a negative cycle in 12 15th century hungarian n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
A negative cycle in 12-15th century Hungarian? PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
A negative cycle in 12-15th century Hungarian?

play fullscreen
1 / 45

A negative cycle in 12-15th century Hungarian?

163 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

A negative cycle in 12-15th century Hungarian?

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

  1. A negative cycle in 12-15th century Hungarian? Katalin É. Kiss Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy

  2. On the Hungarian diachronic generative syntax project Aims: (i) to investigate the syntax of Old Hungarian (9-15th century) and Middle Hungarian (16-18th century) (ii) to establish a morphologically parsed electronic database 1.5 million words of Old Hungarian, 1.5 million words of Middle Hungarian,

  3. Texts in 4 versions, each searchable automatically 1. letter-perfect 2. paleographically normalized (no standard graphemes for most of the 14 Hungarian vowels and 10 palatalized consonants) 3. morphologically normalized (archaic morphemes replaced by present-day equivalents) 4. morphologically parsed

  4. On the history of negation in Old Hungarian • The position of the negative particle in ModH • The changing position of the negative particle in OldH –a change from SOV to SVO? 3. Negative concord in ModH 4. The evolving of negative concord in OldH 5. Parallels with Jespersen’s negative cycle

  5. The position of the negative particle in Modern Hungarian Neutral sentence: (2) János meg látogatta Marit. John PRT visited Mary-ACC ’John visited Mary.’ Predicate negation: (3) János nemlátogatta meg tVMarit. John not visited PRT Mary-ACC

  6. TopP János NegP Neg FP nem F TP látogatta meg T’ T vP t János v’ v VP t Marit V’

  7. Identificational focus: (4) János TEGNAPlátogatta meg tVMarit John yesterday visited PRT Mary ’It was yesterday that John visited Mary.’ Focus negation: (5) János nem TEGNAP látogatta meg tVMarit John not yesterday visited PRT Mary ’It wasn’t yesterday that John visited Mary.’

  8. TopP János NegP Neg FocP nem TEGNAP Foc’ Foc FP F TP látogatta meg T’ T vP t … Marit …

  9. Double Negation: (6) János nem TEGNAP nemlátogatta meg tvMarit. ’It wasn’t yesterday that John didn’t visit Mary.’

  10. The position of the negative particle in Old Hungarian Focus negation: only sporadically, e.g.: Jókai Codex 1370/1448: (7) nem paÿzual fegyuerkedet not shield-with armor-refl-past-3sg de zent kerestnek yegyuel but holy cross’s sign-with ’it wasn’t with a shield that he armored himself but with the sign of the holy cross’

  11. Predicate negation: Two patterns I. … PRT nem V… (8)a. (Jókai 27) ezt senkÿnekmegnem ÿelentene this-ACC nobody-DAT PRT-not report-COND-3SG ’that he would not report this to anybody’ (8)b. (Jókai 95) ha meg nem kayaltandod kegyetlennek if PRT not shout-FUT-2SG cruel ew kegyetlensegett his cruelty.ACC ’if you do not declare his cruelty to be cruel’

  12. II. …nem V… PRT … (9)a. (Jókai-C. 30) Es nemnytya meg tV nekewnk and not opens PRT to.us ’and he doesn’t open it to us’ (9)b. (Jókai 48) hogÿ en lelkem semegÿbennem that my soul nothing-in not zegÿengett megtV engemett shamed PRT me ’that my soul did not shame me in anything’

  13. Correlation between the position of neg. particle and the presence of neg. pronouns: (10) Pattern i: se-pronoun in60% of cases: … se-pro …PRT nem V … Pattern ii: no se-pronoun in 87%: …[nemV]…PRTnem V … [nem V] movement triggered by the need of Neg c-commanding the scope of negation?

