Article

Inclusory Plural Pronominal Constructions in Hungarian: A Comparative Syntactic Study with an Outlook to Universal Grammar

Gréte Dalmi 1
Author Information & Copyright
1University of Hamburg, Germany
Corresponding Author : Researcher, External Consultant, Finno-Ugric Studies, University of Hamburg, Germany Email: grete@t-online.hu

§ I wish to thank Edith Moravcsik, Vilma Eőry, András Bárány, Balázs Surányi, Egor Tsedryk, Halldór Sigurdhsson, Anders Holmberg for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper. I also thank Olga Kagan for sharing her views and judgements on the Russian data, to Anders Holmberg, for providing and checking the Finnish examples, and to Halldór Ármann Sigurdhsson for providing and checking the Icelandic data. The Hungarian data were discussed and checked by outstanding Hungarian linguists and former colleagues. All remaining errors are mine.

Copyright © 2024 Language Research Institute, Sejong University. Journal of Universal Language is an Open Access Journal. All articles are distributed online under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Aug 08, 2024; Revised: Aug 29, 2024; Accepted: Sep 20, 2024

Published Online: Sep 30, 2024

Abstract

This comparative syntactic study offers an alternative account of analyzing Inclusory Plural Pronominal Constructions (IPPCs), which have been recently investigated in Finnish, Icelandic, Russian, and Hungarian. The alternative analysis rests on the feature composition of personal pronouns offered by Bianchi. First, the paper discusses the proposed analyses of IPPCs in Finnish and Icelandic. Then, it surveys the existing analyses of IPPCs in Russian and Hungarian, pointing out some of their advantages and disadvantages. Under the analysis proposed here for IPPCs in Hungarian, the reference set of the 1PL personal pronoun includes only the speaker and the referent of the comitative DP, which is the complement of the pronominal head. Under the non-inclusory reading of the 1PL pronominal head, the comitative DP is a VP-modifying adjunct. This is supported by syntactic tests related to linear ordering, topicalization, and the binding conditions of the reflexive possessive pronoun saját ‘one’s own’ and the reciprocal pronoun egymás ‘each other’. The data used in the tests primarily come from the cited sources, or, they were provided and checked by native speakers. Hungarian IPPCs are contrasted with APCs concerning their lexical-semantic properties. Finally, a comparison of Finnish, Icelandic and Hungarian IPPs is made with respect to their syntactic behaviour such as reverse ordering, syntactic function, and topicalisation options.

Keywords: inclusory; DP-internal complement; VP-modifying adjunct; linear ordering; topicalization; anaphoric binding

1. Introduction

1.1. Some Differences Between Personal Pronouns and Inclusory Plural Pronominal Constructions

The first person plural personal pronoun WE can be interpreted either as inclusive or as exclusive in several languages (see Simon 2005, Cysouw 2008). Under the inclusive interpretation, the speaker and the addressee constitute the reference set. Under the exclusive interpretation, the addressee is excluded, only the speaker and some non-speech-act participants are involved, see Figure 1.1

jul-25-2-1-g1
Figure 1. Inclusive and Exclusive Personal Pronouns Adapted from Wikipedia (n.d.) with CC-BY-NC-SA.
Download Original Figure

Inclusory plural pronominal constructions (henceforth: IPPCs2) are peculiar in that the 1PL pronoun is accompanied by a comitative nominal phrase and the referent of the comitative phrase is included in the reference set of the plural pronominal head. It is possible, however, to interpret the comitative nominal phrase as a VP-modifying adjunct, in which case its referent is not included in the reference set of WE:

While English follows pattern (b), with the comitative DP excluded from the reference set of WE, in languages like Tlingit, Russian and Polish, pattern (a) is the natural interpretation, in which WE includes only the speaker and the referent of the comitative DP but nobody else (see Cable 2017 for details).

The aim of this paper is twofold: (a) it addresses the question of to what extent Hungarian IPPCs resemble or differ from their recently studied counterparts in Finnish, Icelandic and Russian; (b) it also investigates whether the existing analyses provide an appropriate account for the syntactic and lexical-semantic properties of Hungarian IPPCs. The reason for selecting the above languages lies in the comparative nature of the paper. The recent accounts of the corresponding constructions in these languages do not give a satisfactory account of the facts of Hungarian. The paper proposes an alternative account of inclusive and exclusive personal pronouns, as well as of IPPCs, which is based on feature composition (see Bianchi 2006).

The paper is structured as follows. After presenting IPPCs and their interpretation in general, section 1 introduces such constructions in Finnish, Icelandic and Hungarian. In section 2, current accounts of these constructions in Finnish and Icelandic are briefly discussed, highlighting some specific features of IPPCs in these two languages. In 3.1 the existing analyses of IPPCs in Russian and Hungarian are surveyed, and some of their advantages and disadvantages are pointed out. In 3.2 an alternative syntactic analysis of Hungarian IPPCs as DP-internal complements3 is proposed. In section 4, Hungarian IPPCs are compared with APCs. Section 5 surveys the properties of Hungarian IPPCs which distinguish it from Finnish and Icelandic IPPCs. Part 6 is a summary.

Vassilieva and Larson (2005) propose that plural personal pronouns carry two indices, which define their reference set. In their theory, the traditional division of 1PL personal pronouns into inclusive and exclusive is expressed indexically. Notice, however, that IPPCs in this system are neither inclusive nor exclusive.4

1.2. Inclusory Plural Pronominal Constructions in Finnish, Icelandic and Hungarian

Such constructions have recently been investigated by Holmberg and Kurki (2019) in Finnish; by Sigurðsson and Wood (2020) in Icelandic; and by Moravcsik (2003) and Dékány (2009) in Hungarian. What relates these three languages is that, unlike in English, only the reading in which the reference set of the plural pronoun includes the speaker and the referent of the comitative PP/DP/NP is available for them.5

Starting with Finnish, Holmberg and Kurki (2019) (henceforth H & K) list the characteristic properties of IPPCs as follows:

  • (i) The referent of the comitative PP is [+human] (typically kin or close associate; see Holmberg & Kurki 2019: 257, section 5).

