d-ott

ez a lev61 ?

when

this letter

write-R-past:3s.lf

'When has this letter been written ?' c.

Ez a

toll j6-l

this

pen good-adv write:3s.lf

ir.

'This pen writes well.' 12.

See also Anderson (1971), Budai (1988), and Hopper & Thompson (1980).

13.

The relation between constructions such as (38a) and (38b) is usually referred to as a

transformational relation in the Hungarian linguistic literature. For instance, Vill6 (1980:34) posits the following:".... the two structures will be regarded as being related transformationally since (a) their denotatum is identical, (b) their lexical constituents are identical but (c) their sentence patterns are different." (Cf. also HorvSth 1983, Molnir 1969, and Zsilka 1981) However, the authors do not claim that the relation between the constructions is synchronically fully productive (cf. Molndr 1969: 267)

169 14. Dezsfl (1969: 60) refers to terms such as vaj-at 'butter-ac' and kenyer-et "bread-ac' in (38) as belsd tdrgyak 'inner objects', and to vaj-jal 'butter-instr' and kenyir-re 'bread-subl' as kulsd tdrgyak 'outer objects'. 15. Verbal predicates formed by -kodfik)/-ked(ik)/-kdd(ik) fall apart into two major groups: true reflexives and pseudo reflexives. True reflexives with -kod(ik)/-ked(ik)/-kdd(ik) can be derived from verbal predicates only, e.g. fisul 'comb' —> /¿sillked(ik) 'comb oneself. Pseudo reflexives with kod(ik)/-ked(ik)/-kdd(ik) can be derived from verbal, adjectival, and nominal predicates. We refer to Aschenbrenner (1978) for a discussion of this last type of predicate in great detail. Aschenbrenner shows that the pseudo reflexives ending in -kodfik)/-ked(ik)/-kdd(ik) (irrespective of their origin) are essentially used in speaking about persons, primarily in the appraisal of persons and commonly to discredit their character, behaviour, condition or state. See also D. Bartha (1980). 16. We do not discuss forms with the so-called future participle, because the application of these forms is very limited. Moreover, the forms seem to have been lexicalized. For instance: (iv)

a fizetendfl szimla the pay-fut.part bill 'the bill to be paid'

17. The forms -hatd/-hetd can historically be analysed as consisting of the modal suffix -hat/-het plus present participle marker -6/-d. In present-day Hungarian they form one derivational suffix. 18. Some lexicalized forms ending in -i can be used predicatively, for instance, isten-i (god-of 'devine'), kirttty-i (king-of 'royal'). 19. We realize that we have only touched upon some aspects of denominal adjectives here. It would be interesting to see which possible explanations FG could offer in order to account for all other aspects, in particular the treatment of some of the denominal adjectives as inflectional rather than derivational categories. Compare the treatment of participles in section 5.2.5.2. 20. Laczk6 (1985) does not discuss the position of forms with -/' within NPs. Dezsfl (1982b) does not discuss forms with -i such as (88a). 21. See Laczk6 (1985) for a general description of the construction. 22. This is a case of morphological alternation and not a case of phonological alternation. The forms ending in -mdny/-miny on the one hand and in -v6ny/-v£ny on the other seem to be in complementary distribution. Forms ending in -v6ny/-v6ny seem to be lexicalized. 23. Counter-examples such as iI 'live' - ¿Iminy 'experience'; es(ik) 'fall' - eseminy 'event' can be considered to be irregular forms which are stored in the lexicon. 24. There is a form tartdsul in Hungarian. This predicate, however, does not designate dynamic, telic SoAs but non-dynamic atelic SoAs. Consider: (v)

Az lllapot tart6sul. the situation continue:3s 'The situation continues.'

Chapter 6

NON-VERBAL PREDICATES

6.0. INTRODUCTION

In this chapter we will discuss constructions with van 'be' in Hungarian. The application of vara in Hungarian is most extensively, although not entirely, described by Kiefer (1968).1 Kiefer considers van to be a verb which is polysemous in many ways. In describing the various possible reasons for the polysemy of van, Kiefer also includes nominal structures (i.e. nominal sentences without van) by arguing that it makes sense to presuppose a zero copula in nominal sentences: 'People seem to confuse deep and surface structure. Nominal structure belongs to the surface structure.' (Kiefer 1968: 54). After Dik (1980,1983a), we take the opposite position. Firstly, we consider van to be an auxiliary without meaning of its own. The reason for the polysemy of constructions with van is due to other factors than the semantics of van. Secondly, we consider van to be a supportive element. We will claim that all occurrences of van in Hungarian can be accounted for by one rule, the so-called copula support rule.2 The trigger for the copula support rule is a non-verbal predicate. An outline of the treatment of non-verbal predicates in FG is given in Dik (1980: 90f), which discusses copula constructions with be in English. It is claimed that the copula be in English is a supportive element and not a 'real' verbal predicate. The idea is that the following sentences have underlying predicates that are non-verbal: (1)

a. John is ill. b. John is a painter. c. John is in the kitchen.

(adjectival predicate) (term predicate) (locational predicate)

Along these lines we will discuss different types of non-verbal predicates in Hungarian: (i) adjectival and nominal predicates; (ii) predicates consisting of a term; (iii) predicates consisting of a term with a semantic function (e.g. locational predicates);

172 (iv)

predicates consisting of a term with a semantic function, in which the term refers to a SoA (e.g. verbal adverbial predicates).

6.1. THE DATA

Hungarian uses a copula in almost all non-verbal predications. There is no overt copula in predications which meet the following four conditions at the same time (cf. Sz6pe 1967): i. present tense is used; ii. indicative mood is used; iii. Arg-1 is marked for third person (singular or plural); iv. the predicate consists of an adjective, noun, or term. We will list different types of predicative and attributive constructions with van here (cf. Dezsfl 1969, Kiefer 1968, 1981a, 1983). The first two types of construction exhibit examples in which copula support does not apply in all cases. The classification of constructions in this section is a matter of presentation. An analysis of the constructions within a functional grammar of Hungarian will follow later. I. PREDICATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

(2)

i.

Adjectival constructions

a.

Anna okos. Ann clever 'Ann is clever.' A l&ny-ok okos-ak. the girl-pl clever-pl "The girls are clever.' Okos vagy. clever be:2s 'You are clever.' Okos-ak vagytok. clever-pl be:2p 'You (plural) are clever.' Anna okos volt. Ann clever be:past.3s 'Ann was clever.' Anna okos lesz. Ann clever be:fut.3s 'Ann will become clever.' A l&ny legyen okos. the girl be:imp.3s clever 'Let the girl be clever.'

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

Non-verbal predicates

173

ii. Nominal constructions (3)

(4)

a.

Kati nyelvesz. Kate linguist 'Kate is a linguist.' b. Az-ok a nd-k nyelv6sz-ek. dem-pl the woman-pl linguist-pl 'Those women are linguists.' c. Nyelv6sz vagyok. linguist be:ls 'I am a linguist.' d. Kati nyelv6sz volt. Kate linguist be:past.3s 'Kate was a linguist.' a. Kocsis Zolt&n hires zongorista. Kocsis Zoltdn famous pianist 'Zolt&n Kocsis is a famous pianist.' b. Kosdr Piroska nagy hegedds lesz. Kos&r Piroska great violinist be:fut.3s 'Piroska Koslr will become a great violinist.' c. Ki volt a legjobb zeneszerzd ? composer who be:past.3s the best 'Who was the best composer ?'

From now on the constructions presented here will have a copula van in all cases. iii. Locative construction (5)

a.

b.

c.

A kutya a kert-ben van. the dog the garden-ines be:3s 'The dog is in the garden.' Kdlm^n-ndl vagyunk. Kdlm&n-ades be:lp 'We are with K£lm£n / at K&lm&n's place.' Mari a hiz mogott volt. Mary the house behind be:past.3s 'Mary was behind the house.'

iv. Existential construction (6)

a.

Tej van. milk be:3s 'There is milk.'

174

b.

Gondolkoz-om, tehât vagyok. think-ls therefore be:ls 'I think therefore I am.'

v. Possessive construction (7)

Feri-nek van pénz-e. Feri-dat be:3s money-3s 'Feri has money.' vi. Remote progressive construction

(8)

Anikó vâsârol-ni van. Anikó shop-inf be:3s 'Anikó is off shopping' vii. Verbal adverbial construction

(9)

II.

Az ajtó csuk-va van. the door close-adv.part be:3s 'The door is closed.' ATTRIBUTIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

Non-verbal predications can also be used attributively. Consider the following examples of an attributively used adjectival predication in (10), a possessive predication in (11), and a locative predication in (12). Copula support applies in (12) only. (10) a.

Az okos làny. the clever girl 'The clever girl.' b. A làny, aki okos the girl, which clever 'The girl, which is clever.'

(11)

A Feri pénz-e the Feri money-3s 'Feri's money.'

(12)

A kert-ben levò kutya. the garden-ines be:pr.part dog (lit. "the in the garden being dog") 'The dog in the garden.'

Non-verbal predicates

175

In English adpositional constructions can be used attributively as in 'the dog in the garden'. The Hungarian equivalent of such an expression is a construction with the present participle levò 'being' (12). Note that there is no alternative construction without the present participle in Hungarian such as, for instance (13): (13)

a. * a kert-ben kutya the garden-ines dog "The dog in the garden.' b.?*a kutya a kert-ben the dog the garden-ines 'The dog in the garden.'

According to Laczkó (ms.), constructions such as (13b) can only be used marginally.. When the head of an NP is a nominalization, modifying terms marked by a case or a postposition may precede (cf. (14a)) but also follow the head (cf. (14b)).3 For instance: (14) a.

b.

a bolt-nak a vàsàrlók àltal vaiò kirabl-às-a the shop-dat the customers by be:pr.part rob-nzn-3s 'the robbing of the shop by the customers' a bolt kirabl-às-aa vàsàrlók àltal the shop rob-nzn-3sthe customers by 'the robbing of the shop by the customers'

6.2. THE TREATMENT OF NON-VERBAL PREDICATES IN FG

The simplest case of non-verbal predicates are the adjectival predicates.4 Such predicates are represented in the following form in the lexicon: (15) a. b.

okosA (XJ)JJ 'clever' szép (xj)p 'pretty'

Expressions containing such predicates are, for instance: (16)

a.

Anna okos. Ann clever 'Ann is clever.'

176

b.

Ildikd sz6p. Ildik6 pretty 'Ildik6 is pretty.'

These expressions are formed by inserting terms into the argument positions of the predicates. However, there are other non-verbal predications which do not contain an adjectival predicate but a nominal predicate or a term. Let us assume that the predicate in example (17a) is the bare noun drajavito 'repairer of clocks', and that the predicate in (17b), the term az drajavitd 'the repairer of clocks', is a referential expression. Constructions such as (17) will be further discussed in section 6.4. below. (17) a.

b.

Pali Paul 'Paul Pali Paul 'Paul

6rajavit6. repairer of clocks is a repairer of clocks.' az 6rajavit6. the repairer of clocks is the repairer of clocks.'

In order to account for term predicates, Dik (1980) introduced the following term predicate formation rule: (18)

TERM PREDICATE FORMATION

input: any term (t) output: {(t)} ( x ^ Rule (18) accounts for Hungarian stative constructions such as (4) and (17b) but not for constructions such as (19): (19)

Jend a szobd-ban van. Jend the room-ines be:3s 'Jend is in the room.'

Dik therefore slightly modified rule (18) so that it would be possible to have expressions such as a szobdban 'in the room' in predicate position. The modification of rule (18) is (20): (20)

TERM PREDICATE FORMATION

input:

any term (t)s in which s = some semantic function, possibly empty output: {(t)J (x,).

Non-verbal predicates

177

The underlying representation of (19) may then be given as (21), in which the predicate consists of a term with the semantic function of Location. We will refer to this type of predicate as a relational predicate. (21)

{(dlxj: szobaN ( x j ) ^ } (dl^: Jend N

ty),

Recall that the semantic functions of arguments express the relation between predicate and its arguments; the semantic functions of the satellites express the relation between the SoA designated by the predicate-frame and the satellites. Consider: (22)

[ buy v ( x j ) ^ (x 2 ) Go ] A C n 0 N (y^Manner

Terms are generated independently and can be inserted into the argument and satellite slots of predicate-frames. Therefore a representation such as (23), being an independent term with a locative function, cannot be a proper representation in FG, because it does not make explicit to what the location is related (cf. Mackenzie & Hannay 1982): (23)

• (dlXji szobaN (xi))Loc 'room'

However, the predicate formation rule given in (20) is assumed to take representations such as (23) as input. The production of terms with a semantic function prior to term predicate formation thus requires an extension of the theory of FG as conceived of so far. One reason for adopting such an extension relates to the arguments put forward by Dik (1980): (i) using a verbal copular predicate, a language must delete the verb whenever the language does not employ a copula (see (2) through (4) above) - deletion, however is highly disfavoured in FG; (ii) in most languages the copula is a supportive verb, functioning as a carrier of predication operator distinctions. Furthermore, there are obvious consequences for the lexicon if we consider the copula to be a verbal predicate. Consider the expressions in (24) in English. Similar constructions in Hungarian are presented in (19) resp. (27b). (24) a. b.

The butler is in the kitchen, The poem is by Petdfi.

