Word order in Hungarian exclamatives

Surányi, Balâzs

doi:10.1556/aling.53.2006.4.2

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It appears that the effect of Role described above is more compatible with a hierarchical VP, proposed in Surányi (2006) and É. Kiss (2008), where the base positions of subjects c-command those of objects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Scope marking and prosody in Hungarian

Gyuris

Jackson

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents an analysis of the results of three perception experiments that aimed to investigate the scope of postverbal quantifiers in Hungarian. These experiments found no correlations between wide vs. narrow scope readings of postverbal quantifiers and their stressed vs. unstressed pronunciations, contradicting a widespread assumption. In addition to the dominance of scope interpretation that corresponds to the linear order of constituents, previously unnoticed effects of the syntactic or thematic role of the postverbal quantifier and of the type of preverbal operator in the same sentence were found. These might indicate a more complex interaction of several factors or point to a greater role of extra-grammatical effects in determining the scope of quantifiers in Hungarian than previously assumed. The paper also addresses methodological issues that arise in the course of eliciting scope judgments experimentally.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Scope marking and prosody in Hungarian

Gyuris

Jackson

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These tests however yield varied results, with some supporting a symmetrical and others and an asymmetrical structural analysis. Some of this evidence will be presented here, but for a more detailed discussion the reader is directed to Surányi (2006b); É. Kiss (2008).…”

Section: Post-verbal Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sentence in (28-a) is grammatical, because the anaphor in the object position is properly c-commanded, however the sentence in (28-b) is ungrammatical, supposedly because the anaphor in the subject position is not properly c-commanded by the antecedent in the object position. Hungarian sentences and judgements were taken from Surányi (2006b). This type of contradictory evidence has lead to two main theories being developed regarding the structure of the Hungarian VP.…”

Section: Post-verbal Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

The syntax and prosody of the post-verbal domain in Hungarian

Szalontai¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigates the syntactic and prosodic realisation of focus and givenness in the post-verbal domain of Hungarian. Two series of experiments were run, the first tested subjects' word order preferences of given and focused constituents, while the second set examined the prosodic realisation of these items. As opposed to the pre-verbal domain, word order in the post-verbal domain is relatively free. While the pre-verbal domain has been highly studied the post-verbal domain remains relatively under studied, non-the-less, due to the freedom of word order it provides and ideal place to investigate the interaction of word order, prosody and information structure.The word order experiments consisted of three types of focus constructions: (i) simple postverbal focus, (ii) post-verbal focus marked with the particle is 'also' and (iii) double focus constructions. In terms of givenness there were also three types, (i) simple textual givenness, (ii) items that were both textually given and marked as topics, and (iii) items that were textually given as well as forming the background of a pre-verbal focus. All experiments in the first set were conducted using the two-way forced choice paradigm, with 16 target sentences and a total of 362 participants. The results indicate that participants preferred to place focused constituents in the immediately post-verbal position as opposed to the clause final position in the case of all three post-verbal foci. In the case of givenness, simple textual givenness did not have an effect on word order, while constituents that were both given and marked as topics, or given and formed the background of a pre-verbal focus were preferred in the immediately post-verbal position, as opposed to the clause-final position, just like focused items. While the tendencies observed were clear it is obvious that word order choices reflected preferences, and not strict, grammatical differences as in the pre-verbal domain.The second set of experiments were run to gain an understanding of the prosodic realisation of post-verbal foci and given constituents, there were again three types of foci, and two types of givenness: simple and backgrounded. There were 4 target sentences in three repetitions, and a total of 42 participants. The parameters considered were f0 maxima, minima and range, as well as the placement of f0 maxima within accented syllables, duration and intensity.The results indicate that there was no effect of givenness in either of its forms tested on the acoustic realisation of constituents. In terms of post-verbal foci however, there were significant differences: if a focused item occurred in the clause final position it was marked by parameters (f0 maxima, duration), than if it occurred in the immediately post-verbal position as compared to the baseline neutral controls. In terms of phrasing: boundaries between the two post-verbal constituents were present both if the immediately post-verbal constituent was in focus, and iv when the clause-final constituent was in focus.It is p...

show abstract

“…While it has a configurational VP, the impression of free word order is created by (i) a free scrambling operation that can move arguments around (Surányi 2006b), (ii) the language's discourse configurational nature, which means that Hungarian makes use of an articulated left periphery to which focus and topic as well as quantificational material move (É. Kiss 1995, Szabolcsi 1997, and (iii) the relatively free ordering of postverbal elements in many contexts (É.…”

Section: The Clause Structure Of Hungarian: a Syntactic Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The syntax of emphatic positive polarity in Hungarian: Evidence from ellipsis

Lipták¹

2013

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Word order in Hungarian exclamatives

Cited by 10 publications

References 17 publications

Scope marking and prosody in Hungarian

Scope marking and prosody in Hungarian

The syntax and prosody of the post-verbal domain in Hungarian

The syntax of emphatic positive polarity in Hungarian: Evidence from ellipsis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About