Download
the rise and fall of hungarian complex tenses n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The rise and fall of Hungarian complex tenses PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The rise and fall of Hungarian complex tenses

The rise and fall of Hungarian complex tenses

138 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

The rise and fall of Hungarian complex tenses

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. The rise and fall of Hungariancomplextenses Katalin É. Kiss (Linguistics Institute of theHungarianAcademy of Sciences) ekiss@nytud.hu

  2. Goal: • toreconstructhow and whycomplextensesappearedinHungariangrammar; • toshow how and whytheydisappeared 1000 yearslater; • toarguefortherole of languagecontactsinsyntacticchange; • toidentifytriggers of contact-inducedsyntacticchange

  3. ComplextensesinOld Hungarian,marking tense & aspect: (1) V+Aspect+Agr BE+Tense/Mood SimplePresent: V-(Tense)-Agr: mond-tok say-2pl SimplePast: V-Tense-Agr: mond-á-tok say-past-2pl PresentPerfect: V-Asp-Agr: mond-ta-tok say-prf-2pl PastImperfect: V-(Asp)-AgrBE-Tense:mond-tokval-a say-2plbe-past PastPerfect: V-Asp-AgrBE-Tense: mond-ta-tokval-a say-prf-2plbe-past Prf. Conditional: V-Asp-AgrBE-Cond:mond-ta-tokvol-na say-prf-2plbe-cond

  4. Inthesisterlanguages (Khanty, Mansi) & most otherUraliclanguages: onlyPresent & Past. Traditionalhistoricallinguistics (Benkő 1991-1992): complextenseswerecreatedbytranslatorsinthe Old Hungarianperiodtorender Latin tenses

  5. Argumentsagainstborrowingfrom Latin:i. Latin has no complextensesinactivevoice ii. thecomplextenseswerepresent prior tolargescaletranslationfrom Latin: (2)a. es odu-tt-avol-aneki paradisumuthazoa and give-prf-3sgbe-pasthimParadisehouse-for ’andhad givenhimParadiseforhis house’ (1195) b. turchucatmigezocozt-iavol-a throat-3pl-accprtrive-3sgbe-past ’itwasrivingtheirthroat’ (1195)

  6. Argumentsagainstborrowingfrom Latin: iii. ComplextenseswerepresentinOH private letters; iv. theyarestillpresentinthe most archaic dialects; v. theperfectconditional has survivedin Modern Hungarian (3) mond-ta-tokvol-na say-prf-2plbe-cond

  7. New explanation: complextensesborrowedfrom West Old Turkic (Ogur/Khazar/Bulgarian) Erdal’s (2004) Old TurkicGrammar: (4) öŋdünsözlä-di-Øär-di earliersay-past-3sgbe-past ’hadsaid (it) earlier’ (5) te-di-mizär-sär say-past-1plbe-cond ’wewouldhavesaid’

  8. Chuvash(thedescendant of WOT): be+pastcliticizedtothe Vmarkedfortense and agr. (6)a. şyra-tt-ăm-ččĕ work-durativepast-1sg-be.past b.şyr-satt-ăm-ččĕ work-preterit-1sg-be.past

  9. Whenand wheredidtheborrowinghappen? 7-8thcenturies: HungariansbelongtoTurkictribalalliancesbetweentheDneper and Dnester; 9thcentury: theHungariantribalallianceincorporatestheKabars and otherTurkicfragments. ConstantinePorphyrogennetos(reigning 913-959) De administrandoimperio: Hungariansarebilingual, theyalsospeakthelanguage of Khazars.

  10. Howdidtheborrowingtakeplace? Uraliclanguages: variousparticiples & gerundswith overt subjects and agreement: (7) men-t-emval-a-Ø go-gerund-poss.1sgbe-past-3sg ’mygoingwas [tookplace]’ men-t-edval-a-Ø go-gerund-poss.2sgbe-past-3sg ’yourgoingwas [tookplace]’

  11. Reanalysis: [V + gerund+ poss.agr] + finitecopula[V + aspect + subj.agr.]+ temporalaux. (8) mond-t-amval-a-Ømond-t-amval-a say-gerund-poss.1sgbe-past-3sgsay-perf-1sgbe-past ‘mysayingtookplace’ ’I had said’

  12. Analogicalextension: (8) mond-t-amval-amond-omval-a say-perf-1sgbe-pastsay-1sgbe-past ’I had said’ ’I wassaying’ Abstraction: (9) mond-t-amval-amond-t-am say-perf-1sgbe-pastsay-perf-1sg ’I had said’ ’I havesaid’

  13. The sameprocessin 4 otherFinno-Ugriclanguages, at a differenttimeand location: W. Old Turkic–Udmurt, Mari, Komi, Mordvin contacts: sincethe9thcenturyalongtheVolga. (10) Udmurt: a. mịni-śkem ’I havegone’ go-prf.1sg b. mịni-śkemval ’I had gone’ go-prf.1sgbe.past

  14. Sameaspect and agreement, differenttense: • Mari a. tolӛnam ’I havecome’ b. tolӛnamӛl’e’I had come’ Differentaspect, sameagreement and tense: (12) Komi a. munavȩli ’I wasgoing’ b. munȩmavȩli ’I had gone’

  15. Theoreticalimplication: Iflanguageacquisitionhappensin a bilingualenvironmentinvolving L1 and L2, XPL1can be assignedthestructure of thecorrespondingXPL2– providedXPL1 and XPL2arecloseenoughfunctionally.