Assuming that be is a lexical verb, the underlying frames of (24) would be (25): (25) a. b.

be v (dlx^ butlerN (x;)),, (dlxj: kitchenN (xj))^ be v (dlx,: poemN &))„ (dl^: PettffiN (Xj))^

178

In both cases, be is a two place verb; the SoA is STATE. The second arguments cannot be considered satellites, since they cannot be omitted. Consider: (26)

a. * The butler is. b. * The poem is.

Note that the examples given in (24) are only two forms of a larger set of constructions of this type. The function of the second argument may be: Recipient, Beneficiary, Direction, Instrument etc. Consequently, all the various predicateframes should be listed in the lexicon, unless it can be made plausible that a predicate formation rule can derive them. There are at least two objections to the frames given in (25). (i) A function such as Location easily fits in with the SoA STATE but Agent (as in (25b)), of course, does not. (ii) From a semantic point of view, representations such as (25a-b) are rather strange. Both predications designate STATES, even the construction with an Agent phrase. The paraphrase of (24b) is not 'Petófi wrote the poem' (ACTION) but 'the poem is such that Petófi wrote it' (STATE). In other words, the agentive phrase by Petófi indicates a property of the poem. Frame (25b) does not account for this relation. Treating expressions such as (24) as expressions with a non-verbal predicate seems to be more appropriate, because such frames immediately account for the relation between the two entities - one designating a property of the other entity. From the discussion so far, we draw the conclusion that the approach with nonverbal predicates is to be preferred over the approach with verbal predicates. However, there still remains the question of how term predicates can have a semantic function when they are in predicate position. An answer to that question may be very simple, if we look at it in the following way: property expressions may be formed from relational expressions. By way of illustration, let us take the relation 'Source - Predicate', for instance, in the following SoA: 'to receive (Predicate) a present from someone (Source)'. The Hungarian derived property expression of such a relational expression can be in the form of an attributive construction (27a) or a predicative construction (27b). Note that Hungarian requires a copula in both cases: (27) a.

b.

a Mari-tól vaiò ajàndék the Mary-abl being present 'the present from Maiy' Az ajàndék Mari-tól van. the present Mary-abl be:3p 'The present is from Mary.'

Since the relations within relational expressions are always bound to some SoA, we might expect that the traces of those SoAs can be found in property expressions.

Non-verbal predicates

179

This is precisely what turns out to be the case. On the basis of expressions such as (27) it is possible to reconstruct SoAs - for instance, 'a present received from Mary\ If no SoA can be reconstructed, the relational expression will be odd. For instance, in relation to the predicate write, an expression such as (28a) is correct but (28b) is not because people write letters to other people and not books: (28) a. the letter to Tamils b. * the book to Tamils If we agree that property expressions can be derived from relational expressions, then there are no longer any objections to a term predicate formation rule.5 With some modification to (20), this predicate formation rule might be formulated as follows: (29)

TERM PREDICATE FORMATION

input:

some term (t)s in which s = some semantic function; s = optional output: [ {(t)J (xY)9 I s ! . ^ meaning: Term t applies to (xj), designating a property based on a relation indicated by s

We will assume that the general term predicate formation rule presented in (29) is also applicable to Hungarian.6 The introduction of copula van in Hungarian can then be accounted for by the following supportive rule: (30)

COPULA SUPPORT IN HUNGARIAN: van-support input: n predicatefl (xj) (x2) (xj conditions: 8jiV Rule does not apply if: n = Present and Indicative & fl = N, A, bare term predicate & (xj) = third person output: vanv predicateB (xx) (x2) (xj

In the remainder of this chapter we will test the validity and power of the term predicate formation rule (29) and the copula support rule (30) in Hungarian. We will present one case study and a general description of the other constructions. The case study is about the predicative verbal adverbial construction exemplified in (9) above. The general description of the constructions will be based on the typology of semantic relations in non-verbal predications as presented by Dik (1980). Dik claims that the semantic relations in non-verbal predications will be

180 determined by the nature of the predicates and the terms in Arg-1 position. He summarized these types of relation in the following way (Dik 1980: 111): (31)

SEMANTIC RELATIONS IN NON-VERBAL PREDICATIONS

type of predicate

type of argument

semantic relation

adjectival bare nominal indefinite term indefinite term definite term locative term locative term empty locative possessive term

any any definite term indefinite term any definite term indefinite term indefinite term definite term

PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT CLASS MEMBERSHIP CLASS INCLUSION IDENTIFICATION LOCATION EXISTENCE/LOCATION EXISTENCE POSSESSION

63. ADJECTIVAL PREDICATES

There is number agreement between adjectival predicates and Arg-1. Number agreement applies in all cases, regardless of copula support.7 singular (32) a. Okos-0 vagyok. clever-sg be: Is 'I am clever.' (33) a. A lâny okos. the girl clever 'The girl is clever.' (34) a. A lâny okos lesz the girl clever be:fut.3s 'The girl will become clever.'

plural b. Okos-ak vagyunk. clever-pl be:lp 'We are clever.' b. A lâny-ok okos-ak. the girl-pl clever-pl 'The girls are clever.' A lâny-ok okos-ak lesznek. b. the girl-pl clever-pl be:fut.3p 'The girls will become clever.'

Adjectival predicates in Hungarian apply to definite terms only. The semantic relation is that of PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT. Compare: (35) a.

A lâny okos. the girl clever 'The girl is clever.'

Non-verbal predicates

181

b. * Egylâny okos. a girl clever 'A girl is clever.' The semantic relation in adjectival constructions in Hungarian can be indicated as follows: (36)

SEMANTIC RELATIONS IN NON-VERBAL PREDICATIONS IN HUNGARIAN

type of predicate

type of argument

semantic relation

adjectival

definite term

PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT

6.4. NOMINAL PREDICATES AND TERM PREDICATES

Dik (1980) makes a distinction between bare nominal predicates and term predicates. Bare nominal predicates are not contained in term structures, i.e. they do not have referential potential. That is why bare nominal predicates cannot be modified by attributes, and that is why bare nominal predicates cannot occur in the plural. Dutch makes a clear distinction between bare nominal predicates and term predicates. Consider the following different, predicates: (37) a. b.

leraarN ( x ^

bare nominal predicate

{(fixj: leraarN fa),,)} (xjp

term predicate

Compare the application of predicate-frame (37a) in (38) to the application of predicate-frame (37b) in (39). The semantic relation expressed by constructions based on (37a) is the relation of PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT; the semantic relation expressed by constructions based on (37b) is the relation of CLASS MEMBERSHIP. (38)

PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT

a.

Jan John 'John b. * Jan John c. Jan John 'John

is leraar. is teacher is a teacher.' is goede leraar. is good teacher en Piet zijn leraar and Peter are teacher and Peter are teachers.'

182 (39)

CLASS MEMBERSHIP

a.

b.

c.

Jan John 'John Jan John 'John Jan John 'John

is een leraar. is a teacher is a teacher.' is een goede leraar. is a good teacher is a good teacher.' en Piet zijn leraren. and Peter are teachenpl and Peter are teachers.'

The underlying representations of (38a) and (39a) are (40a) and (40b), respectively: (4G) a. b.

Pres leraarN (dlXj: Jan N (xj))j, Pres {(ilxj: leraarN (x^)} (dlx^: Jan N (Xj))^

Before we will discuss similar constructions in Hungarian, let us first have a look at the use of the article in Hungarian.8 In Hungarian the indefinite article is used less frequently than in English. It denotes that only one among many persons or things is meant. If the person or thing is indicated in a general sense then no article is used. Compare the following pairs of expressions: (41) a.

Van egy 16gy a leves-ben. be:3s a fly the soup-ines 'There is a fly in the soup.' b. Ldgy van a leves-ben. fly be:3s the soup-ines 'There is a fly in the soup.' (42) a. Feri vett egy konyv-et. Feri buy:past.3s.lf a book-ac 'Feri bought a book.' b. Feri konyv-et vett Feri book-ac buy:past.3s.lf 'Feri bought a book.'

A difference between (41a) and (41b) is that (41a) indicates that there is just one fly in the soup, whereas (41b) does not make any reference to a particular number: there may be one but also more than one fly in the soup. We suggest that a combination of the term operators +S (specific) and -S (non-specific) together with i (indefinite) accounts for the different expressions egy legy 'a fly' in (41a) and legy 'fly' in (41b), or egy konyvet 'a book:ac' in (42a) and konyvet 'book:ac' in

183

Non-verbal predicates

(42b).9 The different underlying representations of egy legy 'a fly' (in (41a)) and legy 'fly' in (41b) may then have the following forms: (43)

a. b.

(+SilXj: 16gyN(Xj)) (-SilXji 16gyN (Xj))

===> ===>

egy 16gy 16gy

The definite article in Hungarian is used before a known and definite entity, whether the term denotes a single entity or a whole category of the same thing: (44) a.

b.

a r6zsa, amelyet vettem the rose that buy:past.ls 'the rose that I bought.' A r6zsa virdg. the rose flower 'A rose is a flower.'

(one rose)

(every rose)

The difference between the non-generic interpretation of arozsa 'the rose' in (41a) and the generic interpretation of a rozsa 'the rose' in (41b) is accounted for by the differential combination of the term operator d (definite) with +S (specific) in the former case and with -S (non-specific) in the latter case. Compare: (45) a. b.

(+SdlXj: r6zsaN (xj) (-Sdlxj: r6zsaN (Xj))

(non-generic) (generic)

Given the examples (41), (42), and (44) we conclude that terms in Hungarian can have the following types of expression: (46)

a. b. c.

no article indefinite article definite article

legy 'fly' egy legy 'a fly' a legy 'the fly'

Let us now return to nominal predications in Hungarian.10 Consider the following examples: (47) a.

J£nos tanlr. John teacher 'John is a teacher.' b. * J Inf (The RemProg operator introduces the secondary trigger Inf.) c. Inf 6nekelv (Mari)Ag Inf —> ni (Inf triggers the formal element -ni) d. 6nekelv-ni (Mari)^ Pred^ —> van (The predicate enekelni has a non-verbal status,22 that is why copula support applies.) e. vanv 6nekelv-ni (Mari)Ag

6.7. ATTRIBUTIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

We have seen that the two rules proposed in section 6.2., the term predicate formation rule (29) and the copula support rule (30) account for many

Non-verbal predicates

191

constructions in which a non-verbal predicate is used predicatively. Before we present the case study on the predicatively used verbal adverbial, we want to show that the supportive rule (30) also correctly accounts for copula support in attributive constructions. As a first type of attributive construction, consider (72), in which the non-verbal predicate is an adjectival predicate. (72)

a.

(dlx,: fiuN ft): (es: [ okosA ft) ] (ej))

b.

az okos fiu the clever boy 'the clever boy'

The configurations fiuN (xj and okosA (xj) in (72a) are non-verbal predications of the type that do not require copula support. Now consider an example with an attribute based on a relational predicate: (73)

a.

(dlXj: fm N (xj: (e,: [{(dlx^ kertN ty)^} (x.) ] (e;))) [the boy such that he is in the garden]

b.

a kert-ben levò fiu the garden-ines be:pr.part boy 'the boy in the garden'

Configuration [{(dlxj: kertN (xj))^} (Xj)] in (73a) represents a non-verbal predication of the type that requires copula support. We have seen that Hungarian indeed has copula support in cases such as (73). As a matter of fact, constructions such as (73) are ungrammatical if copula support has not been applied (cf. (14)). Expression rules account for the form of the copula, here the present participle levò. We refer to chapter 5 section 5.2.5.2. for a detailed discussion of the expression of participle constructions. We do not know how to account for the alternate expressions of the Agent phrase in constructions such as (14), here repeated as (74): (74) a.

b.

a bolt-nak a vàsàrlók àltal vaiò kirabl-às-a the shop-dat the customers by be:pr.part rob-nzn-3s 'the robbing of the shop by the customers' a bolt kirabl-às-a a vàsàrlók àltal the shop rob-nzn-3s the customers by 'the robbing of the shop by the customers'

192 The difference between the two expressions may be that the Agent phrase in (74a) functions as a restrictor of the head and in (74b) as an argument of the head. In that case the (abbreviated) underlying representations would be the following: (75)

a.

(e,: kirablfc N ( e j : .... : (e,: [{(dmxk: v ^ r l 6 N (x,))^} ( e ^ ] ( e j )))

b.

(e^ kirabl£sN (dmxk: vSsdrl6N ( x j ) ^ (ej)Go)

6,8. INTERIM SUMMARY

By way of a conclusion, we will summarize the main characteristics of the nonverbal predications discussed. The semantic relations in non-verbal predications are summarized in (7Ô).23 (76)

SEMANTIC RELATIONS IN NON-VERBAL PREDICATIONS IN HUNGARIAN

type of predicate

type of argument

semantic relation

adjectival

definite term

PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT

non-specific indefinite term

specific definite term

CLASS MEMBERSHIP

specific indefinite term

definite term

COMPARISON

non-specific indefinite term

non-specific definite term

CLASS INCLUSION

definite term

any

IDENTIFICATION

locative term

any

LOCATION

empty locative term

indefinite term

EXISTENCE

empty locative term

indefinite term + possessive restrictor

POSSESSION

6.9. A CASE STUDY: ADVERBIAL PARTICIPLE CONSTRUCTION

6.9.0.