  • (ii) The nominal head within the comitative PP is definite and/or specific (see Holmberg & Kurki 2019: 258 (35c)).6

  • (iii) The pronominal head is [+animate], [+human], and most often 1PL.7,8

  • (iv) The IPPC has restricted syntactic functions. It can function as subject or topic, however it is excluded from the possessor or direct object functions (see Holmberg & Kurki 2019: 248).

  • (v) The pronominal head and the comitative PP may form a discontinuous syntactic unit, i.e., these constituents can be split from each other, though their linear ordering cannot be reversed (see Holmberg & Kurki 2019: 247).

Finnish IPPCs, as described by Holmberg and Kurki (2019), are typically built on the 1PL pronoun WE plus a comitative PP:

Despite the 1PL pronominal head, the meaning of such constructions in Finnish is not “WE together with x”; rather, they are interpreted as “ME together with x and nobody else”.9

In the corresponding Icelandic Pro[NP] construction there is no overt morphological indication of the syntactic relationship between the pronominal head and the associated DP (“the annex” in the terminology of Sigurðsson & Wood 2020) that follows it:

The Finnish example in (2) can be expressed in two ways in Hungarian: either by mere coordination, or by a pronominal construction with a COM-marked DP in it. In the first case, the pronominal member of the coordination is 1SG, and is connected to the associated DP by the conjunction and. In the second case, the pronominal head is 1PL and is followed by the COM-marked DP:

As Vassilieva and Larson (2005) point out for Russian and Polish, IPPCs cannot be analyzed as conjoined structures because the truth conditions of conjoined DPs differ from those of IPPCs. In the case of conjoined DPs, the reference set of the pronominal head includes the speaker and some others, while in the latter, it includes only the speaker and the referent of the comitative DP. This excludes any analysis of true IPPCs based on conjunction.

Notice that in (5a) the reference set of the 1PL personal pronoun we does not include Petja. In (5b), by contrast, the speaker and Petja are the only referents included in the reference set of the 1PL personal pronoun in the given discourse universe.

It must be noted here that Hungarian IPPCs differ morpho-syntactically and semantically from APCs to a great extent (the latter is formed by the help of the associative suffix -ék, see Moravcsik 2003, Daniel 2005, Daniel & Moravcsik 2008).10 Nonetheless, these two constructions are often mentioned together, as they impose similar lexical-semantic restrictions on their reference set (see Corbett 2000: 201–211):

In both constructions, the associated group is normally [+human], [+definite] and/or [+specific], and must be in close sociological relation (kin or associate) with the referent(s) of the pronominal head or the lexical head (see M. Korchmáros 1995, Moravcsik 2003, Daniel & Moravcsik 2008). Both constructions are group-denoting expressions, though they differ with respect to clusivity. While the pronominal head of IPPCs is typically speaker-inclusive 1PL, the APC is speaker-exclusive, and its referent can only be 3PL. I will return to this issue in section 4 of this paper.11

2. Current Analyses of IPPCs in Finnish and Icelandic

2.1. Inclusory Plural Pronominal Constructions in Finnish

One problem these constructions immediately raise is how the 1PL personal pronoun receives the inclusory interpretation, i.e., how it can refer to the speaker plus the referent of the comitative DP only. Holmberg and Kurki (2019) adopt Vassilieva and Larson’s (2005) account, who claim that the 1PL pronoun WE comprises two sets of variables {X, Y}. The first set is a singleton, including only the speaker, which has the 1SG feature; the second set is contextually determined. Based on Holmberg and Kurki’s (2019: 261) proposal, a simplified X-bar theoretic structure of the Finnish construction is given in (7).12 The D0 head inherits the feature bundle of both sets, and serves as a c-commander for the comitative PP.

Holmberg and Kurki (2019) derive the relatively flexible placement of the constituents of IPPCs in the sentence via remnant movement, whereby the comitative PP is left-adjoined to vP and the remnant DP moves to the left (Holmberg & Kurki 2019: 261).

Once we accept that IPPCs do not necessarily enter the canonical [Spec, TP] subject position (see Holmberg 2000, Holmberg & Nikanne 2002 and subsequent work), we can assume that they move to some left-peripheral position reserved for discourse-semantic functions straightaway, while the verb performs head movement to T0. Alternatively, the pronoun can move to the left periphery on its own, leaving the rest of the DP behind. This will make remnant movement unnecessary.13

2.2. Icelandic Pro[NP] Constructions

The analysis proposed by Holmberg and Kurki (2019) cannot be directly applied to the corresponding Icelandic Pro[NP] construction (see Sigurðsson & Wood 2020), where the pronominal head and the associated DP (“the annex” in their terminology) never split but show case agreement. Sigurðsson and Wood (2020) derive the Icelandic plural pronominal construction by assuming a silent functional head, which they call LOCK and signal it as . The LOCK head ensures that the pronoun and the annex are rigidly kept together:14

Similar constructions in Finnish or Russian are also claimed to have a silent LOCK head in their analysis. The authors claim that an overt connector like the Finnish postposition kannsa ‘with’, or the Russian preposition . ‘with’ (or, we could add, the Hungarian comitative suffix -val/-vel ‘with’) may break the LOCK, and in such cases the pronoun and the annex can split.

