3.2.1 Preverbal position and interpretation

The particle újra ‘again’ is different from the adverb in that it forms one stress unit with the verb it precedes.³ Under some circumstances they can appear in exactly the same syntactic environment but their stress properties are different, as in (8) compared to (9): the particle forms one stress unit with the verb, with one word stress on the left edge, while the adverb and the verb each have their own word stress.

There is also a difference in meaning between the two sentences here. In (9), the indefinite phrase has higher scope, so the event is about a certain letter being reworded by Peter, this is a restitutive reading. In (8), the adverb has higher scope, that is we have repeated events of Peter writing a letter, which is a repetitive reading.

This is not to say that the adverb is always repetitive and cannot have a restitutitve reading; Csirmaz (2015) established that the adverbs újra and megint can both be repetitive and restitutive under certain conditions. When the adverb újra appears with telic predicates, e.g. ones that include a verbal particle already, the clause can also have a restitutive interpretation, which makes (10) ambiguous between a repetitive reading (where Anna had opened the door earlier and then opened it again) and a restitutive reading (where the door was open, someone closed it, and then Anna opened it).

That is, the difference between the adverb and the particle újra cannot be drawn strictly along the lines of the available readings. However, an important difference between újra as an adverb and as a verbal particle concerning interpretation lies in their (dis)ability to telicize an event.

As an adverb, újra does not telicize the event it modifies. This can be shown by trying to add different temporal modifiers to the predication: the for-PP is grammatical, while the equivalent of the in-PP is ungrammatical in the sentences in (11). The sentence in (11b) is ungrammatical without the adverb újra as well, as Hungarian predicates are generally atelic if they do not have the result lexicalized separately, e.g. by a particle (see É. Kiss 2006; Kardos 2016 a.o.). Read the book is atelic without a particle in a neutral sentence, and the adverb újra does not change that property.

With verbs of creation, the situation is slightly different. When a creation verb such as ír ‘write’ has an indefinite object, the predication can get both an atelic and a telic interpretation (cf. Kardos 2016). When we add the repetitive adverb, it does not change the properties of the sentence (12), both types of adverbs from above can be used and give a grammatical sentence.

However, when újra is a particle, it can telicize the event on its own, a property generally shared by verbal particles and lexical resultatives. Using the same adverbs as before can show this difference (13). If we take the examples in (11) and use the particle instead of the adverb, the grammaticality of the examples is reversed: the only interpretation available is the telic one.

With verbs of creation, where both readings were available in (12), again the telic reading is preferred when újra is added as a particle (14). For some speakers the telic reading is the only available option, for some others the atelic adverb is slightly degraded but not ungrammatical.⁴

In this respect, újra as a particle behaves like other particles and telicizes the otherwise atelic event (pace the possible variation mentioned above). This is a semantic property that distinguishes the verbal particle from the adverb, a distinction consistent with general properties of particles and adverbs in Hungarian. It also possibly draws a lexical difference between the adverb and the verbal particle use of újra, since the adverb can only be restitutive when adjoined to a telic event, while the verbal particle takes part in telicizing the event.

3.2.2 Co-occurence with (other) VMs

Újra as a verbal particle, forming one phonological unit with the verb cannot co-occur with another verbal particle or resultative phrase in the preverbal position, identically to the behavior of other verbal particles. As Csirmaz (2015, 282) notes, it cannot co-occur with particles because they compete for the same syntactic position (the VM position). The sentence in (15a) involves the verbal particle use of újra and shows that the combination of two particles in the immediately preverbal position leads to ungrammaticality. Notably, it is also ungrammatical to have the other particle in the postverbal field (15b).

The verbal particle újra cannot co-occur preverbally with regular resultative secondary predicates, either. While both the particle (16a) and the resultative (16b) are well-formed on their own with a verb such as fest ‘paint’, they cannot be preverbal together in either possible order (17a)–(17b).

This is perfectly in line with what we would expect of this item because of its resultative origin and morphological form, assuming that it is obligatorily a VM. Two preverbal particles or a combination of a particle and a resultative is generally prohibited from the preverbal position.

Two notes are in order here on the distribution of újra and (other) VMs. Firstly, újra as an adverb is perfectly well-formed in the same clause with a preverbal particle or resultative secondary predicate (18), which distinguishes it from the particle.

This is generally true for adverbs modifying the predicate: they can be followed by a VM-V unit as shown in (19).

Secondly, while újra is not compatible with another particle in the same clause (15b), it is to some extent compatible with another lexical resultative, when that is postverbal (20). This is actually not unusual for particles, as most of the other particles can also easily co-occur with resultative secondary predicates (21). The postverbal resultative can be an afterthought, a constituent outside the clause.⁵ In that case the resultative phrase zöldre ‘to green’ is not in the scope of the restitutive element in (20), so it is not necessarily the case that the fence used to be green, then it was a different color and then it gets painted green again; it could have been any color earlier, it is only stated that it becomes green as a result of being repainted. Under the other interpretation, the postverbal resultative phrase is part of the clause (in both (20) and (21)), the lexical resultative specifies the result state, and is in the scope of the restitutive particle, meaning that the fence being green is the state that is being repeated in (20).