  14. Pattern i (losing ground ever since): a relic of an ancient SOV order? (11) CP C TopP hogy ezt NegP senkinek Neg’ TP Neg nemjelentenémeg T’ vP T tV tV

  15. Detour: Other evidence in Old Hungarian of a former SOV order: (i) strict SOV (with no accusative marking) in its closest relatives, Ostyak and Vogul

  16. (ii) OV with no accusative marking in non- finite clauses of OldH: (12)a. (Müncheni 1416/1466) És azok [legottan hálójok meghagyván] and they immediately net-3PL PRT-leaving követék őtet followed him ‘Immediately leaving their net, they followed him’ (12)b. (Jordánszky 1516) Azok [kedyg legottanel hagywan haloyokat], theyhoweverimmediatelyPRT leaving net-3PL-ACC kóweteek hewtet followed him

  17. (iii) OV for indefinite objects, OV/VO fordefinite objects (rightward topicalization) (iv) alternative, V-adjacent or clause-final positions for the -e interrogative complementizer: (13) a. [TP …V-e…] b. [TP …V…]-e; both deriving from: c. [TP …V]-e

  18. (v) typological features typical of OV e.g., postpositions, prehead genitive, V Aux order: (14) megyek vala, go-IMPERF-1SG be-PAST; mentél volna go-PERF-2SG be-COND

  19. Pattern ii: SVO? (15) CP C NegP hogy Neg FP nem F TP vernek valakit TP meg T’ T vP tV that not beat-they someone uptV

  20. SOV negation reanalyzed in SVO: (16) CP CTopP hogy eztNegP senkinekNeg’ NegTP 0 megT’ T vPnem jelentené tV thatthis-ACCnobody-toPRT not report-COND-3SG

  21. Evidence of negated V forming one constituent: the negated copula is noncompositional: (17) nem van –> nincs not is

  22. Evidence of the scope of negation being marked by the 0 operator in Neg: Mod. Hungarian: (18)a. Olvastam, amíghirtelen read-I as.long.as suddenly kinemaludta villany. out not went the light ’I was reading until suddenly the light went out’

  23. Ürögdi’s (2010) analysis of the LF of (18a): (18)b. Olvastam [CPamíg [NegPnem [TPhirtelen read-I as.long.as not suddenly [TPki tnemaludta villany]]]] out went the light

  24. Historical change: movement of nem +V to left periphery; adjacency with se-pronoun: (19) CP C TopP hogy ezt NegP senkinek Neg’ Neg FP nem F TP jelentené meg T’ tVvP

  25. V-movement first in case of the copula: In the 1st documents almost always: ’nem+copula, predicative nominal’ (20) (Jókai 55) sonha nemlez zomoro tV never not be-FUT.3SG sad t ’he will never be sad’ Kádár (2006): Hungarian copula generated under Infl; i.e. Infl-to-Neg preceded V-to-Neg

  26. 3. se-pronouns in Modern Hungarian ModH is a negative concord language: (21)a. SenkinemA DÉLI VONATTAL érkezett. nobody not the noon train-with arrived ’Nobody took the NOON TRAIN.’ [For everybody, it wasn’t the noon train…] b. Nem A DÉLI VONATTAL érkezettsenki.

  27. Senki1: ’everybody not…’ [+specific] universal, adjoined to NegP: (22)a. [NegPSenki [NegPnem [FocP A DÉLI VONATTAL érkezett]]] b. [NegP [NegPNem [FocP A DÉLI VONATTAL érkezett]] senki]

  28. Senki2: ’not anybody…’ [-specific] existential in situ or in focus: (23)a. [NegPNem [FPérkezett [vPsenki]]] ’There wasn’t anybody that arrived with the noon train.’ (23)b. [FocPSENKI[NegPnem [FPérkezett [vP t]]]]

  29. Lack of negative concord: (i) in some linguistic fossils: semmirekellő ’good-for-nothing’, semmittevés ’do-nothingness’ etc. (ii) with the minimizer sem occurring in pre-V or pre-focus position (in Neg?): (24)a. Egy ember semindult el. one man not.even left PRT ’No man left.’ cf. b. Nemindultelegy embersem.

