• Home
  • > Selected Papers
  • > Volume 2
  • > Syntactic reduplicative constructions in Hungarian (and elsewhere): Categorization, topicalization and concessivity rolled into one

Syntactic reduplicative constructions in Hungarian (and elsewhere): Categorization, topicalization and concessivity rolled into one

The present article deals with clause-initial syntactic reduplications involving verbs, adjectives and nouns in Hungarian. Structurally, they appear to be cases of left-dislocation of a copy of a predicate, their function being contrastive topicalization. After outlining the scope of the phenomenon of reduplication in the system of the present-day Hungarian language, we turn to the so-called contrastive topicalization reduplication construction (CTR) in Hungarian and demonstrate that there are several subtypes of this construction, all of which lend themselves to concessive interpretation. In explaining how concessivity arises, we start from their categorizing function. We argue that what all these constructions of variable size and form have in common is dynamic, online categorization, i.e. they set up mental spaces that either narrow or widen a category, placing the events, properties and participants in the centre of the category, or at its very periphery (within a category, or even outside the category). This cluster of Hungarian constructions is also contrasted with similar reduplication phenomena on the syntactic-lexical continuum in a number of languages, such as so-called Contrastive Focus Reduplication, the Echo reduplication, and (S)hm-Reduplication. It is also demonstrated how their concessive interpretation is made possible by a series of metonymic inferences involving parts of frames and whole frames. By pulling together various strands of research in cognitive linguistics, i.e. research on grammatical constructions, information structure, metonymy and categorization, we show how they can fruitfully inform each other in accounting for complex linguistic phenomena, and thus contribute towards achieving conceptual unification in the sense of Langacker (1999: 24).

Key words: syntactic reduplication, contrastive-topicalization construction, Hungarian, concessive, metonymy, categorization

References

Aitchison, J. (1994).‘Say, say it again Sam': The treatment of repetition in linguistics. In A. Fischer (ed.), Repetition. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. pp. 15-34.

Barcelona, A. (2003). The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In K.-U. Panther and L. L. Thornburg (eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 81-102.

Beaugrande, R. de and Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.

Brugman, K. (1895). A Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages. Translated from German by R. Seymour Conway & W.H.D. Rouse. New York: B. Westermann.

Dressler, W. (1977). Phono-morphological dissimilation. Phonologica 1976: 41-48.

Finkin, J. (2010). A Rhetorical Conversation Jewish Discourse in Modern Yiddish Literature. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Fitzpatrick-Cole, J. (1996). Reduplication meets the phonological phrase in Bengali. The Linguistic Review 13: 305-356.

Ghomeshi, J., Jackendoff, R., Rosen, N. and Russell, K. (2004). Contrastive focus reduplication in English (The salad-salad paper). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 307-357.

Gil, D. (2005). From repetition to reduplication in Riau Indonesian. In B. Hurch (ed.), Studies on Reduplication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 31-64.

Haller, F. (2004). Dialekt und Erzählungen von Themchen. Sprachwissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines Nomadendialektes aus Nord-Amdo. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.

Izutsu, M. N., and Izutsu K. (2011). What motivates an inference? The emergence of contrast/ concessive from temporal/spatial overlap. In K.-U. Panther, and G. Radden (eds.), Motivation in Grammar and the Lexicon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 107-132.

Jacobs, N. G., Prince, E. F., and van der Auwera, J. (1994). Yiddish. In E. König and J. van der Auwera (eds.), The Germanic Languages. London: Routledge. pp. 388-419.

Kádár, E. (2006). Atmospherical constructions in Hungarian. In B. Gyuris (ed.), Proceedings of the First Central European Student Conference in Linguistics, 24-26 May 2006, Budapest. http://www.nytud.hu/cescl/proceedings/Edit_Kadar_CESCL.pdf.

Keevallik, L. (2010). Social action of syntactic reduplication. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 800-824.

Kiefer, F. (1995-96). Prefix reduplication in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 43: 175-194.

Kimper, W. (2008). Syntactic reduplication and the spellout of movement chains. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Komlósy, A. (1994). Complements and adjuncts. In F. Kiefer and K. É. Kiss (eds.), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian. New York: Academic Press. pp. 159-174.

Koskela, A. (2011). Metonymy, category broadening and narrowing, and vertical polysemy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (eds.), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 125-146.

Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Preliminaries. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1993). Universals of construal. BLS 20: 447-463.

Langacker, R. W. (1999). Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In Th Janssen, and G. Redeker (eds.) Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 13-59.

Langacker, R. W. (2000). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lidz, J. (2001). Echo reduplication in Kannada and the theory of word-formation. The Linguistic Review 18: 375-394.

Lindström, J. (1999). Vackert, vackert! Syntaktisk reduplikation i svenskan. Helsingfors: Svenska Litteratursällskapet i Finland.

Moravcsik, E. A. (1978) Reduplicative constructions. In J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. 3. Word Structure. Stanford: Stanford University Press. pp. 297-334.

Nádas, T. (2004). A határozói igeneves figura etymologicák grammatikai vizsgálata. Bevezetés; az első vizsgálat összefoglalása. Magyar Nyelvőr 128: 83-94.

Okamoto, S. (1990). Reduplicated verbs in Japanese as grammatical constructions. BLS 16: 248-256.

Panther, K-U., and Thornburg, L. L. (1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther, and G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 333-357.

Plank, F. (1981) Morphologische (Ir-)Regularitäten: Aspekte der Wortstrukturtheorie. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibánez, F. J., and Pérez Hernández, L. (2003). High-level modal metonymies in English and Spanish. Jezikoslovlje 4: 103-120.

Stirling, L. (1996). Metonymy and anaphora. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 10: 69-88.

Tournadre, N. (1996). L'ergativité en tibétain moderne. Approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlée. Paris & Louvain: Peeters.

Valenzuela, J., Hilferty, J., and Garachana, M. (2005). On the reality of constructions: The Spanish reduplicative-topic construction. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 201-215.

Viszket, A. (2002). Az argumentumazonosítás alapelvei. In M. Maleczki (ed.), A mai magyar nyelv leírásának újabb módszerei 5. Szeged: Szegedi Egyetem. pp. 151-167.

Viszket, A. (2003). Hányféle van? Unpublished Ms.

Watt, W. C. (1968). English reduplication. Journal of English Linguistics 2: 96-129.

Download

Download full text of the article as PDF