Icelandic plural pronominal constructions are not restricted to first person, they are commonly formed in all persons of the plural. This is in sharp contrast with Finnish IPPCs, in which the 1PL is the most common type: “Our impression is that the most common instantiation … is with we [but it can be you.PL and marginally they]” (Holmberg & Kurki 2019: 253; see also fn. 3). Furthermore, the inclusory reading of the comitative DP is not necessarily implied in Icelandic:

As is noted by the authors, the members of the two reference sets, he and Olaf, can be strong independently, hence the “together” interpretation is possible but not compulsory.

Due to the absence of any overt morphological reflex of their internal syntactic relations, the only way to ensure the inclusory plural interpretation is to block the pronoun and the annex from splitting or from reverse linear ordering via LOCK:15

At first glance these plural pronominal constructions may seem strikingly similar to appositive constructions, such as ‘we, linguists’. As is explicated by the authors, appositive constructions have nothing in common with IPPCs for the following reasons:

Icelandic appositive constructions16

In contradistinction to IPPCs, in which the comitative DP is the complement of the pronominal head, appositive DPs are taken to be adjuncts cross-linguistically because they postmodify the whole DP, not just the head:

Icelandic Pro[NP] constructions also differ from APCs (obsolete in present-day Icelandic, see Sigurðsson & Wood 2020) in that the latter, if they existed today at all, ought to be interpreted as 3PL, and the whole construction would read as ‘Pro and associates’:

There is no person/number agreement between the focal member and the associated DP in APCs in general. The focal member is normally a proper name or a profession name, and the associated group is left unspecified. As the authors note, the example in (16) could hardly have the associative plural reading in present-day Icelandic. Constructions of this kind, however, can have the preproprial reading: Hann, Ólafur ‘Olaf, you know who I mean’ (see the discussion in Sigurðsson & Wood 2020: 10–11).

After surveying similar constructions in Finnish and Icelandic, let us now turn to Hungarian IPPCs.

3. The Hungarian Scenario

3.1. Existing Accounts of IPPCs: Advantages and Disadvantages

As Vassilieva and Larson (2005: 102) point out, the comitative phrase in Russian can appear at various levels of the clause structure: it can function (a) as a DP-internal complement; (b) as a DP-internal adjunct, or (c) as a VP-modifying adjunct. The structure of Russian IPPCs in Vassilieva and Larson’s analysis roughly corresponds to its Finnish counterpart given in (7), in which the comitative phrase is the complement of the D0 pronominal head within the DP (see Vassilieva & Larson 2005: 114, Part 4). For the present purposes, only the DP-internal complement vs. the VP-modifying adjunct roles of the comitative phrase are relevant.17 Other uses of the comitative phrase will not be discussed here, as they are not directly relevant for Hungarian.18

The two occurrences of the comitative PP in (17a), (17b) correspond to two different readings. In (17a), the comitative PP is a DP-internal complement of the pronominal D0 head. This gives rise to the inclusory interpretation of the subject DP, under which the referent of the comitative PP is included in the reference set of the 1PL pronoun. In (17b), by contrast, the referent in the comitative PP is outside the interpretive domain of the 1PL pronominal subject. Here the comitative PP is simply a VP-modifying adjunct. Thus, the syntactic positioning of the comitative phrase is a diagnostic feature of clausal constituency in Russian.

The authors support their analysis of IPPCs by the binding properties of the reflexive possessive pronoun svoj ‘own’ in Russian.

Anaphoric binding of svoj ‘own

Notice that in (18), the comitative phrase is the complement of the pronominal head, and the reflexive possessive pronoun svoj ‘own’ takes the whole DP as its antecedent. This is not so in (19), where the referent of the comitative phrase is not included in the reference set of the 1PL personal pronoun we. Svoj in this case can construe with the 1PL personal pronoun my ‘we’ and the comitative phrase s koskoj ‘with cat’ independently, yielding the non-inclusive reading.19

Vassilieva and Larson (2005) derive the semantic interpretation of plural personal pronouns from their singular counterparts in such a way that they introduce a contextually determined Δ [delta] variable:

If we wanted to follow this track, we would have to assume that the Δ variable is also present in the case of IPPCs, whose value would then be contextually determined. This, however, cannot be maintained, given that the value of the Δ variable is determined by the lexical content of the comitative PP, which does not change according to the context. Notice, nevertheless, that the authors’ concept implicitly forces viewing the comitative PP under the inclusory interpretation as a DP-internal complement, and not as a VP-modifying adjunct. This does not leave any room for ambiguity.20

Though this approach has a certain degree of theoretical appeal, it does not justify the introduction of a contextually determined Δ variable in the case of inclusive/exclusive WE and in the case of IPPCs. As we have already seen, inclusive WE has the speaker and the addressee in its reference set, whilst IPPCs have the speaker and the referent of the comitative phrase in their reference set. Exclusive WE has the speaker and some others (not participating in the discourse) in its reference set. This eliminates the need for any contextually determined variable.

In pragmatically inclined syntactic analyses, 1st and 2nd person pronouns are characterized as speech act participants, and are equipped with the [+SAP] feature (see Bianchi 2006). This distinguishes them from 3rd person pronouns, whose referents are not speech act participants, and are therefore assigned the [–SAP] feature. The reference sets of inclusive vs. exclusive WE, as well as the IPPC can, accordingly, be defined as follows:

Given that Z is specified as [–SAP], and there is no other nominal present in the construction, it is the only entity that can be identified as the referent of the comitative phrase in the given discourse universe, yielding the inclusory reading. This makes the introduction of the Δ variable unnecessary. Another significant advantage of introducing the [±SAP] feature, to be discussed briefly in the next subsection, is that IPPCs can be segregated from conjoined DPs.

3.1.2. Dékány’s (2009) Analysis of Hungarian IPPCs

In her analysis of IPPCs, Dékány (2009: 239) proposes that the comitative DP is incorporated into the plural pronominal head:

In this structure, the Δ variable set is conjoined with the 1SG pronoun and its value is determined by the comitative DP, which is incorporated into the plural pronominal head.

