Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adjuncts and Arguments in VP-Focus in Hungarian

  • Published:
Acta Linguistica Hungarica

Abstract

It has been well-known since Höhle (1982), and in particular since Selkirk (1984), that the prosody of focusing is sensitive to the difference between adjuncts and heads or arguments. In Selkirk's proposal, when some item receives focus or pitch accent, an entire phrase can be interpreted as focused if the item is its head or an argument of the head. If, on the other hand, it is an adjunct of the phrase, only the adjunct, but not the dominating phrase node, can be taken to constitute semantic focus.

Whereas in English there is no formal distinction between exclusive (or contrasive, operator) and nonexclusive (or information) focus, Hungarian appears to distinguish the two by syntactic means. Not all answers to (focused) wh-questions display a contrastively focused structure.

The data surveyed in this paper serve to show that in contrast with a widespread view (cf. É. Kiss 1981; 1987; 1994) the VP is a true constituent of the Hungarian sentence and that it, too, can be focused. But the VP cannot be focused in the same way as other constituents. Firstly, VP-foci do not have to be understood as contrastive. Secondly, VP-focus is expressed by placing the verb, one of its argument, or referential adjuncts into the designated focus position. Thirdly, ex situ VP-focus is possible only in case of activity verbs; VPs of verbs of achievement or accomplishment can be focused only by placing the verb in the focus slot.

The fact that arguments can be used to focus the VP is consonant with the general properties of focusing. Since arguments are ultimately projected by the head, they are in a grammatical sense representative of it. This is shown to be the case even in case of idioms, which can be focused much like other predicates, although idiom chunks are not focusable as such. Adjuncts, and in particular non-referential adjuncts, have no role in the projection of categories and are therefore incapable of 'transferring' their focus properties onto the category they are adjoined to whenever they are focused. Nonreferential adjuncts, e.g. manner adverbials, have limited contrastibility, though exclusive focus in such adjuncts is not impossible in the semantic domains they determine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham, W.-de Meij, S. (eds) 1986. Topic, focus and configurationality. Benjamins, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aissen, J.L. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. In: Language 68: 43–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, A.-Szamosi, M. 1972. Observations on sentential stress. Language 48: 304–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolinger, D. 1961. Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language 37: 83–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J. 1972. Stress and syntax: A reply. In: Language 48: 326–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, M. 1990. Remarks on the order of elements in the Hungarian focus field. In: Kenesei, I (ed.): Approaches to Hungarian Vol. 3, 95–121. JATE, Szeged.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 1974. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In: Steinberg, D.D.-Jakobovits, L.A. (eds): Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader, 183–216. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In: Hale, K.-Keyser, S.J. (eds): The view from Building 20, 1–52. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drubig, H.B. 1994. Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Bericht Nr. 51, Tübingen.

  • É. Kiss, K. 1981. Structural relations in Hungarian, a “free” word order language. In: Linguistics Inquiry 12: 185–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • É. Kiss, K. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • É. Kiss, K. 1987/88. Még egyszer a magyar modat intonációjáról és hangsúlyozásáról [Once more on the intonation and stress pattern of Hungarian sentences]. In: Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 89: 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • É. Kiss, K. 1994. Sentence structure and word order. In: Kiefer, F.-É. Kiss, K. (eds): The syntactic structure of Hungarian. Syntax and semantics 27, 1–90. Academic Press, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höhle, T. 1982. Explikationen für ‘normale Betonung’ und ‘normale Wortstellung’. In: Abraham, W. (ed.): Satzglieder in Deutschen, 75–154. Günther Narr, Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvath, J. 1986. Focus in the theory of grammar and the structure of Hungarian. Foris, Dordreeht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvath, J. 1995. Structural focus, structural case and the notion of feature assignment. In: É. Kiss, K. (ed.): Discourse configurational languages, 28–64. Oxford University Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. 1991. Focus ambiguities. In: Journal of Semantics 8: 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kálmán, C.Gy.-Kálmán, L.-Nádasdy, Á.-Prószéky, G. 1989. A magyar segédigék rendszere [The system of auxiliaries in Hungarian]. In: Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok 17: 49–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kálmán, L.-Kornai, A. 1989. Hungarian sentence intonation, In: v.d. Hulst, H.-Smith, N. (eds): Autosegmental studies on pitch accent, 183–95. Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kálmán, L.-Nádasdy, Á. 1994. A hangsúly [Stress]. In: Kiefer, F. (ed.): Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 2: Fonológia, 393–467. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenesei, I. 1986. On the logic of word order in Hungarian. In: Abraham, W.-de Meij, S. (eds): Topic, focus and configurationality, 143–59. Benjamins, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenesei, I. 1989. Logikus-e a magyar szórend? [Is Hungarian word order logical?] In: Általános Nyclvészeti Tanulmányok 17: 105–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenesei, I. 1993. A minimalist program for the syntax of focus. Unpublished manuscript, University of Szeged and University of Delaware.