Introduction

Participles in Hungarian fall into two major groups, adjectival participles and adverbial participles. Adjectival participles occur at the level of terms. They operate as attributes. Adverbial participles occur at the level of predications. They

Non-verbal predicates

193

combine the characteristics of verbs and adverbials, i.e. they express verbal content while modifying a verb with reference to manner or circumstance. In the sentence they function as adverbials do, and they also occur as predicates (cf. also section 4.3.2.2. above). Consider: (77) a.

b.

Az ajt6-t csuk-va, mond-t-am the door-ac close-adv.part say-past-lsg 'Closing the door, I said ' Az ajt6 csuk-va van. the door close-adv.part be:3s 'The door is closed.'

Adverbial participle constructions such as in (77) are considered embedded predications because they refer to SoAs and not to first order entities. We will refer to the construction in (77a) as the adverbial construction, and to the construction in (77b) as the predicative construction. In this case study we will be concerned with the predicative construction.24 In section 6.9.1. we will summarize some characteristics of the adverbial construction. In section 6.9.2. we will present a detailed description of the predicative construction. In the last section, 6.9.3., six possible analyses of the predicative construction will be discussed. 6.9.1. The adverbial construction The adverbial construction can have two interpretations, an imperfect interpretation and a perfect one. In the former case the construction is interpretated as describing simultaneous events. In the latter case the interpretation is either that the event expressed by the adverbial precedes the event expressed by the main verb, or that both events took place simultaneously and lasted for the same period of time. Consider: (78) a.

b.

Besz61get-ve setfil-t-unk. talk-adv.part walk-past-lp 'We walked talking.' Felbcitorod-va belep-t-iink. take courage-adv.part enter-past-lp '(After) taking courage, we entered.'

In earlier centuries the different interpretations were marked by two different suffixes, -va/-ve for the imperfect and -v4n/-ven for the perfect verbal adverbials. The form -vdn/-v6n still occurs in present-day Hungarian but is considered very archaic, for instance:

194 (78)

b'. FeMtorod-vdn

bel6p-t-unk.

take courage-adv.part enter-past-lp 'After taking courage, we entered.' We will not go into the question here of what types of predicates can occur in the adverbial construction. We will only mention that the class of verbs which can be used to form the adverbial construction is much larger than the class of verbs which can be used to form the predicative construction. Consider, for instance: (79)

a.

Besz61get-ve talk-adv.part 'They walked, b. * A gyerekek the children

s6tdl-t-ak. walk-past-3p talking.' beszelget-ve talk-adv.part

van-nak. be:3p

It seems that predicates which can occur in the predicative construction can also occur in the adverbial construction but not vice versa. A property of the adverbial construction is that one of the arguments of the verbal adverb is coreferential with one of the arguments of the matrix predicate. Consider, for instance: (80)

A szoM-ba bel6p-ve megpillant-ott-a a szobro-t. the room-ill enter-adv.part catch sight-past-3s.2f the sculpture-ac 'Entering the room, he caught sight of the sculpture.'

The coreferential argument has an anaphoric status: it is a case of 'zero-anaphora' (cf. chapter 2 section 2.3.2.). Consider (81a) and its underlying representation (81b): (81)

a.

A gyerekek besz61get-ve s6t£l-t-ak. the children talk-adv.part walk-part-3p 'The children walked, talking.'

b.

Past s6t ( x i : tej N (x,))^

The predicate in (118b) consists of an empty locative term. Arg-1 contains a referential expression. The predicative construction may now be analysed as an existential construction, in which Arg-1 contains an embedded predication. A paraphrase of the predicative construction would then be: "there is the door closed" (cf. Hannay 1985). Consider: (119)

{(0)LOC}

( e , : [" csukv

(x^AG

(x2)Go]

(EJ),

Note that the predicate is a non-verbal predicate of the type that requires copula support. So far so good. However, here we meet with similar problems as we did

Non-verbal predicates

205

in the perfect/imperfect analysis. How do we account for the expression of the Goal term by the nominative case. Moreover, a representation such as (119) fails to account for the spelling out of an argument of the embedded predication on the copula van. Consider: (120) a.

b.

Meg vagyok borotv&l-va. pf be: Is shave-adv.part 'I am shaved.' {van v ( 0 ) ^ } (e j: [borotv&v ( 0 ) ^ (dlx- [+S,-A] (xj))Go] (e^),,

We might consider the possibility of Subj assignment to an argument of the embedded predication, which is, however, a rather ad hoc solution. 6.9.3.6. Relational predicate The last analysis we will present is based on the consideration that the predicative construction is to be analysed as a circumstantial predicational term predicate. In the introduction to this case study we contrasted the constructions in (77), here repeated as (121): (121) a.

b.

Az ajt6-t csuk-va, mond-t-am the door-ac close-adv.part say-past-lsg 'Closing the door, I said ' Az ajt6 csuk-va van. the door close.adv.part be:3s 'The door is closed.'

In chapter 4 we proposed to assign constructions such as (121a) a representation, in which the first argument of the verbal adverbial is coreferential with the first argument of the main predicate; the embedded predication as a whole functions as a circumstantial satellite: (122)

Past mond v (dlx^ [+S,-A] ( x j ) ^ (ej:[n csuk v (x,) A g ( d ^ : ajt6 N (Xj)) Go ] (ej))Circ

The analysis we propose here for the other type of construction, as exemplified in (121b), relates to the representation of construction (121a) presented in (122). The construction given in (121b) can be analysed as a non-verbal predication, in which the non-verbal predicate consists of a term with the function of circumstance which contains a verbal predication. The term does not refer to an entity but to a

206 SoA ([+con], [+dyn], [±tel]). Consider (123) which is then the representation of the predicative verbal adverbial construction (121b): (123)

Pres {(e,: [Impf csukv (0)^ (xj)Go] (ei))Citc} (dUf ajt6N (xj))? [the door is in the circumstance that it has been closed]

A representation such as (123) accounts for the following properties of the predicative construction: i. there are two predications involved, an embedded predication (SoA predicate) and a main predication (non-verbal predication). ii. perfective/imperfective aspect operates at the embedded level; tense operates at the main level. iii. this type of non-verbal predicate requires copula support, which is correct. iv. the possible occurrence of manner adverbs in stative expressions. v. The affected/effected argument in the SoA predicate is coreferential with the argument of the non-verbal predicate. vi. The spelling out of Arg-1 on copula van. We still have no explanation for the fact that the Agent term position must be left unspecified. However, one of the types of adverbial construction also has this property. When the second argument of the verbal adverb is coreferential with the second argument of the matrix predicate, the agent term of the verbal adverb cannot be specified. Consider (84), for instance, here repeated as (124): (124) a. J&nos a kiiv6-t meg-dar&l-va hoz-t-a be. John the coffee-ac pf-grind-adv.part bring-past-3s.2f in 'John brought in the coffee (that was) ground.' The parallel between the adverbial and the predicative construction reinforces the view that the two types of construction should be analysed in a similar way.

6.10. CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter we have presented the typology of non-verbal predicate in Hungarian. We have claimed that all occurences of van 'be' (in both predicative and attributive constructions) can be accounted for by one rule, the copula van support rule. The rule seems to be sensitive not only to non-verbal predicates but also to non-finite forms of verbal predicates, such as infinitives. We have shown that Hungarian does not distinguish between bare nominal predicates and term predicates. We have argued that, for an account of non-verbal predications, a grammar of Hungarian can do without bare noun predicates. Instead, term predicates are used. The non-application of nominal predicates in the

Non-verbal predicates

207

construction of predications can be accounted for in the following fashion. The first argument of a nominal predicate in Hungarian must be bound by a term variable. In those cases term insertion is prohibited. In distinguishing different types of relation in non-verbal predications, we have proved term operator specificity to be relevant. We have discussed six alternative analyses of a particular construction, which involves copula van and adverbial participles. The analysis that we presented as the best analysis is based on the consideration that adverbial participles can function as predicates. This type of predicate constitutes an example of a SoA predicate, i.e. a term predicate that is specified by a predication.

NOTES

1. See also D6csy (1961), Hetzron (1970), Klemm (1956), and Sebeok (1943). 2. Sz6pe (1967) made a similar claim. He argued that van 'be' in nominal sentences of Hungarian can be considered a supportive element. However, he did not take other constructions with van 'be', such as locational, possessive, and existential constructions, into consideration. 3. See Laczk6 (1985) for details. 4. For the treatment of non-verbal predicates and copula constructions in FG we refer to Dik (1980, 1983a, 1983b), De Groot (1983a), Hengeveld (1986, 1987a, 1988b, 1989), Junger (1981), Mackenzie & Hannay (1982), Moutaouakil (1986c, 1987b), and Shiratsuki (1985). 5. We do not go into the question of what such a predicate formation rule would look like. We realize that such a rule will raise new problems, for instance: (i) what will count as the input of such a rule?, and (ii) if the input involves predicate-frames, how do we account for the deletion of the predicates of those frames, in order to arrive at the intended relational predicate in the output? 6. Terms which contain a predication may function as predicates as well. Such constructions have the following general structure: (i)

{(e 2 : [PREDICATION] ( e ^ ) }

(x^

An example of such a type of construction is the predicative use of a present participle construction. Consider (ii) and its underlying representation (iii): (ii)

Te koz6-nk val6 vagy! you among:lative-lp being be:2s [you are being toward among us] 'You belong to us !'

(iii)

{(e,: [{(dmxj: [ + S,+A] ty)Dir} ( x ^ ] (q)} (dlx,: [-S,+A] ( x , ) ) ^

We will elucidate this rather complex structure. The part between the brackets { } represents the term predicate. The term contains a predication. The other part represents Arg-1 of the term predicate. The following trigger rules apply. a. Adpositional predication {(dmxj: [ + S,+A] (Xj)) Dir ) (xk)j( requires copula support: van v {(dmxj: [+S,+A] (Xj))Dir> (xk)„

208 b. The adpositional predicate applies to x^, which is anaphorically bound. The expression of the embedded predication will therefore be a non-finite expression (i.e. participle), — > void c. The adpositional phrase will be realized as follows: Dir — > kozi\ dm [+S,+A] —> nk d. The term predication requires copula support since Arg-1 is not specified for third person but second person, —> vagy e. Personal pronoun te 'you' will be introduced, because Arg-1 has Topic function. If Arg-1 is specified for third person singular, the second instance of copula support will not apply. Consider: (iv)

7.

fl koz6-nk val6. he among-lp being 'He belongs to us.'

There is no number agreement in attributive constructions such as: (v)

az okos liny-ok the clever girl-pl 'the clever girls'

8. Cf. Dezsfl (1969:46f), Hopper & Thompson (1984: 718), Szabolcsi (1983,1985,1986: chapter 4). 9. We do not consider (42b) to be an example of noun incorporation because of the following reasons: (i) case marking on incorporate nouns is, in general, not possible; the noun in (42b) is marked by an accusative case; and (ii) it is possible to place elements between the noun and the verb, for instance: (vi)

Konyv-et nem is olvas. book-ac not also read:3s.lf 'He does not even read a book.'

10. We refer in particular to Hetzron (1970) for a discussion of the constructions that we will deal with in this section. 11. Constructions such as (47b) seems to occur in colloquial, spoken Hungarian (A. Koml6sy p.c.). 12. The English construction 'a rose is a flower' which expresses the semantic relation of CLASS INCLUSION is rendered as (52b) in Hungarian. Note the ungrammaticality of the following expressions in Hungarian. (vii)

* A r6zsa egy virig. the rose a flower 'A rose is a flower.'

(viii)

* Egy r6zsa egy virSg. a rose a flower 'A rose is a flower.'

13. We also consider the following construction to have the semantic relation of IDENTIFICATION (in which ps = possessive suffix):

Non-verbal predicates (ix)

209

Az óra a Pali-é. the clock the Paul-ps 'The clock is Paul's.'

A constituent such as Palié 'Paul's' always has two referents: (i) Paul, and (ii) the entity that belongs to Paul, like for instance in (x)

Javít-ott-am a Pali-é-t. repair-past-ls the Paul-ps-ac 'I repaired Paul's.'

We will assign the following structure to the constituent a Palié 'Paul's': (xi)

(dlx¡: * N (x¡): {(dlxj: Pali N (x¡)) Poss } (x¡))

The underlying representation of (iii) would then be: (xii)

{(dlx¡: * N (x¡): {(dl^: Pali N (x¡)) Poss } (x,))} ( d l ^ : 6ra N (x^),,

14. For a similar reason Mackenzie (1987) proposed that nominal predicates in English should be presented as zero-place predicates in the lexicon, because nominal predicates in English cannot be used predicatively. We do not follow Mackenzie, because in our opinion all predicates must have at least one argument (cf. chapter 2). Furthermore, in our analysis of the structure of terms, we have shown that nominal predicates do apply to an argument. 15. The term 'relational predicate' must not be confused with the term used by Mackenzie (1987). He uses the term 'relational predicate' to indicate predicates that designate kinship relations such as: (xüi)

father N (xx) (Xj)

16. The relation is not a relation of EXISTENCE, like in English or Dutch. (Cf. Dik 1980). 17. Cf. Clark (1978), and Lyons (1967). 18. In chapter 5 we proposed to analyse constructions such as a kerti ház 'the garden house' in a similar way, i.e. kert is presented as a restrictor of the term variable x (cf. chapter 5, ex. (86)). Consider: (xiv)

(dlx¡: ház N (x¡): kert N (x¡))

19. The theory of pronominal affixes developed by De Groot & Limburg (1986) makes it possible to propose this analysis. We also refer to: Dezsfl (1969: 81f), Szabolcsi (1981,1986, chapters 3 and 4). 20. The parallels between the existential constructions discussed in section 6.5.2. and the possessive constructions discussed in section 6.5.3. can be schematically given in the following fashion:

argument

existential construction

possessive construction

first order entity

Tej van. 'There is milk.'