Though the main objective of this paper is not to give a critical overview of Dékány’s analysis, it seems important to point out some problems raised by it, as it is widely accepted in mainstream Hungarian syntactic theorizing.

Her analysis cannot be maintained for the following reasons. First, it is unclear what the role of the Δ variable is and why the 1SG pronoun should be conjoined with it. As Vassilieva and Larson (2005: 121) point out, conjoined structures differ from IPPCs in their truth conditions. As a consequence, the conjoined structure in (24) can only have the non-inclusory reading, whereas the IPPC in (23) must be interpreted as inclusory. Thus, (23) implies that the speaker and Petja know German as a group, while in (24) this interpretation is absent:

The same is true for Hungarian. While the conjoined structure in (25a) has the non-inclusory reading, the IPPC in (25b) can only have the inclusory interpretation.

Second, the tests Dékány (2009) adopts from Vassilieva and Larson (2005) (wh-extraction, restrictive relative clauses, paraphrases, etc.) are meant to tell apart comitative phrases interpreted either as included or as not included in the reference set of WE in Hungarian. Nonetheless, in her account, the comitative DP is taken to be DP-internal both under the inclusory and under the non-inclusory interpretations. Her tests may be helpful for segregating DP-internal complements from DP-internal adjuncts in general but not from VP-modifying adjuncts. These tests are not informative for the DP-internal complement versus VP-modifying adjunct status of the comitative phrase, which is taken to be equivalent to the inclusory vs. non-inclusory interpretations here, respectively. What Dékány calls DP-adjunction is, in fact, a DP-internal complement:

“I take these data to point to the conclusion that the pronoun and the comitative form a constituent, and thus corroborate the DP-adjunction analysis.” (Dékány 2009: 238).

The pronominal head and the comitative phrase can only form a syntactic unit if the comitative DP is the complement of the pronominal head. Indeed, this is exactly the scenario in which the referent of the comitative DP is included in the reference set of the 1PL pronoun, giving rise to the inclusory interpretation.

Under the other interpretation, which she calls exclusive, the comitative phrase is referred to as an appositive modifier. If such appositive modifiers existed in Hungarian at all, they would certainly have to be also DP-internal. Unfortunately, Hungarian comitative DPs do not function as DP-internal appositive adjuncts, therefore the problem can be reduced to the DP-internal complement vs. VP-adjunct dichotomy.

3.2. Inclusory Plural Pronominal Constructions in Hungarian

Hungarian IPPCs are formed by the help of the 1PL pronominal head and a comitative case-marked DP. In this section first the lexical-semantic properties, and after that the syntactic properties of these constructions will be looked at.

3.2.1. The Lexical-Semantic Properties of Hungarian Inclusory Plural Pronominal Constructions

Just like in Finnish, the comitative DP in Hungarian must be a [+human], [+definite] and/or [+specific] NP, whose referent must be in close sociological relationship with the speaker:

Indefinite or inanimate NPs cannot function as comitative DPs in IPPCs as they do not meet these requirements:21

Pronouns cannot appear as comitative DPs in IPPCs, irrespective of their [±DEF] feature:22

Though at this point we cannot provide an explanation as to why pronouns do not qualify as comitative DPs in IPPCs, it is worth noting that pronouns are also ruled out as potential focal heads in APCs (see Moravcsik 2003).

3.2.2. The Syntactic Properties of Hungarian Inclusory Plural Pronominal Constructions

The syntactic structure of Hungarian IPPCs resembles the corresponding Finnish construction, except that in Hungarian the comitative reading is introduced by the -val/-vel ‘together with’ case marking.23 The comitative DP is the complement of the pronominal head, yet, there is no strict adjacency requirement for it; they can be freely split (28). What is more, not even their linear ordering is fixed, as is shown in (29):24

In (28) and (29), the comitative reading25 of the DP-internal complement is due to its [+human] feature. If we replace it by a [–human], [–animate] DP, the same case-marking gives rise to the instrument reading:

In such cases, only the VP-modifying adjunct interpretation is available, the inclusory reading does not even arise. Incidentally, the comitative DP and the instrument DP can also appear simultaneously, both as VP-modifying adjuncts. The fact that their relative ordering is fixed indicates that even in such cases, the two adjunct DPs do not have identical syntactic status. This is probably due to the so-called Animacy Hierarchy (see Corbett 2000).26

(i) Relative ordering of comitative and instrument DPs as VP-modifying adjuncts
3.2.3. The Constituent Structure of Inclusory Plural Pronominal Constructions in Hungarian

Personal pronouns in Hungarian are taken here to be fully referential DPs in all persons (see Dalmi 1998, 2002). They are defective only in the sense that they do not readily lend themselves to pre- or postmodification. This alone, however, is not sufficient for assigning different structures or different levels of complexity to them (but see Bartos 1999 for the opposite view).

Referentiality is a property of nominals, not of determiners. In particular, it is the N0 head that bears the [±D] feature,27 which must be licensed in D0 (cf. Abney 1987).28 This triggers the N0-to-D0 movement of the pronominal head, in the sense of Longobardi (1994). For this reason, I take Hungarian personal pronouns in all persons to be full, referential DPs.