Hegedűs (2013) proposed that such co-occurence of a particle and a resultative does not violate the general restriction that only one delimiter per clause is allowed (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995) since the particle and the resultative belong to a single phrase, they just lexicalize two parts of one secondary predicate. Following this, two particles are excluded since they would lexicalize the same part of the secondary predicate, they compete for the same position in the secondary predicate at lexical insertion (the apparent counterexamples will be discussed in Section 4.2).

To sum up, its preverbal distributional properties distinguish újra as a verbal particle from when it is an adverb. The adverb bears a word stress independent of the verb, while the particle forms one stress unit with it, with the stress on the particle. The adverb can co-occur with a preverbal particle or resultative secondary predicate, which means that it is not a VM, while the particle needs to be preverbal on its own, it cannot co-occur with another particle in the same clause at all and can only co-occur with a lexical resultative if that resultative is postverbal. These properties make them similar to other adverbs and verbal particles, respectively.

Verbal particles are generally characterized as being productive (i.e., used with many verbs) and having a non-lexical, functional meaning. The particle under consideration has these properties: újra is quite productive with various types of verbs, and its meaning is not the lexical, compositional one, but it has a restitutive meaning instead. However, újra as a verbal particle is more restricted than other particles in some respects, which will be discussed in 3.3.

3.3.1 Ditransitives

A property of the verbal particle újra noted by Csirmaz (2015) is that it generally cannot appear with ditransitive verbs,⁶ for example, it cannot be used with ad ‘give’ (22). I agree with Csirmaz (2015) on taking this to be a semantic restriction, namely, a resriction that this particle cannot co-occur with ‘‘once-only’’ predicates. It is a once-only predication in (22) in the sense that possession is transferred, the accusative-marked object will become the possession of the dative-marked complement, and once this is established it cannot be re-established with the same object. Since the restitutive particle necessarily has narrow scope with respect to the direct object, i.e., the indefinite object here is interpreted as specific, transferring the object is a ‘‘once-only’’ predication (Csirmaz 2015).

The restriction prohibiting the verbal particle újra from appearing with ditransitives does not generally apply to verbal particles, it is specific to this restitutive one. Ditransitive constructions, including ad ‘give’, often include a directional particle that denotes the direction of the transaction and telicizes the event (23).

The claim that we are dealing with a semantic (or lexical) restriction rather than a syntactic one on the co-occurence of ditransitives and újra is supported by the fact – also mentioned by Csirmaz (2015) – that the verb küld ‘send’ is an exception to some extent, as long as one can interpret the event as sending the same thing more than once, so we are not really dealing with a once-only predication. This interpretation is easily accessed when it comes to sending emails (24) but it requires considerably more context if we are talking about sending a certain postcard (25).

In sum, verbal particle újra needs to modify a predication that is not ‘‘once-only’’ due to its low scope (for more on the scopal properties, see Csirmaz 2015), and therefore is restricted with ditransitive verbs, which is a restriction not shared by other, typical verbal particles.

3.3.2 Unergatives and unaccusatives

Another restriction noted by Csirmaz (2015) is that the particle újra cannot appear with unergative verbs (26) or with causatives of unergatives (27).

This is a curious property; however, to the extent that we can assert that this particle is (overwhelmingly) restitutive in meaning, it is empirically analogous to what von Stechow (1996) observed about German wieder ‘again’, namely, that wieder is ambiguous between repetitive and restitutive readings with unaccusative verbs but is unambiguously repetitive with unergatives. This is also a property shared by the English restitutive prefix re- (Horn 1980; Marantz 2007). The restitutive reading requires the presence of a result state, which is unavailable with simple unergatives. The fact that causatives do not allow for the restitutive interpretation seems to support Horvath and Siloni's (2011) claim that these morphological causatives are not decomposed in syntax, there is no result state in syntax that could be modified.

It was shown by Surányi (2009a) that the adverb újra ‘again’ exhibits similar behavior to the German facts when it appears in clauses with directional verbal modifiers (particles or lexical PPs): it is ambiguous with unaccusative verbs but is only repetitive with unergative verbs. The examples in (28) are used by Surányi (2009a) to illustrate this difference (the adverb is postverbal to facilitiate the restitutive reading) and are taken as evidence that the Direct Object Restriction on resultatives holds. According to this generalization, a resultative phrase can be predicated of an object but not of a subject or an oblique phrase (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995). Unergatives lack an object, so the restitutive reading of the adverb is impossible.

