Loci of agreement and deviations from the Mirror Principle in Hungarian verbs

Kevin Kwong

doi:10.3765/plsa.v6i1.4897

Abstract

In this revised account of Hungarian verbal agreement, I propose that the language’s locus of subject agreement is not T, unlike in current Minimalist analyses, but Pred (or Asp), just above direct object agreement in v. Furthermore, the surface linear order of affixes (stem – tense/mood – object agreement – subject agreement) does not conform to the hierarchical order of syntactic heads (V < v < Pred < T/M), thus violating the Mirror Principle, because local dislocation in postsyntactic morphology adjusts the initial linearization of the heads.

Highlights

According to the Mirror Principle (Baker 1985), the linear order of affixes should reflect the hierarchical order of the syntactic heads that they realize
Throughout this paper, I adopt the model of grammar in (1), which limits morphological processes to post-syntax between Spellout and Phonological Form (PF): (1) Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993, Embick & Noyer 2001)
From Pred, the probes thereon can access S in [Spec,vP], under the assumptions that PredP is a phase, and that the Strong PIC applies. (The account extends to Old Hungarian, in which S-agreement occurred no higher than Asp.) Whereas finite Pred licenses structural nominative case to S, infinitival Pred licenses dative

Summary

Introduction

According to the Mirror Principle (Baker 1985), the linear order of affixes should reflect the hierarchical order of the syntactic heads that they realize. The current Minimalist framework (Chomsky 2000) associates direct object (O) and subject (S) agreement with v and T, respectively, in the hierarchy V < v < T < M.1. This conflicts with the Hungarian verb’s linear order Σ – τ /μ – πO – πS-#S, in which all agreement suffixes follow (not precede) tense/mood. I offer a phasal, synchronic reason for preferring Pred to T as the S-agreement locus (§5), examine diachronic evidence from Old Hungarian (§6), and explore implications for infinitives (§7), before summarizing the findings (§8). Throughout this paper, I adopt the model of grammar in (1), which limits morphological processes to post-syntax between Spellout and PF:

Narrow Syntax

OV v VP φ

Dflt Agr

Conclusion