As was noted above, the inclusory interpretation emerges only if the comitative DP appears as the complement of the pronominal head; in all the other cases discussed here, the comitative DP functions as a VP-modifying adjunct, with the non-inclusory reading. The two readings can be isolated by adding the reflexive possessive pronoun saját ‘own’.29

(ii) The saját ‘own’ test

The reflexive possessive pronoun saját ‘one’s own’ construes with the thematically most prominent antecedent in its minimal domain.30

In (34), the whole subject DP mi a nővéremmel ‘me with my sister’ is interpreted as the owner of the cafeteria, which is shown by the 1PL possessive suffix on the possessee. In this capacity, the subject DP serves as the antecedent for the reflexive possessive pronoun saját ‘one’s own’ (for a detailed analysis of reflexive possessive pronouns in Hungarian, see Rákosi 2014):

In (35), by contrast, where only the head of the comitative DP a nővérem-mel ‘my sister-COM’ is understood as the sole owner of the cafeteria, the reflexive possessive pronoun saját ‘own’ is interpreted as coreferential with that owner alone. This is again shown by the 3SG possessive suffix on the possessee. The non-inclusory interpretation becomes possible because the comitative DP is not included in the reference set of the 1PL pronoun, i.e., it must be a VP-modifying adjunct, topicalized independently:

The syntactic status of the comitative DP can be further tested by the binding properties of the reciprocal pronoun egymás ‘each other’.

(iii) The egymás ‘each other’ test

The reciprocal pronoun is special in that it requires either a plural or a conjoined antecedent. It does not accept, however, two distinct DPs as antecedents which are split within the clause. This has become known as the ‘no split antecedent’ test for reciprocals (see Koster & May 1982). This property makes the reciprocal pronoun a suitable candidate for testing the DP-modifying complement vs. VP-modifying adjunct status of the comitative DP.

In (36a), the comitative DP is the complement of the pronominal head. This is why the IPPC can serve as an antecedent for the reciprocal pronoun at all:

If the comitative DP with the subscript . were not included in the reference set of the 1PL pronoun, as in (36b), the binding requirement would not be fulfilled and the sentence would become uninterpretable:

Here the speaker and another person constitute the reference set for WE; the comitative DP is excluded from it.

3.3. The Syntactic Status of Comitative vs. Instrument DPs

The pronominal head and the comitative DP can split and move separately to any discourse-related projection on the left periphery of the sentence; what is more, even their linear ordering can be reversed (37). However, replacing the comitative DP by an instrument DP will give us a different picture (38). Topicalization of the comitative DP produces a grammatical sentence but topicalization of the instrument DP does not. This is an indication that comitative DPs and instrumental DPs do not originate in the same syntactic position within the layered VP:

A similar asymmetry is found between a DP-internal comitative phrase and a VP-modifying comitative phrase, even though they are both [+definite] and [+human] (39)–(40):

Topicalisation, thus, serves as a useful test for telling apart DP-internal comitative complements from VP-modifying comitative adjuncts.

3.4. Syntactic Functions of IPPCs

Hungarian IPPCs do not impose any restriction on their syntactic function, unlike their Finnish counterparts. In particular, they are not excluded from the possessor or direct object syntactic role (see Holmberg & Kurki 2019: 249):

Here again, Hungarian IPPCs resemble the corresponding Icelandic construction more than their Finnish counterparts as far as the flexibility of taking various syntactic roles is concerned (see Sigurðsson & Wood 2020 for details).

Now let us turn our attention to APCs.

4. Associative Plural Constructions in Hungarian

When discussing inclusory plural constructions, another type of group-denoting DPs, notably APCs, must also be mentioned. Though the two constructions substantially differ in their syntactic structure and also with respect to clusivity, they observe very similar semantic restrictions.

4.1. Lexical-Semantic Properties of Hungarian Associative Plural Constructions

As Moravcsik (2003), Daniel and Moravcsik (2008) point out, APCs differ from standard additive plurals in that the former denote unspecified groups with the focal member named in the construction, while the latter merely denote the multiplicity of similar items. In Hungarian, the associative suffix -ék is simply attached to the noun denoting the focal member of the group (usually a profession name, a proper name, or a noun denoting a prominent or familiar person), to produce the associative reading. The difference in meaning between associative plurals and additive plurals is illustrated in (43)–(44) and (45)–(46), respectively.

The lexical category of the focal member is restricted. It cannot be a member of closed lexical classes (personal pronouns and phrases containing indefinite, universal, or negative quantifiers):

In sum, we can say that the APC is a speaker-exclusive, group-denoting NP, in which the focal member of the group serves as the semantic base of the construction, and the associated members of the group are left unspecified. Both the focal head and the associated NP impose semantic restrictions on their reference sets. Moravcsik (2003: 473) gives a familiarity hierarchy of the potential associates:

While in additive plural constructions the reference set is homogeneous, APCs impose no such requirement; the members of the associated group are left unspecified.

4.2. Some Morpho-Syntactic Properties of Hungarian Associative Plural Constructions

APCs can be conjoined with additive plural constructions, (49), as well as with inclusory plural constructions (50):

As opposed to additive plurals, the focal head of the APC does not normally allow adjectival premodifiers, (51)–(52):31

However, it does combine with the possessive suffix, which always precedes the associative suffix (see Dékány 2011 for a syntactic account of these facts):

The most important properties of inclusory vs. APCs in Hungarian are summarized in (55):

In the case of IPPCs, the referents of the comitative DP must be sociologically closely related to the speaker. In APCs, the associated group is selected along a familiarity hierarchy, with the lexical head as the focal member of the group (see M. Korchmáros 1995, Moravcsik 2003, Daniel & Moravcsik 2008).

5. Comparing Hungarian, Finnish and Icelandic Inclusory Plural Pronominal Constructions

Turning back to IPPCs in the three languages introduced in Part 1, let me now review the properties they do or do not have in common.