So far, we have seen data that have been taken as evidence that újra as a particle is different from its adverb use and behaves like verbal particles do. However, unavailability with unergatives is not a general property of verbal particles in Hungarian. Often they change the argument structure of the verb (or, put differently, a particle-verb has a different argument structure than its particle-less counterpart) and make transitive verbs out of unergative ones (29).

In this respect, újra is not like regular, telicizing particles, it seems to need a transitive predicate but it cannot be the result predicate in the complex event. This is also confirmed by its ungrammaticality with psych verbs or with verbs like love or hate, which can be used with other particles as predicates describing dynamic events, where the particle creates a telic event (30)–(31) as the head of secondary predication in the complex argument structure (see 3.4).

Furthermore, when we take motion verbs, we find that újra can only be used as a particle with those verbs that have a transitive version with an object that measures out the event. So, fut ‘run’ and sétál ‘walk’ are generally used intransitively, and then they cannot appear with this particle (32).

Motion verbs are often used with a directional lexical PP or with a directional particle, denoting the endpoint of movement (33), in which case, we are arguably dealing with an unaccusative predication and the particle is the secondary predicate (Hegedűs 2013). We have already seen that újra as a particle cannot co-occur with another particle in the same clause, and (34a) shows that it cannot co-occur with a postverbal directional PP, either. Other particles, e.g. el ‘away’ can co-occur with postverbal directional PPs (34b) (similarly to the co-occurence of particles and resultatives; see also Hegedűs 2013).

Some motion verbs can also be used quasi-transitively, with an accusative complement that measures out (and potentially telicizes) the event, and in such cases újra can be used as a particle with the motion verb. Its meaning in (35) can be repetitive, if Anna ran the last lap once and then ran the last lap again. While the repetitive meaning seems more prominent, it can also be restitutive, if one imagines a scenario when someone else was running the last lap in a relay competition but then for some reason Anna did the last lap again.

A further restriction is that újra cannot appear with unaccusative motion verbs to denote that the endpoint of the motion is one that was held earlier (36). In these counterdirectional contexts we find the particle vissza ‘back’, as will be discussed in Section 4.1.

The adverb újra ‘again’ can be used with these verbs but then we have a repeated atelic event and not one that reaches a result state (37).

It is not the case that újra cannot be a particle with unaccusatives in general, it just cannot be interpreted as a (spatial) endpoint (unsurprisingly) or a result state, its meaning is more functional.

Thus, újra as a verbal particle is more restricted than most, directional particles as it cannot be used with unergative verbs, due to the fact that it requires an internal argument in the predication, similarly to other resultative phrases. Unlike some other resultatives (including many verbal particles), however, it does not seem to be able to change the argument structure of the verb, it does not introduce a theme into the structure. Because of its semantics, it also cannot encode an endpoint in the event, so its use with unaccusative verbs is also limited.

3.3.3 Újra ‘again’ versus újjá ‘anew’ with the same verbs

With unaccusative verbs that do not require an endpoint, there is an interesting division of labor between újra and another resultative predicate that is on its way to becoming a particle, újjá ‘anew’.

The fact that there are two resultatives with the adjective ‘new’ is due to Hungarian having another productive way to create resultative secondary predicates out of adjectives in general, with the addition of the translative suffix -vá/vé. Resultatives with this suffix are less productive than those with the sublative one: it is used with resultative complements of some unaccusative (or middle) verbs and their transitive counterparts. Although this other particle can be used in contexts where it might seem as an alternative of újra, if újra were in any way compositional in its interpretation, there is a consistent meaning difference.

Újjá is a lexical, compositional secondary predicate, and has retained its lexical meaning in its use as a particle. Újra, however, has a noncompositional functional interpretation. The clause in (38) includes the particle újra and can be used when the band was on hiatus and got together again, so it is compatible with the additional information saying that nothing changed within the band. (39) with újjá, however, necessarily means that there is some change, e.g. a new member is joining the band, but it does not imply that the band was not constantly together, in fact it means that the band has been together as is for ten years and now there is some change happening.

Were the continuations of the sentences switched, the following would happen. (40) is completely grammatical, the band was not together, now it gets together again, and additionally a new member joins. However, (41) is infelicitous (or even ungrammatical) since the continuation contradicts the first part of the sentence.

The same meaning difference is found when the two particles combine with verbs such as születik ‘be born’, épül ‘be built’ (and its transitive counterpart épít ‘build’), which can be used with both of them. This is further illustrated with the contrast between the examples in (42) and (43).

The particle újra always means that the process starts from scratch or at least is substantially repeated (and it is not the case that a previous result is slightly modified), therefore the particles cannot be freely switched in the previous examples. While (44) is quite good, although with a perhaps a slightly different reading than before, (45) is infelicitous as one needs to start a new life for the verb ‘be reborn’ to be used in a context.

