Overt Scope in Hungarian

The focus of this paper is the syntax of inverse scope in Hungarian, a language that largely disambiguates quantifier scope at Spell–Out. Inverse scope is attributed to alternate orderings of potentially large chunks of structure, but with appeal to base–generation, as opposed to non–feature–driven movement as in Kayne 1998. The proposal is developed within mirror theory and conforms to the assumption that structures are antisymmetrical. The paper also develops a matching notion of scope in terms of featural domination, as opposed to c–command, and applies it to otherwise problematic cases of pied piping. Finally, the interaction of different quantifier types is examined, and the patterns are explained invoking morphological considerations on one hand and A′–reconstruction on the other.

[1]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  Combinatory Grammar and Projection from the Lexicon , 1992 .

[2]  Richard S. Kayne.  Overt vs. Covert Movements , 1998 .

[3]  Gereon Müller,et al.  Shape Conservation and Remnant Movement , 2000 .

[4]  L. Haegeman.  Elements of Grammar , 1997 .

[5]  B R Greene,et al.  String theory. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  Daniel Büring,et al.  The Great Scope Inversion Conspiracy , 1995 .

[7]  A. Cardinaletti.  Subjects and clause structure , 1996 .

[8]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  Overt scope: a case study in Hungarian , 2001 .

[9]  D. Pesetsky.  Phrasal Movement and Its Kin , 2000 .

[10]  M. Brody,et al.  Mirror Theory: Syntactic Representation in Perfect Syntax , 2000, Linguistic Inquiry.

[11]  Richard S. Kayne.  The Antisymmetry of Syntax , 1994 .

[12]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  The semantics of topic-focus articulation , 1981 .

[13]  Feng-Hsi Liu,et al.  Scope dependency in english and chinese , 1990 .

[14]  Alex Alsina,et al.  Where’s the Mirror Principle? , 1999 .

[15]  M Brody.  On the status of derivations and representations , 2000 .

[16]  Samuel David Epstein,et al.  Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program , 2002 .

[17]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  Positive Polarity – Negative Polarity , 2004 .

[18]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Scope Inversion under the Rise-Fall Contour in German , 1998, Linguistic Inquiry.

[19]  David Pesetsky,et al.  Paths and categories , 1982 .

[20]  J. Barwise,et al.  Generalized quantifiers and natural language , 1981 .

[21]  Sigrid Beck,et al.  Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement , 1996 .

[22]  K. Kiss.  Configurationality in Hungarian , 1987 .

[23]  T. Reinhart.  Quantifier Scope: How labor is Divided Between QR and Choice Functions , 1997 .

[24]  Sigrid Beck,et al.  The Semantics Of Different: Comparison Operator And Relational Adjective , 2000 .

[25]  Maria Bittner.  Quantification in Eskimo: A Challenge for Compositional Semantics , 1995 .

[26]  Anna Szabolcsi.  The Noun Phrase , 1994 .

[27]  Danny Fox,et al.  Economy and Semantic Interpretation , 1999 .

[28]  Samuel David Epstein,et al.  A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations , 1998 .

[29]  L. Rizzi.  The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery , 1997 .

[30]  László Hunyadi,et al.  The Outlines of a Metrical Syntax of Hungarian , 1999 .

[31]  Chris Barker,et al.  Dynamic excursions on weak islands , 1998 .

[32]  Anna Szabolcsi.  Strategies for Scope Taking , 1997 .