5.1. Splitting Constituents in Finnish and Hungarian

Hungarian IPPCs pattern with their Finnish counterparts (and differ from the corresponding Icelandic construction), in that their constituents can split:

5.2. Reverse Ordering of Constituents

At the same time, in Finnish and Icelandic, the linear ordering of the constituents cannot be reversed (i.e., the comitative phrase cannot precede the personal pronoun within the IPPC), whereas in Hungarian IPPCs, the comitative DP can happily precede the pronoun:32

Reverse ordering of constituents within IPPCs in Hungarian and Finnish

(The comitative PP in (59) can only be interpreted as a topicalized VP-modifying adjunct, yielding the we together with Anna reading but not the intended me together with Anna reading. The asterisk is meant to indicate that the inclusory interpretation is out.).

5.3. Restricted Syntactic Roles

Moreover, while Finnish IPPCs are excluded from the possessor and object syntactic functions, there are no similar restrictions imposed on Hungarian IPPCs; they can appear in any syntactic function:

IPPC as direct object in Hungarian and Finnish

IPPC as possessor33 in Hungarian and Finnish

This state of affairs relates Hungarian more to Icelandic than to Finnish. Notably, in Icelandic there is no restriction on the syntactic role of the corresponding construction (see Sigurðsson & Wood 2020).

5.4. Speaker-Inclusiveness

Although Hungarian inclusory plural constructions typically appear with the first person plural pronoun, occasionally they can be used in other persons, especially in contrasted clauses:

This option is again reminiscent of Icelandic Pro[NP] plural constructions, which commonly occur in all persons and genders and in various syntactic functions:

Due to the fact, however, that in Icelandic the syntactic relation between the pronominal head and the annex is not overtly marked, they never split and the ordering of the constituents cannot be reversed; such operations would make their interpretation as a syntactic unit impossible.

While seemingly reminiscent of coordination, Icelandic Pro[NP] plural constructions differ from true conjoined DPs in their rigid ordering, obligatory case agreement and hierarchical internal structure (head-annex) (see Sigurðsson & Wood 2020).

The properties of Hungarian, Finnish and Icelandic inclusory plural constructions are summarized in (66):

Though IPPCs are found in several languages, their properties vary from one language to the other. The comparative approach taken in this paper has revealed that despite the DP-internal structural resemblance, Hungarian IPPCs diverge from their Finnish counterparts in their syntactic behaviour and semantic properties.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, a special plural pronominal construction of Hungarian, referred to in the literature as IPPCs is discussed. The paper compares IPPCs in Hungarian with similar constructions in Finnish and Icelandic. The greater flexibility in syntactic positioning, linear ordering, and splitting found in Hungarian IPPCs might be related to the flexible clausal architecture and the rich morphological system of this language.34 Finnish has a more rigid clausal architecture, and does not allow the reverse ordering of the constituents in IPPCs.

Although Icelandic also has rich morphology, its word order is highly rigid on the clausal level. As there is no overt morphological marking of the syntactic relationship between the pronominal head and the annex, splitting or reversing the constituents would make the syntactic relationship between them irrecoverable.

As regards Hungarian IPPCs and APCs, they are both group-denoting constructions, which, however, differ in the selection of their reference set and in their syntactic structure.

Notes

1 Inclusive we specifically includes the speaker and the addressee (I and you), while exclusive we specifically excludes the addressee, regardless of who else may be involved (I and some others but not you). While this sort of distinction could be made in other persons, in fact the existence of second-person clusivity (you vs. you and them) in natural languages is controversial and not well attested (see Simon 2005, Cysouw 2008).

2 The following abbreviations are used in this paper: ACC (accusative case), ADE (adessive case), APC (associative plural construction), ASS (associative plural suffix, -ék), COM (comitative case, -val/-vel ‘with’), DAT (dative case), DP (determiner phrase), GEN (genitive case), ILL (illative case ‘into’), IMP (imperative mood), INE (inessive case, -ban/-ben ‘in’), INST (instrumental case, -val/-vel ‘with, by’), IPPC (inclusory plural pronominal construction), NOM (nominative case), NP (noun phrase), PL (plural number), POSS (possessive marker), POTP (potential mood phrase), PP (prepositional/postpositional phrase), Q (interrogative particle), SBL (sublative case, -ra/-re ‘onto’), SG (singular number), SPR (superessive case, -on/-en/-ön ‘on’), TOPP (topic phrase), VP (verb phrase).

3 In X-bar theory, the complement is the constituent closest to the X0 head. Adjuncts are optional sisters of X’ (see Radford 1988, Roberts 1997).

4 The term “inclusory” was chosen by Holmberg and Kurki (2019) in order to distinguish this construction from the traditional division of 1PL personal pronouns into inclusive vs. exclusive (see Simon 2005, Cysouw 2008, see also Lichtenberk 2000).

5 It is vital to distinguish inclusory plural pronominal constructions, in which the comitative phrase is the complement of the pronominal head, from VP-modifying adjunct with-PPs, which are only marginally touched upon in this paper. In neither case does the with-PP have any appositive interpretation in Hungarian. On the adjunct status of appositive constructions see Radford (1988).

6 Although Holmberg and Kurki (2019: 258) claim that their example (36) cannot have the IPPC reading because the comitative phrase is non-specific, in the majority of cases this generalization can be maintained.

7 Personal pronouns with the [–human] feature do not qualify as heads of IPPCs: *it with a handle; *they with their wheels.

8 Although personification with pets is possible, this does not contradict the general rule, as is shown in (i):

8 (i) Mi Plútóval gyakran megyünk kirándulni. *Ilyenkor ő vezet.

8 ‘We with Pluto often go on outings. *On such occasions he drives.’

8 The same holds also for the definiteness requirement.

9 The translation given by Holmberg and Kurki (2019) has been modified to highlight the comitative interpretation of the with-PP.

10 As Kibort (2008) notes, “After an investigation of the APC in 200 languages, Daniel (2005: 150) concludes that in almost all cases the focal referent and the associated referents belong to the same cognitive category, which is most commonly the class of humans. The most commonly understood associates are family, with the second most common interpretation being ‘friends or familiar associates’, another possibility being ‘an occasional group that the focal referent is a member of’.”

