View More View Less
  • 1 Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Full access

This paper presents the system of Old Hungarian expressions conveying universal or maximal readings, as found in Old Hungarian codices. The main empirical findigs are that (i) the OH suffix-keed could be a (temporal) universal quantifier. Expressions with such suffixes can help reconstruct quantifiers from the head-final stage of Hungarian. (ii) Old Hungarian had bare pronouns that acquired a bound, quantificational reading from long-distance operators. Against such a background, minden is claimed to be a quintessential strong D-quantifier: It could undergo raising, and its scope was flexible (within syntactic islands). (iii) These properties of minden are distinctive within the class of particle + indeterminate pronoun complexes (such as vala-ki lit. ‘vala-who’, ‘somebody’), which could be said to lack quantificational force.

  • Andrews, Avery. 1985. Studies in the syntax of relative and comparative clauses. New York: Garland.

  • Bach, Emmon, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer and Barbara H. Partee (eds.). 1995. Quantification in natural languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Bácskai-Atkári, Júlia and Éva Dékány. 2014. From non-finite to finite subordination. The history of embedded clauses. In É. Kiss (2014a, 148223).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Belyaev, Oleg and Dag Haug. 2014. The genesis of wh-based correlatives: From indefiniteness to relativization. Paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 19, Göttingen. http://tinyurl.com/oq9bf4o (16/08/2015)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bende-Farkas, Ágnes. 2013. Old Hungarian vala + pro and Free Choice indefinites. Paper presented at the Hungarian Semanticists’ Circle at RIL–HAS.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bende-Farkas, Ágnes. 2014a. From A-quantification to D-quantification: Universal quantifiers in the sentence and in the noun phrase. In É. Kiss (2014a, 83121).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bende-Farkas, Ágnes. 2014b. Minden valaki — Az ómagyar kori vala-kifejezések értelmezéséhez [Every someone — On the interpretation of vala-expressions in Old Hungarian]. In K. É. Kiss and A. Hegedüs (eds.) Nyelvelmélet és diakrónia 2 [Language theory and diachrony 2]. Piliscsaba: PPKE BTK. 1041.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benko, Loránd (ed.). 1967–1987. A magyar nyelv történeti–etimológiai szótára I–IV. [Historical– etymological dictionary of Hungarian]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Biberauer, Theresa and Ian Roberts. 2011. Negative words and related expressions: A new perspective on some old puzzles. In P. Larrivée and R. P. Ingham (eds.) The evolution of negation. Beyond the Jespersen cycle. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 2360.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bittner, Maria. 2001. Topical referents for individuals and possibilities. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson and Zs. Zvolenszky (eds.) Proceedings from SALT XI. Cornell University, Ithaca: CLC Publications. 3655.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2008. Uniqueness effects in correlatives. In A. Grønn (ed.) Proceedings of SuB 12. Oslo. 4765.

  • Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2012. Correlatives. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 120.

  • Champollion, Lucas. 2010. Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement. Doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Csirmaz, Anikó and Anna Szabolcsi. 2012. Quantification in Hungarian. In E. L. Keenan and D. Paperno (eds.) Handbook of quantifiers in natural language. Dordrecht: Springer. 399467.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dayal, Veneeta. 1995. Quantification in correlatives. In Bach et al. (1995, 179206).

  • Dowty, David R. 1987. Collective predicates, distributive predicates, and all. In A. Miller and J. Powers (eds.) Proceedings of ESCOL 3. Columbus, OH: OSU. 97115.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • É. Kiss, Katalin (ed.). 2014a. The evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • É. Kiss, Katalin . 2014b. The evolution of functional left peripheries in the Hungarian sentence. In É. Kiss (2014a, 955).

  • Egedi, Barbara. 2013. Grammatical encoding of referentiality in the history of Hungarian. In A. G. Ramat, C. Mauri and P. Molinelli (eds.) Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 367390.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Egedi, Barbara. 2014. The DP-cycle in Hungarian and the functional extension of the noun phrase. In É. Kiss (2014a, 5682).

  • Farkas, Donka. 1997. Dependent indefinites. In F. Corblin, D. Godard and J.-M. Marandin (eds.) Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 24367.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gill, Kook-Hee, Steve Harlow and George Tsoulas. 2006. Disjunction and indeterminatebased quantification in Korean. Manuscript. University of York.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14. 39100.

  • Gugán, Katalin. 2012. Zigzagging in language history: Negation and negative concord in Hungarian. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 1. 8997.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hoeksema, Jack. 1996. Floating quantifiers, partitives, and distributivity. In J. Hoeksema (ed.) Partitivity. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 57106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Horn, Laurence R. 2000. Pick a theory (not just any theory): Indiscriminatives and the Free Choice indefinite. In L. R. Horn and Y. Kato (eds.) Nagation and polarity. Syntactic and semantic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 147192.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jäger, Agnes. 2011. Anything is nothing is something. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28. 787822.

  • Jayez, Jayez and Lucia M. Tovena. 2006. Epistemic determiners. Journal of Semantics 23. 217250.

  • Jennings, Raymond Earl. 1994. The genealogy of disjunction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. A. G. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen and M. B. J. Stokhof (eds.) Formal methods in the study of language (Mathematical Centre Tracts 135). Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre. 277322.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kamp, Hans, Josef van Genabith and Uwe Reyle. 2011. Discourse representation theory. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.) Handbook of philosophical logic. Berlin: Springer. 125394.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Indefinites and the operators they depend on: From Japanese to Salish. In G. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds.) Reference and quantification: The Partee effect. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications. 113142.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kratzer, Angelika and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Y. Otsu (ed.) Proceedings of Third Tokyo Psycholinguistics Conference. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. 125.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kuroda, Shige-yuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

  • Lipták, Anikó (ed.). 2009a. Correlatives cross-linguistically. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Lipták, Anikó. 2009b. The landscape of correlatives. An empirical and analytical survey. In Lipták (2009a, 180).

  • May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • May, Robert. 1989. Interpreting logical form. Linguistics & Philosophy 12. 387435.

  • Partee, Barbara H. 1995. Quantificational structures and compositionality. In Bach et al. (1995, 541602).

  • Peters, Stanley and Dag Westerståhl. 2006. Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Ramchand, Gillian. 1997. Questions, polarity, and alternative semantics. In K. Kusumoto (ed.) Proceedings of NELS 27. Amherst: GLSA Publications. 383396.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Shimoyama, Junko. 2001. WH-constructions in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation. UMass at Amherst.

  • Srivastav, Veneeta. 1991. The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9. 637686.

  • Szabolcsi, Anna. 2010. Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Tovena, Lucia. 2003. Determiners and weakly discretised domains. In J. Quer, J. Schroten, M. Scorretti, P. Sleeman and E. Verheugd (eds.) Romance languages and linguistic theory 2001. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Amsterdam, 2001. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 333348.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Watanabe, Akira. 2004. Parametrization of quantificational determiners and head-internal relatives. Language and Linguistics 5. 5997.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Winter, Yoad. 2001. Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Yanovich, Igor. 2005. Choice functional series of indefinite pronouns and Hamblin semantics. In E. Georgala and J. Howell (eds.) Proceedings of SALT XV. Ithaca: CLC Publications, Cornell University. 309326.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation