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 present-day 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 FP nem F TP látogatta meg T’ T vP t János v’

v VP t Marit V’

Identificational focus:

(4) János TEGNAP látogatta meg tV Marit John yesterday visited PRT Mary ’It was yesterday that John visited Mary.’

Focus negation:(5)

János nem TEGNAP látogatta meg tV MaritJohn 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 vP t … 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 patternsI. … 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 kegyetlensegetthis 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 nekewnkand 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 engemettshamed 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 TopP hogy ezt NegP senkinek Neg’

TP Neg nem jelentené

meg T’

vP 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 non-finite clauses of OldH:

(12)a. (Müncheni 1416/1466)És azok [legottan hálójok meghagyván] and they immediately net-3PL PRT-leaving

követék őtetfollowed 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 volna go-PERF-2SG be-COND

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 up tV

SOV negation reanalyzed in SVO:(16) CP

C TopP hogy ezt NegP

senkinek Neg’

Neg TP 0

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 TopP hogy

ezt NegP

senkinek Neg’ Neg FP nem F TP jelentené

meg 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 lelenobody-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 transferBut: 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 ennekmeat 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 pronounsemegy: es+nem+egy ’one’

(29) Funeral Speech ( 1193):

isa es num igg ember mulchotia surely es not one man avoid-can ez vermutthis 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 engemettshamed 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 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.