11 Although non-human personified comitative PPs are acceptable in several languages, they have a rather restricted use even in the case of pets, as is clear from the example below:

11

11 The same applies to the [+definite/+specific] feature. Counter-examples do exist but this does not contradict the overall tendency.

12 Contrary to standard assumptions, according to which personal pronouns originate as D0 heads within the DP (see Abney 1987), the present study takes all personal pronouns to be N0 heads within a deficient DP. In this scenario, the pronominal head first performs N0-to-D0 movement in the sense of Longobardi (1994), to check its [+D] referentiality feature. If the N0 head has a [-D] feature, the extended DP layer does not project (see Grimshaw 1990 and the references cited therein).

13 As Holmberg and Nikanne (2002) point out for Finnish, TopicP can host both XPs and X0 categories.

14 In the proposal presented here for Hungarian IPPCs, there is no similar silent head postulated.

15 The two morphologically unmarked constituents can be interpreted as a single phrasal unit only if they are strictly adjacent.

16 Examples kindly provided by Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson.

17 It must be noted here that Standard Arabic distinguishes between symmetric and asymmetric comitative structures, which differ with respect to person/number agreement and the [±animate] feature. While symmetric comitative structures are complements of the head, asymmetric ones are adjuncts (see Belahcen & Announi 2022).

18 Postmodifying appositive constructions typically appear in the nominative in Hungarian (see also Dalmi 2021):

18

19 DP-internal complements are distinguished from DP-internal adjuncts by their relation to the head. Complements modify the head while adjuncts modify the phrase. In (i), the noun phrase is postmodified by a complement and by an adjunct. Changing their linear ordering gives an ungrammatical sequence. This is an indication of the fact that the one following the head is a complement and the other one is an adjunct (see Radford 1988):

19

  • (i) students of physics with red hair

  • (ii) *students with red hair of physics

20 The postmodifying appositive reading is not available for Hungarian comitative phrases.

21 Partitively interpreted expressions such as mi egy unokatestvéremmel ‘we with a cousin of mine’ count as specific.

22 In Hungarian, 1st and 2nd person personal pronouns are indefinite, while 3rd person personal pronouns are definite (see Bartos 1997, 1999; Dalmi 1998, 2002; Bárány 2015).

23 On the contrast between comitative DPs used as DP-internal complements or adjuncts, and those functioning as VP-modifying adjuncts, see Dékány (2009, 2011).

24 On the clausal architecture of Hungarian and the structure of the left periphery, see É.Kiss (2002). Frequency adverbials and quantifiers that do not block the preverbal position of the prefix are merged under QP in her analysis, which is adopted here.

25 COM is morphologically identical to INST in many languages, though they are semantically distinguished; cp. Russian s+INST and English with versus by.

26 The fact that the differences in grammaticality disappear when these adjuncts undergo contrastive topicaliation is not surprising, due to the specific semantics of contrastive topic.

27 Proper names are referential nominal expressions with a N0 head, which is specifed for the [+D] referentiality fearure. They need a DP projection in order to have their [+D] feature licensed by the D0 head (see Longobardi 1994). Personal pronouns are also referential DPs, which refer to an entitity or a group of entities. Generic pronouns are referential, too. They refer to an unspecified group of entities (see Moltmann 2006). Non-referential nominals do not project as DPs (see Partee 1998), hence they do not satisfy the EPP.

28 Licensing takes place as head-head Agree in the case of pronominal N0 heads and proper names, and via distant Agree in other cases.

29 The reflexive pronominal object (ön)mag-á-t ‘oneself-POSS3SG-ACC’ bears the POSS and obligatorily agrees in person/number with the subject. In (i) below, both mi and lefényképeztük are 1PL, and the reflexive pronoun önmag-unk-at ‘self-POSS1PL-ACC’ inherits the 1PL feature. The comitative adjunct on its own cannot, therefore, serve as an antecedent for the reciprocal pronoun, irrespective of the singular or plural form of the verb. Thus, Dékány’s (2009) test based on person/ number agreement between the reflexive pronoun and its antecedent is not diagnostic for testing the constituency of IPPCs in Hungarian:

29

29 Another syntactic operation offered by Dékány (2009) to test the status of the comitative DP is wh-extraction:

29

29 Since the comitative DP can only be interpreted as a VP-modifying adjunct in both cases (write an article with someone), these examples are not indicative of constituency. The relevant examples here could be (v)–(vii), where the VP-modifying adjunct interpretation is excluded. The non-agentive predicate like does not accept a comitative VP-modifying adjunct:

29

29 Unfortunately, wh-extraction gives bad results both from the VP-modifying adjunct position in (vii) and from the subject position in (vi):

29

29 Besides, it seems dubious whether the subject DP can have the IPPC reading at all under wh-extraction.

30 In configurational languages like English or Russian, the most prominent argument of the predicate occupies the syntactic subject position. This is why the reflexive possessive pronoun is often referred to as ‘subject-oriented’ in the generative syntactic literature. For a similar ambiguity of anaphors in other languages, see Kim (2004). These pronouns construe with the thematically most prominent antecedent in their minimal binding domain. The comitative DP can qualify as an antecedent in its own right only if it is a VP-modifying adjunct. This is exploited in the minimal pair in (34)–(35).

31 Bartos (1999) gives some counter-examples:

31

31 The noun phrase in (i) is a possessive DP, which serves as the input for the associative suffix, after bracket erasure. The adjective in (ii) is used in feudal addressing forms and titles, and forms a morphological word with the head.

31 The individual-level form részeges ‘drunkard’ is fine in APCs.

32 In the original example given by Holmberg and Kurki (2019: 247), the syntactic functions of the personal pronoun and the proper name are swapped:

32

32 As the authors note, this sentence is grammatical but does not have the inclusory interpretation, relevant for the discussion.