Péter-nek van órá-ja. 'Peter has a clock.'

second order entity

Van mi-t en-ni. 'There is something to eat.'

Péter-nek van mi-t en-ni-e. 'Peter has something to eat.'

210 21. See chapter 1 examples (37) through (39). 22. Cf. Dik (1983). 23. They agree with the hierarchies proposed by Radics (1984) and Hengeveld (1989). 24. For discussions on forms ending in -va/-ve we refer to Beke (1913), De Groot (1987b), Jankowski (1983, 1989), Kiroly (1956), Molnir (1900), Simonyi (1907), Szepesy (1974, 1980, 1982, 1985). 25. Comrie (1976: 56): "In the perfect of result, a present state is referred to as being the result of some past situation".

Chapter 7

CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY

7.0. INTRODUCTION

In the introduction to chapter 1 we have posited that the application of a linguistic theory, such as Functional Grammar, to languages has empirical and theoretical relevance. It forces us to (re)consider the existing analyses of the data of a language and it forces us to look for new linguistic data. It also allows us to evaluate the power of linguistic theories. Along these lines we have explored the scope of a central notion in FG, the predicate-frame, by discussing relevant data from Hungarian. FG is a general theory that is applicable to the analysis of different aspects of language and language use. In FG no part of the grammar, such as a syntactic or semantic component, is deemed autonomous. The model, however, does consist of a number of components. These components do not stand on their own but are related to each other in one integrated theory. In this study we have shown that a number of explanations within different linguistic domains of Hungarian heavily depend on the notion of pridicate-frame. Predicate-frames are structures which specify the fundamental semantic and syntactic properties of predicates, such as (i) the syntactic category of the predicate, (ii) the number of its arguments, (iii) the semantic functions of its arguments, and (iv) the selection restrictions on the terms which are to fill its argument slots. Predicate-frames designate sets of States of Affairs. Predicate-frames can be applied in two different ways, (i) to build predications, and (ii) to build expressions which refer to first, second, or higher4 order entities. We have illustrated the relevance of the notion of predicate-frame to a description of Hungarian with respect to the main components distinguished in FG, the lexicon, term formation, predicate formation, function assignment and expression rules.

7.1. LEXICON

The lexicon is considered the list of all basic predicates of a language. If one wishes to construct the lexicon of Hungarian, one must know (i) the predicateframe of each predicate, and (ii) which predicates are basic predicates and which

212 predicates can be derived by productive formation rules. From discussions of the structure of predicates and the classification of predicates in the FG literature, we know that it is sometimes very difficult or even impossible to decide what frame a predicate has. That is why we have looked for principles that underlie predicate structure and for restrictions on predicate-frames and predicate formation rules. We will summarize our findings below. 1. Category of predicates. Standard FG distinguishes between the following four categories of predicates, verbal, adjectival, nominal, and term predicates. Term predicates are either basic (given as such in the lexicon) or can be created by means of predicate formation. We have argued that such a classification can be based on the applications that predicate-frames have with respect to the construction of predications and terms. Verbal, adjectival, and term predicates can be used to build predications and terms that refer to second order entities. Nominal predicates in Hungarian can only be used to construct terms that refer to first order entities. 2. Number of arguments. We have claimed that each predicate, including weather verbs, must have at least one argument. Four-place predicates seem to be rare. A test that can be of help in showing whether, in Hungarian, a term functions as argument of a predicate or as satellite of a nuclear predication has been formulated. The test is based on the consideration that all obligatory terms in perfective SoAs are arguments of a predicate. 3. Semantic functions of the arguments. We have claimed that the class of semantic functions of the argument that is most central to the predicate, i.e. first argument (Arg-1), is distinct from the class of semantic functions of other arguments. No such claim can be made for second or third arguments. The second argument of three-place predicates seems to have the function of Goal in all cases. The distribution of semantic functions over the arguments is basically determined by the type of SoA designated by the predicate-frame. 4. Selection restrictions. We have not been concerned with selection restrictions. 5. States of Affairs. We have shown that there is a close relation between the structure of predicates and the parameters determining the typology of SoAs. The parameters dynamism and momentaneousness can be associated with the predicate as being inherent features of the predicate-frame. Control and telicity can be associated with the arguments of predicates as being contingent features of the predicate-frame. A typology of predicate-frames based on this relation has been presented in chapter 2. Furthermore, we have concluded that the following constraints on the relation between these parameters and certain properties of predicates exist:

Conclusions and summary (1)

213

(i) Predicate-frames cannot be specified for both (opposite) values of inherent features (dynamism and momentaneousness); (ii) Predicate-frames cannot be specified in such a way that the same feature binds different arguments.

Together, the properties of predicate-frames and the constraints can be useful in the construction of the lexicon. Moreover, they put a limit to the possible predicate-frames in the lexicon of Hungarian.

7.2. TERM FORMATION

In FG two types of term are distinguished: basic and derived terms. Basic terms are given as such in the lexicon. According to standard FG, derived terms can be formed according to the following general schema: (2)

(ttq: ^ ( x ) : * 2 ( X j ): ...: * n (x,))

Given the distinction between expressions that refer to first order entities (which are built on nominal predicates) and expressions which refer to second order entities (which are built on predicates than other nominal predicates), we have shown that the general schema should rather be the following: (3)

(a*,: i 1 (x i ): (ne,: [ *2(x.) .... ] (e,)))

As opposed to standard FG, we consider a Xj in argument position to be an anaphor which is bound by the term variable, i.e. the first Xj binds later Xj's. The general schema given in (3) accounts for NPs that consist of a noun and an adjectival or verbal (participle) attribute, such as az okos lany 'the clever girl' or az éneklófiù 'the singing boy'. An advantage of analysing these constructions as (3) and not as (2) is the close parallel between these constructions and constructions with a relative clause. Compare: (4)

a. b.

az okos làny 'the clever girl' a làny aki okos the girl who clever 'the girl who is clever'

We have suggested that the non-application of a tense operator at the level of e, in (4a) and the application of a tense operator at the level of ^ in (4b) accounts for the difference between the two constructions. The underlying representations

214 of (4a-b) are (5a-b) respectively. Note the absence of a tense operator at the level of e{ in (5a) and the presence of a tense operator at the level of ej in (5b): (5)

a.

(dlXj: lànyN (x,): ( e j : [okosA ft),,] (e^))

b.

(dlXji lànyN (xj): (Pres e^ [okosA (x^] (e,)))

Verbal and term predicate-frames may function as the restrictor of an e variable in the same way that adjectival predicate-frames do. Nominal predicate-frames and possessive term predicates, however, cannot. These predicates cannot be used to build predications, hence in Hungarian no NPs can be formed that contain relative clauses with nominal or possessive term predications. That is why we have proposed two alternative schemas to account for these two types of NP. In case NPs involve two nouns, we have proposed to use the schema given in (2). For the second type of term, which involves a noun and a possessive restrictor, we have proposed the following general schema: (6)

(ox,:

{(fix,: [±S,±A] (x j )) Poss }(x i ))

7.3. PREDICATE FORMATION

We have interpreted predicate formation rules as rules by which we are able to construct new predicates or by which we are able to understand certain relations between predicates. The predicate formation rules we have discussed are not equally productive. In cases in which the predicate formation rules are not (fully) productive, the rules can be considered redundancy rules in the lexicon. We have discussed a great number of possible predicate formation rules in Hungarian on the basis of Dik's (1980) survey of the different sorts of effect that predicate formation rules can have on the input predicates. This survey has been shown to be very useful. Apart from the effects on the number of arguments, semantic functions shift, semantic modification, and change of the category of predicates, we have shown that the relation between the typology of SoAs and predicate-frames is also relevant in predicate formation in Hungarian. On the basis of the general properties of predicate-frames as given in section 7.1. above it is possible to formulate constraints on predicate formation rules. In standard FG, predicate formation rules are always presented as rules that take predicate-frames as input and that generate predicate-frames as output. We have presented the rules in Hungarian in the same way. However, it turned out that a classification of predicate formation rules, which involve the change of category of the predicate, can best be given on the basis of the type of output predicate. The reason for this is that the input of the predicate formation rules may sometimes consist of two or more types of predicate, whereas the output always seems to

Conclusions and summary

215

consist of just one type of predicate. This observation may be relevant from a psycholinguistic point of view, because the organization of these predicate formation rules indicates that language users may take output predicate-frames as a starting point in the process of derivation. However, it also turned out that there is not always a one to one relation between the input predicate-frames and the output predicate-frames of a predicate formation rule. The formation of denominal verbs ending in -I and -z shows a wide variety of relations between the input and output predicates. The variety of relations does not only concern aspects of meaning but sometimes also predicate structure. Instead of accounting for each type of relation between input and output, we have suggested the following alternative approach for an account of the formation of forms ending in -/ and -z. There is one global rule, the meaning definition of which is open to a number of interpretations. The output is not a predicate-frame but rather a predicate-schema. The frame of the output predicate may in principle be any possible predicate-frame which occurs in the grammar of Hungarian.

7.4. FUNCTION ASSIGNMENT

In this study, we have not been concerned with the assignment of Pragmatic functions. The assignment of Syntactic functions, however, has received considerable attention. We have raised the question whether syntactic function assignment should be interpreted in an absolute sense, i.e. whether syntactic function assignment is either relevant or not relevant to the description of languages, or in a relative sense, i.e. whether syntactic function assignment is relevant to one or some but not to all constructions in a language which designate SoAs. As for Hungarian, the results are as follows. Obj is not relevant, which is an absolute statement. Subj function is only relevant in attributive past participle constructions. Subj assignment within this type of construction is limited: Subj may be assigned to the Agent if the Agent is anaphorically bound by the term variable. Notwithstanding these limitations, Subj function has been proved to be relevant here. Altogether, then, constitutes an example of relative relevance. However, if these so-called past participle constructions can be analysed as constructions involving a parenthetical construction, Subj assignment is not relevant in the domain of participle constructions in Hungarian either. In that case we would conclude that syntactic functions are not relevant to the description of Hungarian in the absolute sense. On the basis of these investigations we claim that passive or passive-like constructions in Hungarian do not arise through syntactic function assignment but in some other way. We will mention two possibilities:

216 (i) The Goal argument of an embedded predicate is anaphorically bound. We will give two different examples. The first example concerns an attributive construction. Consider: (7)

a J&ios dltal becsukott ajt6 the John by closed door 'the door closed by John'

The second example concerns a predicative construction. When perfective aspect has been assigned, this construction has a resultative meaning. The properties of this construction have been discussed in great detail in chapter 6. Consider: (8)

Az ajt6 be van csuk-va. the door pf be:3s close-adv.part 'The door has been closed.'

(ii) The Goal argument of a predicate becomes the first argument of a predicate through predicate formation, for instance: (9)

csukv (x,)Ag (x2)Go Jdnos csukta az ajt6-t. John closed the door-ac 'John closed the door.'

—>

csuk6d(ik)v ( x ^ csukott. Az ajt6 the doonnom closed 'The door closed.'

7.5. EXPRESSION RULES

Predicate structure plays an important role in the final component of the model, the expression rule component. We will give several examples. 1. The expression of arguments. We have claimed that arguments can be overtly or covertly expressed, or can be left unspecified, according to the following general rules. The first argument of predicates must be specified. Non-first arguments may be left unspecified. The first candidate which can be left unspecified is the 'ultimate' argument of a predicate. The second candidate is the 'penultimate' argument, etc. We can say that the arguments of a predicate can be left unspecified from outermost to innermost arguments, but that the first argument cannot. Arguments that are anaphorically bound do not allow term insertion. We claim that the first arguments of nominal predicates in Hungarian are always bound by the term variable. The first argument of other types of predicate (verbal, adjectival, and term predicates) may be, but are not necessarily, bound by the term variable.