  30. se-pronouns in Old Hungariani. without the negative particle (25)a. (Jókai 95) kynek bodog ferencz monda magat whom blessed Francis said himself alazatost lennÿ semmÿ tudonak humbly be-INF nothing-0 knowing ’to whom blessed Francis humbly said himself to be knowing nothing’

  31. (25)b. (Jókai 139) semegyk mendenestewlfoguan none altogether indoltatykuala left ’none of them left at all’

  32. ii. se-pronouns and sem-indefinites with the negative particle: (26)a. (Jókai 17) De meg nÿttuan az kapput but PRT opening the door senkettnem lele nobody-ACC not found ’But opening the door, he did not find anybody’

  33. (26)b. (Jókai 47) kÿtt sonhanem latamuala ez vilagban whom never not saw-I this world-in ’whom I had never seen in this world’

  34. Traditional view: the absence of nem is Latin transfer But: the lack of nem is not random! (i) It is always absent in non-finite CPs. (ii) Subjunct. neg. ne always spelled out: (27) (Jókai 17) Hogÿ semegÿ frater az zerzetben that no brother the convent-in hust ne ennek meat not-SUBJ eat ’that no brother should eat any meat in the convent’

  35. (iii) nem can be absent when it is recognizable in the se-pronoun: after semmi ’nothing’, semegy ’no [not one]’,semegyik ’neither/none’ – but not after senki ’nobody’, soha ’never’ (28) sem-mi = es+nem+mi es: additive/emphatic/affective particle; mi: [-human] indef./interrogative pronoun semegy: es+nem+egy ’one’

  36. (29) Funeral Speech ( 1193): isaes num igg embermulchotia surely es not one man avoid-can ez vermut this pit-ACC ’Surely, not even one man can avoid this pit

  37. Nem and the indefinite pronoun also occur separately: (30) (Jókai l45) de az egÿebekrewl nem tudok mÿtt but the rest-about not know-I what ’but about the rest, I don’t know anything’

  38. After nem became phonologically transformed and unrecognizable in the es+nem+mi, es+nem+egy, es+nem+ki, es+nem+ha complexes, it lost its negative force, and had to be spelled out again.

  39. The position of se-pronouns carrying negation: in Spec,NegP Since Müncheni Codex (1416/1466), neg. indefinites also postverbally (in situ); preverbal non-specific se-indefinites interpreted as foci (31) (Bécsi 1416/1450) ninč te bèzėdidbènsem egmegfèddės isn’t your speech-in not one-scolding ’There is no scolding in your speech.’

  40. Later also existential se-pronouns appear postverbally. Since the 19th century(?), also postverbal universals, i.e., instead of substitution into Spec,NegP, left- and right-adjunction to NegP.

  41. 5. A negative cycle in Hungarian?Jespersen’s cycle? • Negation carried by a negative marker (nem, es nem egy ’not one’, es nem mi ’nothing’) – Funeral Speech (1193) • In contexts where nem becomes phonologically oblique (es+nem+ki­–>senki’nobody’, es+nem+ha­–>soha’never’), the negative particle is reintroduced. After sem, semmi, semegyik, nem is optional – in 15th century codices: Jókai, Müncheni, Bécsi

  42. 3. The phonologically transformed negative marker loses its negative force; it is interpreted as a universal/indefinite participating in negative concord; the additional negative particle becomes obligatory – 16th century

  43. An exception: the sem of indefinites becomes an enclitic carrying negation: (32)a. (Jókai-C. 48/9) hogÿ en lelkem semegÿben nem that my soul not-one-in not zegÿengett meg engemett shamed PRT me that my soul has not shamed me in anything (32)b. Mod.H: hogy az én lelkem egyben sem szégyenített meg engemet

  44. nem is also the result of a negative cycle. In Uralic languages: verbal negation, which has disappeared in Hungarian. nem cognate with né-mi ’some-thing’

  45. Ans van Kemenade (2000): the key step of the negative cycle is a negative adverb/modifier/specifier becoming a head, eliciting V-movement. In OldH: indefinites/se-pronouns with negative force occupy Spec,NegP. Movement of the negated V to the left periphery –> nem in Neg; V in F.