A negative cycle in 12-15th
century Hungarian?
Katalin É. Kiss
Research Institute for Linguistics
of the Hungarian Academy
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,
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 presentday equivalents)
4. morphologically parsed
On the history of negation in Old
Hungarian
1. The position of the negative particle in
ModH
2. 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
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 nem látogatta meg tV Marit.
John not visited
PRT Mary-ACC
TopP
János
NegP
Neg
nem
FP
F
TP
látogatta
meg
T
t
T’
vP
János
v
t
v’
VP
Marit
V’
Identificational focus:
(4) János TEGNAP látogatta meg tV Marit
John yesterdayvisited PRT Mary
’It was yesterday that John visited Mary.’
Focus negation:
(5)
János nem TEGNAP látogatta meg tV Marit
John not yesterday visited PRT Mary
’It wasn’t yesterday that John visited Mary.’
TopP
János
NegP
Neg
FocP
nem
TEGNAP Foc’
Foc
FP
F
TP
látogatta
meg
T
t
T’
vP
… Marit …
Double Negation:
(6)
János nem TEGNAP nem látogatta meg tv
Marit.
’It wasn’t yesterday that John didn’t visit
Mary.’
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’
Predicate negation: Two patterns
I. … PRT nem V…
(8)a. (Jókai 27)
ezt
senkÿnek megnem 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’
II. …nem V… PRT …
(9)a. (Jókai-C. 30)
Es nem nytya meg tV nekewnk
and not opens PRT
to.us
’and he doesn’t open it to us’
(9)b. (Jókai 48)
hogÿ en lelkem semegÿben nem
that my soul nothing-in not
zegÿengett meg tV engemett
shamed
PRT me
’that my soul did not shame me in anything’
Correlation between the position of
neg. particle and the presence of
neg. pronouns:
(10)
Pattern i: se-pronoun in 60% of cases:
… se-pro …PRT nem V …
Pattern ii: no se-pronoun in 87%:
…[nem V]…PRT nem V …
[nem V] movement triggered by the need of
Neg c-commanding the scope of negation?
Pattern i (losing ground ever since):
a relic of an ancient SOV order?
(11)
CP
C
hogy
TopP
ezt
NegP
Neg’
senkinek
TP
T’
meg
vP
Neg
nem jelentené
T
tV
tV
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
(ii) OV with no accusative marking in nonfinite 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 legottan el hagywan haloyokat],
they however immediately PRT leaving net-3PL-ACC
kóweteek hewtet
followed him
(iii) OV for indefinite objects, OV/VO for
definite 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
(v) typological features typical of OV
e.g., postpositions,
prehead genitive,
V Aux order:
(14)
megyek
vala,
go-IMPERF-1SG be-PAST;
mentél
go-PERF-2SG
volna
be-COND
Pattern ii: SVO?
(15)
CP
C
hogy
NegP
Neg
nem
FP
F
vernek
TP
valakit
TP
T’
meg
T
tV
that not beat-they someone up
vP
tV
SOV negation reanalyzed in SVO:
(16)
CP
C
hogy
TopP
ezt
NegP
Neg’
senkinek
Neg
0
TP
meg
T’
T
vP
nem jelentené
tV
that this-ACC nobody-to
PRT not report-COND-3SG
Evidence of negated V forming one
constituent:
the negated copula is noncompositional:
(17) nem van –> nincs
not is
Evidence of the scope of negation being
marked by the 0 operator in Neg:
Mod. Hungarian:
(18)a. Olvastam, amíg
hirtelen
read-I
as.long.as suddenly
ki nem aludt a villany.
out not went the light
’I was reading until suddenly the light went
out’
Ürögdi’s (2010) analysis of the LF of
(18a):
(18)b.
Olvastam [CP amíg [NegP nem [TP hirtelen
read-I
as.long.as not
suddenly
[TP ki tnem aludt a villany]]]]
out
went the light
Historical change: movement of nem +V to
left periphery; adjacency with se-pronoun:
(19)
CP
C
hogy
TopP
ezt
NegP
Neg’
senkinek
Neg
nem
FP
F
jelentené
meg
TP
T’
tV
vP
V-movement first in case of the copula:
In the 1st documents almost always:
’nem+copula, predicative nominal’
(20) (Jókai 55)
sonha nem lez
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
3. se-pronouns in Modern Hungarian
ModH is a negative concord language:
(21)a.
Senki nem A 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 érkezett senki.
Senki1: ’everybody not…’
[+specific] universal, adjoined to NegP:
(22)a. [NegP Senki [NegP nem [FocP A DÉLI
VONATTAL érkezett]]]
b. [NegP [NegP Nem [FocP A DÉLI
VONATTAL érkezett]] senki]
Senki2: ’not anybody…’
[-specific] existential in situ or in focus:
(23)a.
[NegP Nem [FP érkezett [vP senki]]]
’There wasn’t anybody that arrived with the
noon train.’
(23)b.
[FocPSENKI [NegP nem [FP érkezett [vP t]]]]
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 sem
indult el.
one man
not.even left
PRT
’No man left.’
cf. b. Nem indult el egy ember sem.
se-pronouns in Old Hungarian
i. 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’
(25)b. (Jókai 139)
semegyk mendenestewlfoguan
none
altogether
indoltatykuala
left
’none of them left at all’
ii. se-pronouns and sem-indefinites with
the negative particle:
(26)a. (Jókai 17)
De meg nÿttuan az kapput
but PRT opening the door
senkett
nem lele
nobody-ACC not found
’But opening the door, he did not find
anybody’
(26)b. (Jókai 47)
kÿtt sonha nem latamuala ez vilagban
whom never not saw-I
this world-in
’whom I had never seen in this world’
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’
(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’
(29) Funeral Speech ( 1193):
isa
es num igg ember mulchotia
surely es not one man
avoid-can
ez vermut
this pit-ACC
’Surely, not even one man can avoid this pit
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’
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.
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 bèzėdidbèn sem egmegfèddės
isn’t your speech-in not one-scolding
’There is no scolding in your speech.’
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.
5. A negative cycle in Hungarian?
Jespersen’s cycle?
1. Negation carried by a negative marker
(nem, es nem egy ’not one’, es nem mi
’nothing’) – Funeral Speech (1193)
2. 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
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
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
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’
Ans van Kemenade (2000):
the key step of the negative cycle is a
negative adverb/modifier/specifier
becoming a head, eliciting Vmovement.
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.
Descargar

A negative cycle in 12-15th century Hungarian?