Conclusions and summary

217

2. Person marking. On the basis of the proposals of De Groot & Limburg (1986), the following central claim has been made. Person marking suffixes on verbs and nouns in Hungarian should not be considered agreement markers but referential affixes which are the spelling out of terms. These terms themselves consist of abstract predicates which are specified for person and number distinctions. Referential suffixes may be extended with pronouns and NPs. These pronouns and NPs are considered to be appositives to the referential suffixes. Since the presence of person marking suffixes is obligatory and since the presence of pronouns and NPs in apposition to these suffixes is optional, this phenomenon has been called grammatical apposition. Grammatical apposition in Hungarian occurs in constructions with verbal predicates and in constructions with possessive restrictors. We have claimed that Arg-1 of verbal predicates in finite predications and possessive restrictors of term variables must be specified by a term which consist of an abstract predicate that indicates a person. 3. Copula support. We have claimed that all occurrences of van 'be' (in both predicative and attributive constructions) can be accounted for by one rule, the copula van support rule. It seems that this rule is not only sensitive to non-verbal predicates but also to non-finite forms of verbal predicates such as infinitives. 4. Non-finite expressions. We have claimed that the following factors determine the final form in which participles in Hungarian appear: a. the presence or absence of a tense operator at the level of the embedded predication; b. the argument (first or non-first) of the embedded predicate that is anaphorically bound; c. the semantic function of the term that contains the embedded predication. 5. Expressions of the embedded Agent. Overt expression of the embedded Agent is accounted for in the following way. If the argument with Agent function of an embedded predicate is anaphorically bound, term insertion is prohibited. In that case Agent function is not expressed. If the argument with Agent function of an embedded predicate is not anaphorically bound, term insertion is possible. In case the argument is filled lexically, Agent function will be expressed. A difference between lexical agents of embedded predicates and lexical agents of main predicates is that the semantic function of Agent is expressed in the former type and not in the latter type. A functional explanation for the differential marking of Agent terms may be that terms marked with altal can be recognized as being the Agent terms of embedded predicates. In constructions with two Agent terms ambiguity does then not arise in this analysis, because the term marked with altal is the Agent term of the embedded predicate.

218 6. The choice of perfective marker. Hungarian has a great number of perfective markers. We have shown that the choice of marker is mainly determined by the semantic function of the argument that sets the terminal point in the SoA, i.e. the argument that is bound by telicity. 7. Morphological adjustment in 'raising' constructions. We have shown that displaced constituents in so-called 'raising' constructions can take on the form that is appropriate to the higher verb. Displacement is triggered by a certain constellation of pragmatic functions. Morphological adjustment applies when a displaced constituent (which is Arg-1 or the Goal argument of the embedded predicate) may function as Arg-2 of the matrix predicate itself.

7.6. CONCLUSIONS

In this study we have shown the relevance of predicate-frames to the grammar of Hungarian. The results reinforce one of the basic assumptions in FG i.e. that predicates do not stand on their own but that they are contained in predicateframes. This assumption raises a number of questions. The main questions are the following. 1. What is the frame of each predicate ? 2. If predicates always go together with their frames, how do we account for the fact that arguments may be left unexpressed ? 3. How do we account for the fact that argument positions in certain cases do not allow term insertion ? In searching for an answer to the first question, we have looked for principles that underlie predicate structure (cf. 7.1. above). In searching for an answer to the second question, we have argued (i) that the first argument of predicates must be specified, and (ii) that non-first arguments can be left unspecified from outermost to innermost arguments (cf. 7.5. above). In searching for an answer to the third question we have argued that arguments that are anaphorically bound are not open to term insertion, (cf. 7.5. above).

REFERENCES

WPFG = Working Papers in Functional Grammar. Abaffy, E. E. 1978. 'A mediáüs igékról'. Magyar Nyelv, 74, 280-293. Abondolo, D. M. 1988. Hungarian inflectional morphology. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Ackerman, F. 1984. 'Verbal modifiers as argument taking predicates: complex verbs as predicate complexes in Hungarian.' GAGL. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik, 25, 23-71. Ackerman, F. 1987. 'Pronominal incorporation: the case of prefixal adverbs.' Kenesei ed. (1987), 213260.

Anderson, J. M. 1977. On case grammar. London: Croom Helm. Anderson, S. R. 1971. 'On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation'. Foundations of Language, 7, 378-396. Aschenbrenner, K. 1978. 'The appraisive function of Hungarian verbs in -kodik, -kedik and -ködik.' Acta Lingüistica, 28, 187-239. Auwera, J. van der 1985a. 'The predicative relatives of French perception verbs'. Bolkestein, De Groot & Mackenzie eds. (1985b), 219-234. Auwera, J. van der 1985b. 'More predicative relatives in French: the Thomme que je dis qui ressemble ä un chat" construction'. Nuyts ed. (1985), 13-48. Auwera, J. van der 1988. 'Are actives and passives truth-conditionally equivalent?' I. Ruzsa & A. Szabolcsi eds. Proceeding of the '87 Debrecen symposium on Logic and Language, 9-18. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Auwera, J. van der & L. Goossens eds. 1987. Ins and outs of the predication. Dordrecht: Foris. Baboss, R. E. 1938. 'A causativ igeképzés.' A magyar nyelvtudományi társaság kiadványai, 41. Bánhidi, Z., Z. Jókay & D. Szabó 19654. Leam Hungarian. Budapest: Tankónyvkiadó. Bárcsi, G. & L. Benkö eds. 1956. Pais emlékkonyv. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Behrens, L. 1982. Zur funktionalen Motivation der Wortstellung: Untersuchungen anhand des Ungarischen. Veröffentlichungen des Finnisch-Ugrischen Seminars an der Universität München, Serie C, 13. München: Universität München. Beke, Ö. 1913. 'A -va -ve és -ván -vén képz0r0l.' Magyar Nyelvör, 42, 193-199. Beöthy, E. 1983. Hongaars. Fundaméntele grammatica voor Nederlandstaligen. Muiderberg: Coutinho. Benkö, L. & S. Imre eds. 1972. The Hungarian Language. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Bese, L., L. Dezsö & J. Gyula 1970. 'On the syntactic typology of the Uralic and Altaic languages.' L. Dezsö & P. Hajdú eds. Theoretical problems oftypologyand the northern Eurasian languages, 113128. Amsterdam: Grüner / Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Biermann, A. 1985. Possession und Zuschreibung im Ungarischen. Tübingen: Narr. Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Boas, F. (ed.) 1969. Handbook ofAmerican Indian languages. Oosterhout: Anthropological Publication (reprint of Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Buletin 40, 1911). Bolinger, D.L. 1967. 'Adjectives in English.' Lingua, 18, 1-34.

220 Bolkestein, A.M. 1983a. 'Genitive and dative possessors in Latin'. In: Dik ed. (1983), 55-91. Bolkestein, A.M. 1985. 'Discourse and Case-Marking: Three-place predicates in Latin'. In: Touratier ed. (1985), 191-225. Bolkestein et al. 1981. A.M. Bolkestein, H A . Combe, S.C. Dik, C. de Groot, J.Gvozdanovic, A. Rijksbaron & C. Vet Predication and Expression in Functional Grammar. London & New York: Academic Press Bolkestein, A.M. & R. Risselada 1985. 'De tekstuele funktie van valentie: Latijnse drieplaatsige predikaten in kontekst'. In: Dik ed. (1985), 161-176. Bolkestein, A.M. & R. Risselada 1987. 'The pragmatic motivation of syntactic and semantic perspective'. J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.) The Pragmatic Perspective, 497-512. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bolkestein, A.M., C. de Groot & J.L. Mackenzie eds. 1985a. Syntax and Pragrnatics in Functional Grammar. Functional Grammar Series 1. Dordrecht: Foris. Bolkestein, A.M., C. de Groot & J.L. Mackenzie eds. 1985b. Predicates and Terms in Functional Grammar. Functional Grammar Series 2. Dordrecht: Foris. Brand, H. 1980. 'The parameter Dynamism'. In: S. Daalder & M. Gerritsen (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1980, 172-180. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Brigden, N. 1984. 'Towards a Functional Grammar of Aspect in Finnish'. In: De Groot & Tommola eds. (1984), 179-198. Brömser, B. 1985. 'On the derivation of English compounds'. W. Kürschner & R. Vogt (eds.) Grammatik, Semantik, Textlinguistik; Akten des 19. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Vechta 1984, Band 1, 99-113. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Brown, D. 1985. 'Term operators*. In: Bolkestein, De Groot & Mackenzie eds. (1985b), 127-145. Budai, L. 1988. 'Partitivusi 6s holisztikus iränytärgy.' Magyar Nyelv, 84, 433-443. Chafe, W. L. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Clark, E.V. 1978. 'Locationals: Existential, Locative, and Possessive Constructions.' Greenberg ed. (1978), Vol. 4, 85-126. Comrie, B. 1975. 'Definite direct objects and referent identifiability.' Paper. King's College, Cambridge, England. Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, B. 1977. 'Subjects and direct objects in Uralic languages: a functional explanation of casemarking systems.' ¿tudes Finno-Ougriennes, 12, 5-17. Comrie, B. 1981. 'Direct object case-marking in Uralic languages: an explanatory model.' Congressus Qltartus International Fenno-Ugristarum, 266-269. Budapest: Akadfemiai Kiadö. Comrie, B. 1985. 'Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology1. In: Shopen ed. (1985), 309-348. Connolly, J. & S.C. Dik eds. 1989. Functional Grammar and the computer. Dordrecht: Foris. Dahl, Ö. 1981. 'On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded-nonbounded) distinction.' P. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 14. Tense and Aspect, 79-90. New York: Academic Press. Dahl. Ö. 1984. 'Perfectivity in Slavonic and other languages.' De Groot & Tommola eds. (1984), 322. Dahl. Ö. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Dalmi, G. 1981. 'A case of re-analysis in a "topic-prominent" language.' Acta Linguistica, 31, 57-85. D.Bartha, K. 1958. Magyar törtineti szöalaktan II, A magyar szökipzis törtenete. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadö. D.Bartha, K. 1980. 'Adalökok a köpzök ¿letrajzihoz. (Alak, funkciö, produktivitäs k£rd£sei a denominaüs -kodik/-kedik/-ködik k6pzö vizsgälata alapjän). Magyar Nyelv, 76, 412-427. Ddcsy, G. 1961. 'Nominalsatz und Existenzaussage im Ungarischen.' Ural-AItaische Jahrbücher, 33, 41-51. Dezsö, L. 1969. 'A fön6vi csoport.' A'ltalänos Nyelvdszeti Tanulmänyok, 6, 25-158. Dezsö, L. 1982a. Studies in syntactic typology and contrastive grammar. Budapest: Akaddmiai Kiadö.

221

Dezsfl, L. 1982b. 'Word-order typology of Hungarian attributive noun phrases.' Acta Linguistica, 32, 71-101. Dezsfl, L. & W. Nemser eds. 1980. Studies in English and Hungarian Contrastive Linguistics. Budapest: Akad£miai Kiad6. Dik, S. C. 1978a. Functional Grammar. North-Holland Linguistic Series 37. Amsterdam: North-Holland. (Third printing, 1981, Dordrecht: Foris). Dik, S.C. 1978b. Stepwise lexical decomposition. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. Dik, S.C. 1979a. 'Raising in a Functional Grammar'. Lingua, 47, 119-140. Dik, S.C. 1979b. 'Funktionele Morfologie' T. Hoekstra & H. van der Hulst eds. Morfolope in Nederland, 72-100. Glot-special, Leiden. Dik, S.C. 1980. Studies in Functional Grammar. London & New York: Academic Press. Dik, S.C. 1981. 'Over de behandeling van niet-produktieve regelmatigheden'. Forum derLetteren, 22, 29-50. Dik, S.C. 1983a. 'Auxiliary and copula be in a Functional Grammar of English'. F. Heny & B. Richards (eds.) Linguistic Categories: auxiliaries and related puzzels, vol.2, 121-143. Dordrecht: Reidel. Dik, S.C. 1983b. 'On the status of verbal reflexives'. Communication and Cognition, 16, 39-63. Dik, S.C. 1983c. 'Two constraints on relators and what they can do for us'. In: Dik ed. (1983), 267-298. Dik, S.C. 1983d. 'Gesloten relatieve konstrukties'. Handout. June 1983. Dik, S.C. 1985a. 'Formal and semantic adjustment of derived constructions'. In: Bolkestein, De Groot & Mackenzie eds. (1985b), 1-28. Dik, S.C. 1985b. 'Infinitief-Konstrukties met om in een Functionele Grammatika'. Glot, 8, 25-46. Dik, S.C. 1985c. 'Nederlandse nominalisaties in een Funktionele Grammatika'. Forum derLetteren, 26, 81-107. Dik, S.C. 1985d. 'Valentie en valentie-operaties in Funktionele Grammatika'. In: Dik ed. (1985), 95-114. Dik, S.C. 1986a. 'Lexikon en syntaxis in Funktionele Grammatika'. Glot, 9, 15-27. Dik, S.C. 1986b. 'On the notion 'Functional Explanation". Belgian journal of linguistics, 1,11-52. Dik, S.C. 1987a. 'A typology of entities'. In: Auwera & Goossens eds. (1987), 1-20. Dik, S.C. 1987b. 'Embedded predications from a typological point of view'. Paper, Institute for General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam. Dik, S.C. 1988a. 'Some developments in Functional Grammar: Predicate formation'. Paper, Institute for General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam. Dik, S.C. 1988b. 'Verbal semantics in Functional Grammar'. Paper, Institute for General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam. Dik, S.C. 1988c. 'Idioms in a Functional Grammar'. Paper, Institute for General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam. Dik, S.C. ed. 1983. Advances in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Dik, S.C. ed. 1985. "Valentie in Funktionele Grammatika'. TTT; Ttjdschrift voor Taal- en Tekstwetenschap, 5, nr. 2. Dik, S.C. & J. Gvozdanovic 1981. 'Subject and|Object in Serbo-Croatian'. In: Hoekstra, Van der Hulst & Moortgat eds. (1981), 21-39. Dik, S.C., M.E. Hoffmann, J.R. de Jong, Sie Ing Djiang, H. Stroomer & L. de Vries 1981. 'On the typology of Focus Phenomena'. In: Hoekstra, Van der Hulst & Moortgat eds. (1981), 41-74. Dowty, D.R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. ¿.Kiss, K. 1980. 'English participles and their Hungarian equivalents'. L. Dezstt & W. Nemser (eds.) Sudies in English and Hungarian Contrastive Linguistics, 63-92. Budapest: Akad£miai kiad6. ¿.Kiss, K. 1981a. 'Structural relations in Hungarian, a "free" word order language.' Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 185-312. ¿.Kiss, K. 1981b. 'Topic and focus: the operators of the Hungarian sentence.' Folia Linguistica, 15, 305-330.

