Similarities and differences between two Hungarian particles for also: szintén and is
Judit Farkas
University of Pécs , HungaryBettina Futó
University of Pécs , HungaryAliz Huszics
University of Pécs , HungaryJudit Kleiber
University of Pécs , Hungaryhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7571-6949
Mónika Dóla
University of Pécs , HungaryGábor Alberti
University of Pécs , Hungaryhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8907-0715
Abstract
The paper provides a comparative analysis of the syntax, semantics and pragmatics of two Hungarian particles with the same logical core meaning also: is and szintén. The analysis yields important theoretical implications since it demonstrates how two particles sharing the same logical-propositional/truth-functional core meaning can expand into two different markers. In discourse, is acts as an intensional/metacognitive pragmatic marker in the sense as proposed by Aijmer et al. (2006), while szintén functions as a coherence-signaling discourse marker. The two particles share certain syntactic-semantic properties: neither of them can be followed by a topic, they both have distributive meaning, and both of them can pertain to the noun phrase that they immediately follow, as well as to ordered n-tuples of noun phrases. However, there are also syntactic and pragmasemantic differences between them. Namely, their ordered n-tuples have different word orders; is can function as a pragmatic marker while szintén cannot; szintén can appear as a separate clause, while is cannot (this is presumably related to the fact that szintén can be stressed, while is is obligatorily unstressed); and finally, szintén can have a peculiar discourse-preserving function. We explain the syntactic differences between the two particles using the partial spell-out technique of minimalist generative syntacticians (first applied to Hungarian by Surányi 2009), and the Cinque-hierarchy-based approach to Hungarian sentence- and predicate-adverbials (Surányi 2008). We account for the pragmasemantic properties of the pragmatic-marker variant of is in the formal representational dynamic theory of interpretation called ReALIS, already presented in the LingBaW series (Alberti et al. 2016, Kleiber and Alberti 2017, Viszket et al. 2019).
Keywords:
particles, distributive meaning, Hungarian, pragmatic and discourse markersReferences
Aijmer, K., A. Foolen, and A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen. 2006. Pragmatic markers in translation: A methodological proposal. Approaches to Discourse Particles 1: 101–114.
Alberti, G. 2000. Lifelong discourse representation structures. Gothenburg Papers in Computational Linguistics 00–5: 13–20.
Alberti, G. 2011. ReALIS. Interpretálók a világban, világok az interpretálóban [Interpreters in the World, Worlds in the Interpreter]. Budapest, Hungary: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Alberti, G., M. Dóla, E. Kárpáti, J. Kleiber, A. Szeteli, and A. Viszket. 2019a. Towards a cognitively viable linguistic representation. Argumentum 15: 62–80.
Alberti, G., M. Dóla, E. Kárpáti, J. Kleiber, A. Szeteli, and A. Viszket. 2019b. Kérdéses világaink [Our Worlds in Question(s)]. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat [Meaning and Language Use] 6: 11–35.
Alberti, G., and J. Farkas. 2018. A syntactic solution to the inverse-scope puzzle and the contrastive VP-focus construction in Hungarian based on extraction. In A. Bloch-Rozmej and A. Bondaruk (eds.), Studies in Formal Linguistics, 35–54. Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang.
Alberti, G., and J. Kleiber. 2015. ReALIS: Discourse representation with a radically new ontology. In L. Veselovská and M. Janebová (eds.), Complex visibles out there: Olomouc modern language series 4, 513–528. Olomouc, Czech Republic: Palacký University.
Alberti, G., J. Kleiber, Zs. Schnell, and V. Szabó. 2016. Intensional profiles and different kinds of human minds: “Case studies” about Hungarian imperative-like sentence types. Linguistics Beyond And Within 2: 6–26.
Andor, J. 2011. Reflections on Speech Act Theory: An interview with John R. Searle. International Review of Pragmatics 3: 1–12.
Bánréti, Z. 1992. A mellérendelés [Coordination]. In F. Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 1 [A Structural Grammar of Hungarian 1], 715–796. Budapest, Hungary: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Brody, M. 1990. Remarks on the order of elements on the Hungarian Focus Field. In I. Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian 3, 95–121. Szeged, Hungary: JATE.
É. Kiss, K. 1992. Az egyszerű mondat szerkezete [The structure of the simple clause]. In F. Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 1 [A Structural Grammar of Hungarian 1], 79–177. Budapest, Hungary: Akadémiai Kiadó.
É. Kiss, K. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
É. Kiss, K. 2009. Is free postverbal order in Hungarian a syntactic or a PF phenomenon? In N. Erteschik-Shir and L. Rochman (eds.), The sound pattern of syntax, 53–71. Oxford, UK and New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Farkas, D. and F. Roelofsen. 2017. Division of Labor in the Interpretation of Declaratives and Interrogatives. Journal of Semantics 34: 237–289.
Farkas, J. and G. Alberti. 2017. The Hungarian HATNÉK-noun expression: A hybrid construction. In A. Bloch-Rozmej and A. Bondaruk (eds.), Constraints on structure and derivation in syntax, phonology and morphology, 71–100. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Fischer, K. 2006. Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: Introduction to the volume. In K. Fisher (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 1–20. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Futó, B. 2020. A logikai is-től a pragmatikai is-en át a metakognitív is-ig [From the logical is through the pragmatic is to the metacognitive is]. In G. Böhm, D. Czeferner, and T. Fedeles (eds.), Specimina Operum Iuvenum 6, 13–49. Pécs, Hungary: PTE BTK Scientific Students Circle.
Grohmann, K. K. 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Linguistik Aktuell 66. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Huszics, A. 2020. Szintén [Also]. In G. Böhm, D. Czeferner, and T. Fedeles (eds.), Specimina Operum Iuvenum 6, 50–84. Pécs, Hungary: PTE BTK Scientific Students Circle.
Kamp, H., J. van Genabith, and U. Reyle. 2011. Discourse representation theory. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic 15, 125–394. Berlin: Springer.
Kleiber, J. and G. Alberti. 2017. Compositional analysis of interrogative imperatives in Hungarian. Linguistics Beyond And Within 3: 117–135.
Lauer, S. 2013. Towards a dynamic pragmatics. Ph.D. diss. Stanford University.
Leiss, E. 2014. Modes of modality in an Un-Cartesian framework. In S. Cantarini, W. Abraham, and E. Leiss (eds.) Certainty-uncertainty – and the attitudinal space in between. Studies in language companion series 165, 47–62. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.
Surányi, B. 2008. Határozóosztályok és mondattartományok [Adverbial classes and sentence domains]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények [Issues in linguistics] 105: 163–192.
Surányi, B. 2009. “Incorporated” locative adverbials in Hungarian. In K. É. Kiss (ed.), Adverbs and adverbial adjuncts at the interfaces, 39–74. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Szeteli, A. and Alberti, G. 2018. The interaction between relevant-set based operators and a topic-predicate dimension. Linguistics Beyond And Within 4: 161–172.
Szeteli, A., M. Dóla, and G. Alberti. 2019. Pragmasemantic analysis of the Hungarian inferential-evidential expression ‘szerint’. Studies in Polish Linguistics 14: 207–225.
Viszket, A., A.Hoss, E. Kárpáti, and G. Alberti. 2019. Recalculating: The atlas of pragmatic parameters of developmental disorders. Linguistics Beyond And Within 5, 148–160.
University of Pécs
University of Pécs
University of Pécs
University of Pécs