To sum up, these examples have shown that the distribution of újra with respect to a different resultative form based on the same adjective as the one in this particle confirms that its meaning is not compositional, therefore it is different from a regular, lexical secondary predicate, as well as from directional particles shown in the previous subsections.

4.1.1 The syntactic properties of the counterdirectional particle

When repetitive elements are discussed, reversing direction (as opposed to reversing result) must also be included. Counterdirectionality is generally subsumed under the larger group of ‘repetitive’ meanings, and there are languages where the same lexical element that has a repetitive or a restutitive meaning can express movement backwards, i.e., counterdirectionality, as well. Patel-Grosz & Beck (2014) argue that Kutchi Gujarati is a language that lexicalizes all these meanings with the same element, pacho ‘again’. This is not the case in Hungarian. While some repetitive elements have restitutive readings as well (megint and újra ‘again’), only one of them can express counterdirectionality. The verbal particle vissza ‘back’, a directional element, morphologically completely different from megint and újra, lexicalizes this meaning, illustrated in (49).

In present-day Hungarian, this is the only productive element for counterdirectionality. To a very limited extent the particle meg is also found in counterdirectional contexts (50), but it is no longer productive in this meaning, it has almost fully grammaticalized by now into a simple telicizing functional element.⁹

The particle verb meg-ad ‘back-give’ can only be used for returning borrowed money, that is its lexicalized meaning, and it cannot be used with a book as the object (51). There the productive vissza can express counterdirectionality.

When motion is involved, e.g. with transaction verbs, sometimes either újra or vissza can appear as the particle (with the restrictions mentioned above for újra) in the same clause, but there is a constant semantic difference. Újra has a restitutive interpretation, while vissza is counterdirectional, the examples in (52) and (53) are a relevant minimal pair to show this division of labor between the two particles.

There is an important distributional difference between the two particles. Unlike the particle újra, vissza can introduce an internal argument and be the endpoint resultative predicate in a complex event (54), which means that it behaves on par with regular verbal particles and terminative or resultative secondary predicates. In these examples, the particle-less verb is an unergative one but here it is a part of a complex event with a result state included.

Based on these properties, we can say that vissza ‘back’ is a directional adposition whose meaning specification includes counterdirectionality and as such it is a functional adposition. Structurally it means that we are dealing with a p element within an extended adpositional phrase. The particle is the functional head that introduces the Figure, the internal argument in a complex event, into the structure. Thus, from the two possible syntactic structures for verbal particles given in Section 3.4, in this case, we have a structure where pP is is introduced into the clause as the complement of V (55). The PathP complement to vissza as a p head is not always lexicalized, but it can be, as in (53), where I assume the dative to be in PathP and specifying the endpoint.

In overt syntax, the particle moves into the preverbal field, as do all particles, as discussed in Section 3.4. I assume, as before, that this movement is into Spec, PredP and that the verb moves into Pred. With this movement of the particle, we derive the same configuration that we had earlier in the case of the particle újra ‘again’, only in that case it was argued to be the base position of the particle, while it is a derived position here.

4.1.2 Limited restitutive use of vissza ‘back’

As far as its interpretational possibilities are concerned, vissza is generally ungrammatical in restitutive function without directed motion involved. Sometimes the directionality of the event is introduced by the particle, as in (54), and also in the examples in (57). Here we see that directional particles do not only telicize the event but add some directionality to the already dynamic event, they create a complex motion event as locking the door can be construed as movement back, in or out.

However, there seem to be some contexts where vissza can be simply restitutive without there being a spatial meaning, and, therefore, directionality involved. In one set of cases, we are dealing with unaccusative verbs involving vissza as a restitutive particle (58).¹⁰ It is hard to identify directionality in the semantics of this case, the particle seems purely restitutive. The English translations show that (58a) uses a motion verb and the counterdirectional element, while the other constructions are translated with the repetitive adverb again to provide the equivalent meanings with such change-of-state verbs.

The other context is even more curious and seems to be a rare example of a transitive verb with vissza as a restitutive particle (59). The verb here is tanul ‘learn’ and the complex meaning of the particle verb may be paraphrased as ‘bringing back an old habit, custom, knowledge by learning it again (esp. by a new generation)’, but this also seems to be a good candidate for a purely restitutive meaning of the generally counterdirectional particle. An Internet search finds quite a few hits, and the Gigaword Corpus of Hungarian also contains some examples for this particle-verb (59).

This use, where directionality is very hard or impossible to find and a restitutive reading seems to be the appropriate one, is scarce for now. It may easily be the case that there is a slow change towards the counterdirectional element becoming restitutive by grammaticalizing into a non-directional functional particle.¹¹ For now, the main use of the particle is to encode counterdirectionality, and it is the only productive verbal particle for that semantic content.