222 É.Kiss, K. 1985. 'Az anaforikus névmâsok értelmezésérôl.' A 'Italânos Nyelvészeti Tanulmânyok, XVI, 155-187. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadô. É.Kiss, K. 1986. 'A személyragos fônévi igeneves szekerzetrôl.' Magyar Nyelv, 82, 393-408. É.Kiss, K. 1987. Conjigurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadô / Dordrecht: Reidel. Elekfi, L. 1956. 'Az ige alanya és az alanytalan igék.' Bârcsi & Benkfl eds. (1956), 214-220. Fabô, K. 1978. 'Gyakoritô és mozzanatos képzflk a magyar nyelvben.' Magyar Nyelv, 74, 453-464. Fabô, K. 1984. 'Az aspektus egy lehetséges formâlis definiciôja és jellemzése.' Paper. Institute of Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Fillmore, C J . 1968. 'The case for case.' E. Bach & R.T. Harms eds. Universals in Linguistic theory, 1-88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Furedi, M. 1976. 'Adalékok a magyar aktivum és passzivum leirâsâhoz esetgrammatikai keretben.' A'italânos Nyelvészeti Tanulmânyok, XI, 93-113. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadô. Gaâl, E. 1978. A birtoklâs kifejezése a mai magyar nyelvben. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadô. Galand, L. 1964. 'L'énoncé verbal en berbère: Étude de fonctions'. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 21, 33-53. Gielen, P. 1979. 'Onpersoonlijk passief in het Nederlands en enkele andere konstrukties met ef. MA Thesis, Institute for General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam. Givôn, T. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement.' Ch. Li (ed.) Subject and Topic, 151188. London & New York: Academic Press. Greenberg, J.H. ed. 1978. Universals of Human Language. (Four volumes) Stanford: Stanford University Press. Groot, C. de 1981a. 'On Theme in Functional Grammar; an application to some constructions in spoken Hungarian'. Hoekstra, Van der Hulst & Moortgat eds. (1981), 75-88. Groot, C. de 1981b. 'Sentence-intertwining in Hungarian'. Bolkestein et al. (1981), 41-62. Groot, C. de 1981c. 'The structure of predicates and verb agreement in Hungarian'. S. Daalder & M. Gerritsen eds. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1981, 149-158. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 1981. Groot, C. de 1983a. 'On non-verbal predicates in Functional Grammar: the case of possessives in Hungarian'. Dik ed. (1983), 93-122. Groot, C. de 1983b. 'Typology of states of affairs'. H. Bennis & W.U.S. van Lessen Kloeke eds. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1983, 73-81. Dordrecht: Foris. 1983. Groot, C. de 1983c. 'Verb Agreement and Ergativity in the Ugrian Languages: a Reconstruction'. Lingua, 61, 209-230. Groot, C. de 1983d. 'A Magyar nyelv és a relator elvek'. J. Andor & F. Kiefer eds. A mondât belsô rendje. Pécs: JPTE. (to appear) Groot, C. de 1984. Totally affected. Aspect and three-place predicates in Hungarian'. De Groot & Tommola eds. (1984), 133-151. Groot, C. de 1985. Predicates and features'. Bolkestein, De Groot & Mackenzie eds. (1985b), 71-84. Groot, C. de 1986. Nederlanders en Hongaren smeren niet hetzelfde'. E. Mollay (ed.) NémetalfôldiMagyar kontrasztiv filolôgiai tanulmânyok, 4-18. Budapest: ELTE. Groot, C. de 1987a. 'Predicate formation in Functional Grammar'. WPFG 20. (To appear in Acta Linguistica). Groot, C. de 1987b. 'On the predicative verbal adverbial construction in Hungarian'. Kenesei ed. (1987), 273-298. Groot, C. de 1988. Hierarchical relations and predicate structure: derivation and embedding in a functional grammar of Hungarian'. Soviet Finno-Ugric Studies, 24, 102-114. Groot, C. de 1989a. 'Morphology and the typology of expression rules.' Hannay & Vester eds. (to appear). Groot, C. de 1989b. 'Bibliography on Functional Grammar. Department for General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam. Groot, C. de & M J . Limburg 1986. 'Pronominal elements: diachrony, typology and formalization in Functional Grammar'. WPFG 12.

223

Groot, C. de & H. Tommola eds. 1984. Aspect Bound. A voyage into the realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian Aspectology. Dordrecht: Foris. Hadrovics, L. 1969. A funkcionâlis magyar mondattan alapja. Budapast: Akadémiai Kiadö. Hannay, M. 1985a. 'Inferrability, discourse-boundness, and sub-topics'. In: Bolkestein, De Groot & Mackenzie eds. (1985a), 49-63. Hannay, M. 1985b. English existentials in Functional Grammar. Functional Grammar Series 3. Dordrecht: Foris. Hannay, M. & E. Vester 1987. 'Non-restrictive relatives and the representation of complex sentences'. In: Auwera & Goossens eds. (1987), 39-52. Hannay, M. & E. Vester eds. 1989. Working with Functional Grammar: descriptive and computational applications. Dordrecht: Foris. (to appear). Heberlein, F. 1986. 'Über "Weglassbarkeit" und "Notwendigkeit" in einer lateinischen Valenzgrammatik'. P. Krafft & H. J. Tschiedel (eds.) Concentus hexachordus, 33-77. Eichstätter Beiträge 13, Regensburg: Pustet. Hengeveld, P.C. 1986. 'Copular verbs in a Functional Grammar of Spanish'. Linguistics, 24, 393-420. Hengeveld, P.C. 1987a. 'A functional analysis of copula constructions in Mandarin Chinese'. WPFG 23. Hengeveld, P.C. 1987b. 'The Spanish mood system'. WPFG 22. Hengeveld, P.C. 1988a. 'Layers and operators'. WPFG 28. Hengeveld, P.C. 1988b. 'Semantic relation in non-verbal predication'. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on FG, Amsterdam: Free University. Hengeveld, P.C. 1989. 'Non-verbal predicability.' Paper. Department of Spanish, University of Amsterdam. Hetzron, R. 1969. 'Des compléments obligatoires en hongrois.' Word, 25-111, 140-154. Hetzron, R. 1970. 'Non-verbal sentences and degrees of definiteness in Hungarian.' Language, 46,899927. Hetzron, R. 1976. 'On the Hungarian causative verb and its syntax". M.Shibatani (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 6. The grammar of causative construction, 371-398. London & New York: Academic Press. Hetzron, R. 1982. 'Non-applicability as a test for category definitions.' Kiefer ed. (1982), 131-183. Hoekstra, T., H. van der Hülst & M. Moortgat eds. 1981. Perspectives on Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Hopper, P. & SA. Thompson 1980. 'Transitivity in grammar and discourse'. Language, 56, 251-299. Hopper, P. & SA. Thompson 1984. 'The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar.' Language, 60, 703-752. Horvâth, J. 1985. Focus in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris. Horvâth, K. 1983. Transzformâciôs csoportok a magyarban. Nyelvtudomânyi Értekesések 115 sz. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadô. Ingram, D. 1978. 'Typology and universals of personal pronouns.' Greenberg ed. (1978), Vol. 3, 213247. Jackendoff, R. 1975. 'Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon.' Language, 51,639-671. Jankowski, H. 1983. 'Mégegyszer az istenadtâ-r6V Magyar Nyelv, 79, 458-461. Jankowski, H. 1989. 'A -t, -tt deverbâlis képzô szârmazékai és szôfaji hovatartozâsuk.' Magyar Nyelv, 85, 86-91. Jansen, F. 1981. Syntaktische konstrukties in gesproken taal. Dissertation. Amsterdam. Jong, J.R. de 1981. 'On the treatment of Focus phenomena in Functional Grammar'. In: Hoekstra, Van der Hülst & Moortgat eds. (1981), 89-115. Junger, J. 1981. 'Copula construction in Modern Hebrew1. In: Hoekstra, Van der Hülst & Moortgat eds. (1981), 117-134. Junger, J. 1987. Predicate formation in the verbal system of Modem Hebrew. Dordrecht: Foris. Kahrel, P. 1985a. 'Some aspects of derived intransitivity". WPFG 4.

224

Kahrel, P. 1985b. 'Afgeleide intransitieven in het Nederlands en het Engels'. In: Dik ed. (1985), 115-126. Kahrel, P. 1989. 'On the representation of the lexicon in FG.* Connolly & Dik eds. (1989) (to appear). Käroly, S. 1956. Igenivrendszerünk a ködexirodalom elsö szakaszäban. Nyelvtudomänyi 6rtekez6sek 10. Budapest: Akad6miai Kiadö. Käroly, S. 1964. 'A szök6pz6s graramatikai jelleg6röl, szuffixumfajtäk elkülönit6s6röl 6s a kgpzöproduktivitäsröl.' Nyelvtudomänyi Közleminyek, 66,189-218. Käroly, S. 1967. 'A magyar intranzitiv-tranzitiv k6pzök.' A'ltaldnos Nyelviszeti Tanulmänyok, V, 189218. Budapest: Akad6miai Kiadö. Käroly, S. 1972. 'The grammatical system of Hungarian'. In: Benkö & Imre ed. (1972), 85-170. Käroly, S. 1975. 'Aktivisch-passivische Satzrelation im weiteren Sinne und die Kasusfunktionen.' Congressus Tertius Internationale Fenno-Ugristamm, 99-104. Tallinn. Käroly, S. & Zs. Telegdi eds. 1969.A'ltaldnos nyelviszetitanulmänyok VI. Budapest: Akad&niai Kiadö. Keenan, E.L. 1987. 'Predicate formation rules in universal grammar. Universal grammar 15 essays, Ch. 10. London etc.: Croom Helm. Keizer, E. 1988. Definiteness and indefiniteness: a scalar representation.' WPFG 26. Kenesei, I. 1980. 'Sentence embedding in English and Hungarian.' Dezsö & Nemser eds. (1980), 177205. Kenesei, I. 1984. "Word order in Hungarian complex sentences.' Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 328-342. Kenesei, I. ed. 1985. Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 1; Data and descriptions. Szeged: JATE, University of Szeged.' Kenesei, I. ed. 1987. Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 2; Theories and analyse. Szeged: JATE, University of Szeged. Kiefer, F. 1968. 'A transformational approach to the verb van 'to be' in Hungarian.' J.W.H. Verhaar (ed.) The verb "be' and its synonyms, part 3, 53-85. Dordrecht: Reidel. Kiefer, F. 1981a. 'Zur semantischen Klassifizierung der ungarischen Adjektive.' Congressus Quartus International Fenno-Ugristarum, 275-286. Budapest: Akad6miai Kiadö. Kiefer, F. 1981b. "What is possible in Hungarian.' Acta Linguistica, 31, 147-185. Kiefer, F. 1983. Az elöfeltevisek elmilete. Budapest: Akad6miai Kiadö. Kiefer, F. 1984. 'A magyar aspektusrendszer väzlata.7 A 'Italänos Nyelviszeti Tanulmänyok. XV, V21149. Budapest: Akaddmiai Kiadö. Kiefer, F. 1985a. 'The possessive in Hungarian: a problem for natural morphology.' Acta Linguistica, 35, 85-116. Kiefer, F. 1985b. 'A -hat/-het k6pzö jelentdstanähoz. Az episztemikus -hat/-het.' A'ltalänos Nyelviszeti Tanulmänyok. XVI, 131-151. Budapest: Akadömiai Kiadö. Kiefer, F. 1987. 'A magyar fön6v esetei.' Magyar nyelv, 83, 481-486. Kiefer, F. ed. 1982. Hungarian linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Klemm, A. 1942. 'A magyar szenvedö ige.' Melich Jdnos emUkkönyv, 186-195. Budapest. Klemm, I. 1956. 'A ldtige mondatbeli szerepe.' Bärcsi & Benkö eds. (1956), 224-230. Komlosi, L. 1983. 'A kell morfo-szintaktikai viselkeddse 6s szörendi Összefügg6sei'. J. Andor & F. Kiefer (eds.) A mondat belsö rendje. P6cs: JPTE. To appear. Komlösy, A. 1985. 'Predicate complementation.' Kenesei ed. (1985), 53-78. Kucanda, D. 1984. 'On Subject assignment in Serbo-Croatian within the framework of Functional Grammar'. Lingua, 64, 99-114. Kucanda, D. 1987. 'On Serbo-Croation 'true' reflexives and pseudo-reflexives'. In: Auwera & Goossens eds. (1987), 77-92. Laczkö, T. 1985. 'Deverbal nouns and their complements in noun phrases'. Kenesei ed. (1985), 93116.