  16. Complextensesin Old Hungarian: (13) ualanemynemewtusciabelyvr … kyczudakert wassomeTuscia-from lord whomiracles-for kyket zent fferenczrewlhallott-uala … whichStFrancis-abouthear-prf-3sg-be-past zent ferenczetlattny es hallanyygenkyuannya-uala StFrancis-accto.see and to.hearvery.muchwish-3sg-be-past ’therewassome gentleman fromTusciawho, because of themiracles he had heardaboutSt Francis, waswishingtosee and hearhimverymuch’ (Jókai C. 1370/14487)

  17. 16thcentury: attrition of complextenses: -tperfectnesssuffix is supplanting-a/ePastsuffix (14) • Ki hallo-tt-avol-tvalamikoron ezt … whohear-t-3sg be-teverthat-acc ’who had everheardthat…’ (Döbrentei C. 1508) b. zenthagostonkythaneyt-yavol-tọteth StAugustinewhoteach-3sg be-thim ’SaintAugustinewhowasteachinghim’ (Winkler C. 1506)

  18. Rates of pasttensesintestimonies of witnessesinlegaldocumentsbetw. 1582-84: (15) -t: 85,2%; -a/e: 2,9%; -t + volt: 9,6%; Ø + volt: 2,4%.

  19. The reasonfortheloss of complextenses: thespreading of verbalparticles Inearliesttexts: sporadicoccurrence of telicizingparticles. (16) Habitualtelicactions: kikètakar-ualameg-o̗l-uala who-pl-accwants-be.pstprt-kills-be.pst kikètakar-ualameg-uèr-uala(Vienna C. 1416) who-pl-accwants-be.pstprt-beats-be.pst ‘whom he would he slew; whom he would he put down’ (17) Abortivetelicactions: meg-foguanm̄gfoit’a-uala o̗tet prt-grabbingprtthrottles-be.psthim ‘havinggrabbed, he wasthrottlinghim (Munich C. 1416)

  20. Particlesgraduallyspreadtoallteliccontexts; toeveryaccomplishment/achievement V. Kiefer (2010): „Aktionsartenderivedbypreverbs is a Sprachbundphenomenonwhosecentralarea is Slavic. ItcomprisesHungarian, Lithuanian, Yiddish, German and Romani, and excludesRomance.” 

  21. Hungarian – SlaviccontactsaftersettlingintheCarpathianbasinin896 Slavicminimalpairs: PRT+V  V [+ telic] [-telic] e.g. Russian ’toread’: pro-chitat’ chitat’ ’toeat’: po-est’ est’ (thesamein Old ChurchSlavonic, Kamphuis 2013)

  22. ReanalyisinHungarian: PRT+V -- Vpairsassignedthefeatures [+telic] [-telic], e.g.: el-jön jön prt-come [+telic]: [-telic]: ‘come & arrive’ ’becoming’ Analogicalextension: AlltelicVsgetsuppliedwith a verbalparticle; allbare V areassignedthefeature [-telic].

  23. Lord’sPrayerintheMunichCodex (1416/1466):no particle Munichrecord (late15th c.): no particleinthecopy of thewrittenprayer; 3 particlesintherecording of theoral version: (18) ësmeg-bozässät mi vëtkenkët. and prt-forgive.imp.2sgoursins mikëpenës mi mag-boczätunkvëtëtëknek … asalsoweprt-forgivesinners-dat de säbädicz-mkmikët a gonostwl butfree-prtustheevil-from ‘and forgiveusourdebts, aswealsoforgiveourdebtors… butdeliverusfromevil’

  24. Lord’sprayerinthe Károli Biblefrom 1590: 7 particles (4 more) (19) szenteltessécmeg …Iöijönel … hallowed-beprtcomeprt Légyenmeg … addmeg be prtgiveprt ‘Hallowed be yourname. Yourkingdomcome, yourwill be done… Giveusthisdayourdailybread’

  25. Reanalysis: (20)a. TP b. AgrSP T AgrSP vala AgrOPAgrSAgrOPAgrS -tok-tok AspPAgrOTPAgrO -á-á PredPAspAspP T -t-t SpecPred’ SpecAsp’ megmeg Pred VP Asp VP mond mond V V mondmond (meg)mondtátok vala megmondtátok

  26. Grammaticalizedviewpointaspect marking replacedbygrammaticalizedsituationaspect marking. The sameprocessintheSlaviclanguages exceptforBulgarian (Meillet 1934).

  27. Conclusion: Syntaxacquiredinbilingualenvironment is pronetocontact-inducedreanalysis.

  28. References: Benkő, L. (1991-92) A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana. Budapest, Akadémiai. Chuastuanift: http://vatec2.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/ É. Kiss K. (2006) Fromthegrammaticalization of viewpointaspecttothegrammaticalization of situationaspect. In É. Kiss (ed.) EventStructure and theLeftPeriphery, Springer, 129-157. Erdal, Marcel (2004) A Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden, Brill. Kamphuis, Jaap (2013) Verbalaspectin Old ChurchSlavonic, Ph. D. Diss. Kiefer, F. (2010): Areal-typologicalaspects of word-formation, in: F. Rainer et al. (eds.), Variation and ChangeinMorphology. Benjamins, 129–148. Meillet, Antoine. 1934. Le slavecommun. Paris: Institutd’étudesslaves.