  • Kenesei, I.-Vogel, I. 1989. Prosodic phonology in Hungarian. In: Acta Linguistica Hungarica 39: 149–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenesei, I.-Vogel, I. 1996. Focus and phonological structure. Unpublished manuscript, University of Szeged and University of Delaware.

  • Kiefer, F. 1994. Aspect and syntactic structure. In: Kiefer, F.-É. Kiss, K. (eds): The syntactic structure of Hungarian. Syntax and semanties 27, 415–64. Academic Press, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, T.H. 1993. Configuring topic and focus in Russian. PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, D.R. 1980. The structure of intonational meaning. Indiana University Press, Bloomington IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz de Urbina, J. 1986. Some parameters in the grammar of Basque. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

  • Ortiz de Urbina, J. 1989. Parameters in the grammar of Basque. Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochemont, M.S. 1986. Focus in genrative grammar. Benjamins, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochemont, M.S.-Culicover, P.W. 1990. English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmerling, S. 1976. Aspects of English sentence stress. University of Texas Press, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, E.O. 1984. Phonology and syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, E.O. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In: Goldsmith, J.A. (ed.): The handbook of phonological theory, 550–69. Blackwell, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stechow, A. von-Uhmann, S. 1986. Some remarks on focus projection. In: Abraham, W.-de Meij, S. (eds): Topic, focus and configurationality, 295–320. Benjamins, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabolesi, A. 1981a. The semantics of topic/focus articulation. In: Groenendijk, J.A.G. et al. (eds): Formal methods in the study of language, MC Tract 136, 513–40. Amsterdam.

  • Szabolesi, A. 1981b. Compositionality in focus. In: Folia Linguistica 15: 141–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabolesi, A. To appear. All quantifiers are not equal: The case of focus. In: Acta Linguistica Hungarica.

  • Tuller, L. 1992. The syntax of postverbal constructions in Chadic. In: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 303–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varga, L. 1986. Vélemények a magyar mondat hangsúlyozásáról, avagy Brassai és a többiek [Opinions about Hungarian sentence stress, or, Brassai and the others]. In: Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 88: 181–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varga, L. 1987/88. Hozzászólás egy hangsúlytanulmányhoz [Comments on a study on stress]. In: Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 89: 53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, I.-Kenesei, I. 1987. The interface between phonology and other components of grammar. In: Phonology 4: 243–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watters, J. 1979. Focus in Aghem. In: Hyman, L. (ed.): Aghem grammatical structure, 137–97. SCOPIL 7, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of English and American Studies and PhD Program in Theoretical Linguistics, József Attila University, Egyetem u. 2, H-6722, Szeged, Hungary

    István Kenesei

Authors
  1. István Kenesei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to István Kenesei.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kenesei, I. Adjuncts and Arguments in VP-Focus in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45, 61–88 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009604924685

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009604924685

Keywords

Search

Navigation