Laczkö, T. ms. 'Deverbälis fönevet tartalmazö fönövi csoportok a magyarban 6s az angolban.'. Lakoff, G. 1970. Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

225 Lalleman, J. 1986. Dutch language proficiency of Turkish children born in the Netherlands. Functional Grammar Series 4, Dordrecht: Foris. Lehmann, C. 1988. 'Predicate classes and participation.' Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien - Projekts, AKUP, 71, 33-77. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln. Levi, J.N. 1973. 'Where do all those other adjectives come from?' C. Coram, T.C. Smith-stark & A. Weiser eds. Papers from the ninth regional meeting Chicago Linguistic Society, 332-345. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Levin, B. 1985. 'Lexical semantics in review1. Lexicon Project Working Papers, 1. Center for Cognitive Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Limburg, MJ. 1985. 'On the notion 'relator* and the expression of the genitive relation'. In: Bolkestein, De Groot & Mackenzie eds. (1985b), 147-163. Lyons, J. 1967. 'A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences.' Foundations of Language, 3, 390-396. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Vol. 1-2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mackenzie, J.L. 1981. 'Functions and cases'. In: Hoekstra, Van der Hülst & Moortgat eds. (1981), 299-318. Mackenzie, J.L. 1983. 'Nominal predicates in a Functional Grammar of English'. In: Dik ed. (1983), 31-51. Mackenzie, J.L. 1985a. 'Nominalization and valency reduction'. In: Bolkestein, De Groot & Mackenzie eds. (1985b), 29-47. Mackenzie, J.L. 1985b. 'Genominaliseer'. In: Dik ed. (1985), 177-198. Mackenzie, J.L. 1987. 'The representation of nominal predicates in the fund'. WPFG 25. Mackenzie, J.L. & M. Hannay 1982. 'Prepositional predicates and Focus constructions in a Functional Grammar of English'. Lingua, 56, 43-57. Marâcz, L. 1984. 'The grammar of the PP in Hungarian.' MA Thesis. Dept. of general linguistics, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Meijs, W. 1985. 'Lexical organization from three different angles.' ALLC Journal (Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing), 6, 1-10. Mel'cuk, I. 1973. 'On the possessive forms of the Hungarian noun.' F. Kiefer & N. Ruwet eds. Generative grammar in Europe, 315-332. Dordrecht: Reidel. H. Molnâr, I. 1969. 'Az igei csoport, különös tekintettel a vonzatokra.' A'ltalänos Nyelvészeti Tanulmûnyok, 6, 229-270. Molnâr, J. 1900. 'a -va -ve képzô természete.' Magyar Nyelvôr, 29, 313-317. Moravcsik, EA. 1978a. 'On case-marking of objects'. Greenberg ed. (1978), Vol. 4, 249-289. Moravcsik, EA. 1978b. 'Agreement.' Greenberg ed. (1978), Vol. 4, 331-374. Moutaouakil, A. 1984. 'L'assignation du sujet en Arabe'. Paper, University Mohamed V, Rabat. Moutaouakil, A. 1985. 'La fonction d'Objet en Arabe'. Paper, University Mohamed V, Rabat. Moutaouakil, A. 1986a. 'Les constructions à montée d'objet en Arabe: approche fonctionnelle'. Paper, University Mohamed V, Rabat. Moutaouakil, A. 1986b. 'Les constructions causatives en Arabe: approche fonctionnelle'. Paper, University Mohamed V, Rabat. Moutaouakil, A. 1986c. 'Les constructions copulaires en Arabe'. Paper, University Mohamed V, Rabat. Moutaouakil, A. 1987a. 'Valency changing rules in Arabic'. Paper, University Mohamed V, Rabat. Moutaouakil, A. 1987d. 'Term-predications in Arabic: a functional approach'. Paper, University Mohamed V, Rabat. Moutaouakil, A. 1989. Pragmatic functions in a Functional Grammar of Arabic. Dordrecht: Foris. Mulder, HA. 1988. 'Non-accusative second arguments of two-place verbs in Ancient Greek.' A. Rijksbaron, HA. Mulder & G.C. Wakker (eds.) In the footsteps of Raphael Kühner, 219-236. Amsterdam: Gieben. Nedjalkov, V.P. ed. 1988. Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

226 Nuyts, J. 1988. Aspecten van een kogriitief-pragfnatische taaltheorie. Een poging tot bijdrage aan de theorievorming over de kognitie van natuurlijke taal. Diss. Antwerpen. Nuyts, J. ed. 1985. Antwerp Studies in Functional Grammar. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 39. Antwerp: Antwerp University. Nuyts, J. & G. de Schutter eds. 1987. Getting One's Words into Line. On Word Order and Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Okombo, D.O. 1983. 'Alpha vs. Non-alpha: some observations on the position of semantic functions on the SFH\ In: Dik ed. (1983), 143-154. Paul, H. 19205. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle a.S.: Max Niemeyer. Perrot, J. 1966. 'Adalékok a meg igekótd funkciójának vizsgálatához a mai magyar nyelvben.' Nyelvtudományi Értekezések, 52. Pinkster, H. 1972. On Latin adverbs. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Pinkster, H. 1984. Latijnse syntaxis en semantiek. Amsterdam: Grüner. Pinkster, H. 1986. 'Non-accusative second arguments of two-place verbs in Latin'. To appear in Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Pinkster, H. ed. 1983. Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pléh, Cs. 1982. 'Subject and topic in Hungarian: some psycholinguistic evidence to increase the confusion.' Kiefer ed. (1982), 447-465. Pléh, Cs. 1983. 'Some semantic and pragmatic factors of anaphoric interpretation in Hungarian.' Acta Lingüistica, 33, 201-211. Pléh, Cs. & K. Radies 1978. 'Truncated sentence, pronominalization and the text.' Acta Lingüistica, 28, 91-113. Prentice, D J . 1981. '"Beneficiary" in the Murut Language of Sabah'. In: Hoekstra, Van der Hulst & Moortgat eds. (1981), 191-202. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman. Rácz, E. ed. 1976. A mai magyar nyelv. Budapest: Tankónyvkiadó. Radies, K. 1980. 'Tipológia és nyelvtorténet.' Nyelvtodományi Kdzlemények, 82, 3-58. Radies, K. 1982. 'Affixed person-marking paradigms — a history and typology*. Kiefer ed. (1982), 467513. Radies, K. 1984. 'Tipológiai és grammatikai jegyzetek a nominális mondatokról.' A 'Italános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok. XV, 257-279. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Reesink, G. P. 1987. Structures and theirJunctions in Usan, a Papuan language of Papua New Guinea. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Rijkhoff, J. 1986. "Word order universals revisited: the principle of Head Proximity'. Belgian journal of linguistics, 1, 95-125. Rijkhoff, J. 1987. T h e identification of referents - a procedural model'. Paper, Institute for General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam. Rijkhoff, J. 1988. 'A typology of operators; towards a unified analysis of terms and predications'. WPFG 29. Rijksbaron, A. 1988. 'Aristotle and the classification of States of Affairs in FG: towards a new typology*. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on FG, Amsterdam: Free University. Risselada, R. 1987. 'Voice in Ancient Greek: reflexives and passives'. In: Auwera & Goossens eds. (1987), 123-136. Schlachter, W. & J. Pusztay 1983. 'Morpho-semantische Untersuchungen des ungarischen Verbalpráfixes el-'. A maj&ar nyelvtudományi társaság kiadványai, 167. Sebeok, T. A. 1943. 'The equational sentence in Hungarian.' Language, 19, 320-327. Shiratsuki, N. 1985. 'Two types of Resultative in Basque and their non-aspectual meanings'. In: Bolkestein, De Groot & Mackenzie eds. (1985b), 183-202. Shopen, T. ed. 1985. Language typology and syntactic description, Part III. Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

227 Simonyi, Z. 1907. 'irva van, irva volt, irva lesz.' Magyar Nyelvör, 36, 385-397. Simonyi, Z. 1930. 'A magyar gyakoritô és mozzanatos igék képzése.' Nyelvtodomänyi Kôzlemények, 26, 237-269. Stephanides, É.H. 1980. 'A contrastive study of the English and the Hungarian infinitive'. Dezsö & Nemser eds. (1980), 93-144. Szabô, L. 1966. 'Sätze mit faktitiven Verben im Ungarischen.' Lingua, 17, 410-420. Szabolcsi, A. 1981. 'The possessive construction in Hungarian: a configurational category in a nonconfigurational language.' Acta Linguistica, 31, 261-289. Szabolcsi, A. 1983. 'A specifikus/nem specifikus megkiilônbôztetésrôl.' Nyelvtodomänyi Kôzlemények, 85, 83-91. Szabolcsi, A. 1985. 'Puszta fônév a fokuszban, avagy az elsörendil predikitumkalkulus csapdâja.' A'ltalänos Nyelvészeti Tanulmänyok. XVI, 229-250. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadô. Szabolcsi, A. 1986. A birtokos szerkezet és az egäsztenciälis mondatok. Diss. Linguistic Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Szepesy, Gy. 1974. 'A lenni + -va, -ve igeneves szerkezet funkciôi'. Nyelvtudomânyi Értekezések, 83, 593-597. Szepesy, Gy. 1980. 'A lenni + -va, -ve igeneves szerkezet csonka vâltozatai'. Nyelvtudomânyi Értekezések, 104, 739-743. Szepesy, Gy. 1982. 'Isten-adta, madâr-lâtta.' Magyar Nyelv, 78, 52-67. Szepesy, Gy. 1985. 'Nekünk gyermek isten adta.' Magyar nyelv, 81, 210-213. Szépe, Gy. 1967. 'Megjegyzések a nominâlis mondatrôl.' A 'Italânos Nyelvészeti Tanulmänyok. V, 269285. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadô. Tompa, J. 1968. Ungarische Grammatik. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadô. Tompa, J. 1982. 'A mai magyar dativus és genitivus alak- és mondattanâhoz.' A'ltalänos Nyelvészeti Tanulmänyok. XIV, 127-141. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadô. Vago, R. M. 1980. The sound pattern of Hungarian. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Vendler, Z. 1967. 'Verbs and times'. In: Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 97-121. Verkuyl, H. J. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel. Vester, E. 1983. Instrument and Manner Expressions in Latin. Assen: Van Gorcum. Vester, E. 1985. 'Agentless passive constructions'. In: Touratier ed. (1985), 227-239. Vet, C. 1980. Temps, aspect et adverbes de tempes en français contemporain. Geneve: Droz. Vet, C. 1981. 'Subject assignment in the impersonal constructions of French'. In: Bolkestein et al. (1981), 143-163. Vet, C. 1983. 'Possessive constructions in French'. In: Dik ed. (1983), 123-140. Vet, C. 1985. 'Passive, reflexive and causative predicate formation in French'. In: Bolkestein, De Groot & Mackenzie eds. (1985b), 49-69. Vet, C. 1986. 'A pragmatic approach to tense in Functional Grammar'. WPFG 16. Vet, C. 1987a. 'Incorporation et grammaticalisation: verbes de mouvement et verbes de perception'. B. Kampers-Manhe & C. Vet (eds.) Études de linguistique française offertes à Robert de Dardel par ses amis et collègues, 177-192. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Vet, C. 1987b. 'Infinitive incorporation'. In: Auwera & Goossens eds. (1987), 163-177. Villô, I. 1980. The interrelationship between affected objects and adverbials of direction.' Acta Linguistica, 30, 25-62. Voogt-van Zutphen, H. 1987. 'Constructing an FG lexicon on the basis of LDOCE'. WPFG 24. Vries, L. de 1983. "Three passive-like constructions in Indonesian'. In: Dik ed. (1983), 155-173. Wacha, B. 1976. 'Az igeaspektusrôl.' Magyar Nyelv, 72, 59-69. Wacha, B. 1978. 'Az igés-szerkezeti aspektus kategôriâja a magyar nyelvben'. MA Thesis, Szombathely. Watters, J.R. 1979. 'Focus in Aghem: a study of its formal correlates and typology". L.M. Hyman ed. Aghem grammatical structure. SCOPIL 7, 137-197. ULCA, Los Angeles.

228

Watters, J.R. 1985. 'The place of morphology in FG: the case of the Ejagham verb system'. In: Bolkestein, De Groot & Mackenzie eds. (1985b), 85-104. Workgroup on Functional Grammar 1981. 'On the Functional Grammar of Teaching Verbs'. In: Hoekstra, Van der Hulst & Moortgat eds. (1981), 203-231. Zolnay, Gy. 1926. 'Mondat4tszov«d6s.' trtekezisek a Nyelv- is Sziptudomdnyok Kdribdl, 23/8. Zsilka, J. 1981. Dialectics of the motion forms in language. Budapest: Akad6miai Kiad6.