33 Finnish IPPCs are fine as possessors in predicative possessive sentences but DP-internal possessors are impossible:

33

33 Hungarian is more flexible in this respect. It allows an IPPC to appear as a dative possessor in possessive DPs as long as it is extracted from the possessive DP:

33

34 On the correlation between rich morphology and flexible linear ordering, see Comrie (1981).

References

1.

Abney, S. 1987. The English Noun Phrase and Its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

2.

Bárány, A. 2015. Differential Object Marking in Hungarian and the Morphosyntax of Case and Agreement. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge.

3.

Bartos, H. 1997. On ‘Subjective’ and ‘Objective’ Agreement in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44.3/4, 363–384.

4.

Bartos, H. 1999. Morphosyntax and Interpretation: The Syntactic Background of Hungarian Inflectional Phenomena. Ph.D. Dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University.

5.

Belahcen, M. & I. Announi. 2022. The Syntax of Comitative Structure in Standard Arabic: A Minimalist Approach. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation 5.5, 149–164. DOI:
.

6.

Bianchi, V. 2006. On the Syntax of Personal Arguments. Lingua 116.12, 2023–2067. DOI:
.

7.

Cable, S. 2017. Some Observations on the Plural Pronoun Construction of Tlingit, Polish, and Russian. In C. Halpert et al. (eds.), A Pesky Set. Papers for David Pesetsky. Cambridge: MITWPL 80.

8.

Comrie, B. 1981. Language Typology and Linguistic Universals. 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

9.

Corbett, G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: CUP.

10.

Cysouw, M. 2008. Inclusive/Exclusive Distinction in Independent Pronouns. In H. Martin et al. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language StructuresOnline. WALS Online.

11.

Dalmi, G. 1998. On Object Agreement in Hungarian. Working Papers in the Theory of Grammar. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University.

12.

Dalmi, G. 2002. The Role of AGRP in Non-Finite Predication. Ph.D. Dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University.

13.

Dalmi, G. 2021. Mi a nővéremmel: amikor a mi valójában én [We with My Sister: When We Really Means I]. Argumentum 438–455.

14.

Daniel, M. 2005. Understanding Inclusives. In E. Filimonova (ed.), Clusivity: Typology and Case Study of the Inclusive-Exclusive Distinction 3–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

15.

Daniel, M. & E. Moravcsik. 2008. The Associative Plural. In D. Matthew & M. Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. WALS Online.

16.

Dékány, É. 2009. Comitative Adjuncts: Appositive and Non-Appositive. In É. Kiss (ed.), Adverbs and Adverbial Adjuncts at the Interfaces 231–247. Berlin, NY: Mouton De Gruyter.

17.

Dékány, É. 2011. A Profile of the Hungarian DP: The Interaction of Lexicalization, Agreement and Linearization with the Functional Sequence. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tromsoe.

18.

É.Kiss, K. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: CUP.

19.

Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

20.

Holmberg, A. 2000. Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: How Any Category Can Become an Expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31.3, 445–483. DOI:
.

21.

Holmberg, A. & K. Kurki. 2019. We …with Anna: Inclusory Coordination in Finnish and Fenno-Swedish. In K. Christiensen et al. (eds.), The Sign of the V: Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner 243–266. Aarhus: The University of Aarhus Press.

22.

Holmberg, A. & U. Nikanne. 2002. Expletives, Subjects, and Topics in Finnish. In P. Svenonius (ed.), Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP 71–105. Oxford: OUP.

23.

Kibort, A. 2008. Associativity. Grammatical Features. Available at <https://www.grammaticalfeatures.net/features/associativity>.

24.

Kim, S. 2004. A Language Typology in Anaphoric Dependency: Evidence from Chinese, English, Japanese, Icelandic, and Korean. Journal of Universal Language 5.20, 37–73. DOI:
.

25.

Koster, J. & R. May. 1982. On the Constituency of Infinitives. Language 58.1, 116–143.
.

26.

Lichtenberk, F. 2000. Inclusory Pronominals. Oceanic Linguistics 39.1, 1–32. DOI:
.

27.

Longobardi, G. 1994. Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-Movement in Syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 25.4, 609–665.

28.

M. Korchmáros, V. 1995. The Plural Inflectional Suffix -ék! Néprajz és Nyelvtudomány 36, 295–307.

29.

Moltmann, F. 2006. Generic One, Arbitrary PRO, and the First Person. Natural Language Semantics 14.3, 257–281. DOI:
.

30.

Moravcsik, E. 2003. A Semantic Analysis of Associative Plurals. Studies in Language 27.3, 469–503. DOI:
.

31.

Partee, B. 1998. Copula Inversion Puzzles in English and Russian. In K. Dziwirek et al. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 361–395. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.

32.

Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: CUP.

33.

Rákosi, G. 2014. Possessed by Something Out There: On Anaphoric Possessors in Hungarian. Argumentum 10, 548–559.

34.

Roberts, I. 1997. Comparative Syntax. London: Arnold.

35.

Sigurðsson, H. & J. Wood. 2020. “We Olaf”: Pro[(x-)NP] Constructions in Icelandic and Beyond. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5.1, 16.

36.

Simon, H. 2005. Only You? Philological Investigations into the Alleged Inclusive-Exclusive Distinction in the Second Person Plural. In E. Filimonova (ed.), Clusivity: Typology and Case Studies of the Inclusive-Exclusive Distinction 113–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

37.

Vassilieva, M. & R. Larson. 2005. The Semantics of the Plural Pronoun Construction. Natural Language Semantics 13.2, 101–124. DOI:
.

38.

Wikipedia. n.d. Clusivity. Available at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity>.