Index of authors

Abaffy, E.E. 129,140,168 Abondolo, D.M. 27 Ackermann, F. 65 Anderson, J.M. 64 Anderson, S.R. 168 Aschenbrenner, K. 169 Auwera, J. van der 27, 129 Baboss, R.E. 168 Bänhidi, Z. 27, 120 Behrens, L. 27 Benkfl, L. 27 Beke, Ö. 210 Beöthy, E. 27 Biermann, A. 27, 65, 86, 94 Bloomfield, L. 75 Boas, F. 93 Bolinger, D.L. 63 Bolkestein, A.M. 27, 63, 65, 94, 129 Brand, H. 64 Brigden, N. 64 Brömser, B. 168 Brown, D.R. 27 Budai, L. 168 Chafe, W.L. 64 Clark, E.V. 209 Corarie, B. 7, 28, 30, 137, 203, 210 Connolly, J. 27 D.Bartha, K. 27,135,168,169 Dahl, Ö. 27,64 Dalmi, G. 94 Ddcsy, Gy. 207 Dezsö, L. 7, 9, 27, 30, 64, 117, 129, 156, 157, 168,169,172, 208 Dik, S.C. 1, 3, 5, 12, 13, 22, 26-29, 36, 63-65, 91, 95,96, 103, 106, 129, 132, 137, 141,145, 166, 168, 171, 176, 177, 179, 187, 207, 209, 210, 214 Dowty, D.R. 64 ¿.Kiss, K. 27,30,94,129

Fab6, K. 64,168 Fillmore, ChJ. 102 Füredi, M. 129 Gail, E. 94 Galand, L. 94 Gielen, P. 129 Givön, T. 69 Goossens, L. 27 Groot, C. de 17, 24, 27, 29, 30, 39, 40, 47, 56, 63-65, 68-71, 92-94, 132, 144, 168,187, 189, 207, 209, 210, 217 Gvozdanovic, J. 129 Hadrovics, L. 27 Hannay, M. 27,28,75,108,129,177,187,204, 207 Heberlein, F. 45 Hengeveld, P.C. 27, 33, 63, 65, 88, 207, 210 Hetzron, R. 27, 55, 65, 168, 186, 207, 208 Hoekstra, T. 27 Hopper, P. 168,208 Horväth, J. 27,129 Horväth, K. 168 Imre, S. 27 Jackendoff, R. 168 Jankowski, H. 129,210 Jansen, F. 93 Jökay, Z. 27, 120 Jong, J.R. de 28 Junger, J. 27, 63, 149, 167, 168, 207 Kahrel, P. 27,63,133,168 Käroly, S. 27,129,134,168,210 Keenan, E. 168 Keizer, E. 27 Kenesei, I. 27,129 Kiefer, F. 7, 16, 27, 64, 88, 94, 171, 172 Klemm, A. 129 Klemm, I. 207 Komlösi, L. 88,94 Komlösy, A. 48, 54, 59, 65, 116,147, 195, 208

230 Kucanda, D. 129 Laczkô, T. 158, 169, 175, 207 Lakoff, G. 64 Lalleman, L. 27 Lehmann, Ch. 64 Levi, J.N. 63 Levin, B. 64 Limburg, MJ. 68-71,92-94,217 Lyons, J. 63,64,209 Mackenzie, J.L. 63, 76, 168, 177, 207, 209 Mariez, L. 17 Meijs, W. 133 Melcuk, I A. 94 Molnâr, LH. 65, 168 Molnâr, J. 210 Moravcsik, HA. 20,30 Moutaouakil, A. 27, 63, 129,168, 207 Mulder, HA. 63 Nemser, W. 27, 129 Nuyts, J. 27 Okombo, D.O. 56, 63 Paul, H. 69 Perrot, J. 65 Pinkster, H. 63, 65, 75 Pléh, Cs. 65 Pusztay, J. 65 Quirk, R. 75,93,94 Râcz, E. 27, 120, 134, 168 Radies, K. 65, 120, 210 Reesink, G.P. 27 Rijkhoff, J. 22,27 Rijksbaron, A. 64 Risselada, R. 65,129 Schlachter, W. 65 Schutter, G. 27 Sebeok, ThA. 207 Shiratsuki, N. 201,207 Simonyi, Zs. 210 Stephanides, É.H. 108, 129 Szabô, D. 27, 120 Szabô, L. 168 Szabolcsi, A. 27,85,86,94,208 Szépe, Gy. 172,207 Szepesy, Gy. 129, 210 Telegdi, Zs. 27 Thompson, S. 168, 208 Tompa, J. 16, 27, 94, 134, 147, 155, 161, 168, 185 Vago, R.M. 27,79 Vendler, Z. 64 Verkuyl, H J . 64

Vester, E. 27,39,64,75,129 Vet, C. 33, 63, 64, 94,129, 168 Villô, I. 65, 168 Voogt-van Zutphen, H. 63 Vries, L. de 129 Wacha, B. 64 Watters, J.R. 27,28 Zolnai, Gy. 129 Zsilka, J. 168

Index of Topics

Absolute construction 114 Accusative 198 Addressee 72 Adhortative 10 Adposition 16, 91 Adverb 34 Affected 41, 57, 144 Agent 55, 57, 81, 119, 120,197, 198, 201, 217 - phrase 116, 129, 191, 195, 201 Affected - 57 Non-affected - 57 Agreement 19, 22, 67, 69, 96, 180, 184 - marker 68 Anaphor 48, 49, 65, 74, 115, 129, 194, 216 Apposition 75 Grammatical - 78, 79, 90, 91, 121,123,189 Non-restrictive - 75-78 Restrictive - 75, 77, 78 Argument 31, 43-45, 200 Expression of - 47, 216 First - 49,55,56,81,103,110, 111, 113,142, 143, 150,159,168, 204 Non-first - 143 Number o f - 44,196,212 Second - 52,57,103,113 Third - 59, 112 Unspecified - 45, 49 Article 108, 182 Definite- 183 Indefinite- 182-184 Aspect 7, 18, 109 Attributive 172, 174, 175, 178, 190-192, 213 Auxiliary 19 Cardinal 18 Case 16,17,29,92 - marking 16 Categoria! change 146 Causative formation 55, 137, 168 Causee 55, 56,137, 168

Causer 137 Circumstantial predicational term predicate 205 Circumstantial satellite 115, 205 Class inclusion 185, 208 Class membership 181, 185 Clitic 73 Cliticization 69, 70 Comitative 58 Comparison 185 Completeness 144 Conjugation 19, 117 Content word 48 Continuity Hypothesis % Control 6, 39, 40, 56, 163, 1% Controller 138 Coordination of terms 76, 77 Copula 34, 108, 109, 158, 171, 172, 178, 179, 187, 190 Copula support rule 179, 217 Coreferentiality 110, 111, 113-115, 152, 194, 195, 205, 206 Cross-reference 19 De-adjectival verb formation 138 Definite 18-21, 30, 82, 101, 183,185, 186 Deictic 74 Deletion 68 Denominal adjective 155 Derived adjectival predicate 149 Derived nominal predicate 159 Derived stative 168 Derived verbal predicate 147 Determiner 18 Detransitivization 140 Direction 57,59 Displacement 60, 65, 89, 104-107, 129 Dummy 25, 104, 105 Dynamism 6, 38, 56, 162, 196

232 Entity First order - 33,35,103,106,107,159,160, 189, 193 Second order - 33, 35, 103, 106, 189 Existential 108, 187 Expression rule 12, 13, 28, 29, 73, 152, 153, 159, 216 Feature Contingent - 40, 163 Inherent - 40, 43, 162 Focus 10,24,25,28,105,129 Force 55,198 Functional Grammar Organization of a - 3 Functional pattern 24, 86, 105 Fund 3 Future 8,9 Generic 183 Goal 57, 82, 118, 159, 197, 198 Habitual 8 Holistic reading 144 Identification 208 Illocution 19 Imperative 9 Imperfect 193,203 Imperfective 7-9, 27,136, 152, 153, 196, 203 Incorporation Goal- 118 Noun - 208 Indefinite 21, 101, 182, 184-186 ^identification 186 Infinitive 28,88-90,107-112,190 Instigator 55 Intonation 26 Lexicon 3, 5, 31, 131, 134, 177, 211 Mental- 133 LIPOC 24, 25 Location 58, 59 Manner 58 Masking of semantic function 121 Meaning definition 135 Momentaneousness 6, 39, 162, 196, 199 Mood 18,88-90,109,153 Morphological adjustment 105, 106, 218 Morphological variation 135, 169 Morphology Derivational - 167 Inflectional - 167 Nominalization 90, 97, 124, 159, 161, 175 Non-finite expression 217 Non-generic 183

Non-proximate 18 Non-specific 35, 182-185 Object 23, 95-97, 106 Operator 43 Aspectual - 149 Illocutionary - 9 Predication - 6, 27, 203 Tense- 36,150,152,213 Term - 5, 18, 27,101,182-184 Parenthetical construction 119, 123 Participle 84, 113, 213 Adjectival - 113, 117, 149, 192 Adverbial - 113,114, 119, 192 Adverbial - construction 192 Future- 113,124 Past - 84,113,117,151,152 Present - 113,117,150,175 Passive %, 98, 115, 129, 195, 200, 215 Impersonal - 101 Personal - 101 Past 8 Perfect 193,203 Perfect of result 203 Perfective 7, 9, 27, 42, 46, 51, 136, 144, 151-153, 203, 216 - marker 42, 43, 47, 64, 65, 199, 218 Person 50 - marking 67, 79, 159, 217 Nominal - marker 79,84,88,90,91 Participial verbal - marking 120 Representation of - 72 Verbal - marker 79,81,84 Perspective 95, 121, 123, 129, 201 Phonological variation 135 Plural 18 Positioner 55, 81 Possessive 21,79,84,86,90,117,120,188,189, 208,214 Possessor 71, 79, 159 Appositive - 87, 189 Postposition 17, 24, 29, 92 Pragmatic function 10, 215 Predicate Abstract - 68, 72-74 Adjectival - 32, 34, 35, 109, 139, 175, 180 Adverbial- 202,203 Basic - 4,131,164 Categorial change of - 146 Category of - 32, 212 Derived - 4, 131, 164 Features of - 40

233 Four-place - 54, 168 Locational - 34, 187 Nominal - 32, 34, 35, 109, 160, 176, 181, 184 Non-verbal - 103, 108, 171, 175 One-place - 56, 81, 148,159, 197-199, 202 Possessive - 188 Relational - 177, 187, 205, 209 Temporal - 34 Term- 176,181,184 Three-place - 41,42,47,52,53,65, 111, 197, 199 Two-place - 41, 111, 129,148,159,197,199, 202 Verbal- 35,103,139,160 Zero-place - 50,51,209 Predicate formation 4, 43, 131, 134, 214 Input 137, 146 Output 146 Predicate formation rule 137, 207 Abstract noun - 161 Argument reduction - 51 Causative- 138 Comparative - 139 De-adjectival intransitive - 164 De-adjectival transitive - 139, 164 Denominai verbal - 149 Diminutive - 145 Habitual property - 155 Intransitive - 140 Modal adjective - 154 Reflexive/reciprocal - 141 Resultative noun - 161 Term - 6,176,179 Valency rearrangement - 145 Virtual- 155 Predicate-frame 3, 31, 43, 177, 212, 218 Typology of - 61 Predicate-schema 149 Predication 5, 6, 33, 34 Embedded- 103 Finite embedded - 97, 103 Fully specified - 11 Main- 97,98 Nominal - 63 Non-finite embedded - 97,107 Non-verbal - 22 Semantic relations in non-verbal - 180 Predicative 172, 178 Prefield-type 22 Preposition 17

Present 8 Privative 154 Process 81, 165 Processed 55, 197, 198 Affected - 57 Non-affected - 57 Progressive 7, 27 Remote - 8, 28, 108, 190 Pronoun 67, 73 Personal - 68, 72 Property assignment 180,181 Property expression 178 Recipient 59 Reciprocal 141, 142 Recoverability 87 Redundancy rule 134 Referential affix 68,73 Typology of - 80 Referring expression 32, 34 Reflexive 141,142,198 Reflexivization 141 Relational expression 178 Relative clause 36, 149, 150, 158, 188, 213 Non-restrictive - 75 Restrictive - 75 Relator 23 Restrictor 36, 214 Possessive - 214 Resultative 60, 65, 216 Satellite 31, 43-45, 104, 200 Scrambling 30 Semantic function 55, 71, 81, 177, 196, 212 -shift 142 Semantic Function Hierarchy 96 Semantic modification 145 Semelfactive 200 SoA-existential 108, 204 Source 59 Speaker 72 Specific 182,183,185 State of Affairs 6, 38, 95, 97, 107, 120, 138, 151,162,177,178,193,196,197,200-202,212 Stress 26 Word - 29 Subject 23, 95-97, 120, 201 Subject assignment 201 Syntactic function 11, 71, 215 Tail 10,70,77 Telicity 6, 39, 41, 42, 46, 56, 64, 65, 145, 163, 196, 197 Tense 8, 18

234 Term 5,85,177 - formation 5, 213 - structure 27, 32 Basic - 5,72 Derived - 5 Headless- 108 Unspecified - 206 Terminal point 46, 52, 197, 198 Theme 10, 70, 77 Topic 10, 24, 28, 105 Translative 58 Trigger 73 Valency extension 137 Valency reduction 140, 168, 201 Verb Finite - 81 Phasal - 112 Verbs - of considering and naming 59 - of perception and cognition 111, 163 - of teaching 52 - of volition and perception 110, 112 - of willing and wishing 10 Weather - 50,51 Voice 18, 96, 121-123 Word order 22, 30, 85, 105 Zero 55