Epithets and Antilogophoricity in Hungarian Subordinate Clauses

Krisztina Szécsényi

Abstract


Though the epithet test is regarded as a reliable test that distinguishes coordination from subordination, the grammaticality judgements are not always as systematic as expected based on Lasnik’s (1989) Binding Theory-based approach. To account for this, Dubinsky and Hamilton (1998) propose that antilogophoricity also plays a role: the antecedent can’t be the perspective-bearer. Yashima (2015) discusses in detail the challenges associated with identifying antilogophoricity as a criterion, and its interactions with Principle C. In the paper I use Hungarian data to confirm the conclusions regarding the antilogophoricity condition for epithets and offer further insights regarding the cross-linguistic variation in their licensing.

Keywords


epithets; antilogophoricity; Hungarian; constituent clauses; subordination

Full Text:

PDF

References


Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris. https://doi.org/10.2307/413646

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. Praeger. https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.6.213

Clements, G. N. (1975). The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages, 10, 141–177.

Culy, C. (2002). The logophoric hierarchy and variation in Dogon. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains (pp. 201–210). John Benjamins.

Dubinsky, S., & Hamilton, R. (1998). Epithets as Antilogophoric Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(4), 685–693. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553923

Hagège, C. (1974). Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 69, 287–310.

Kenesei, I (1994). Az alárendelt mondatok szerkezete [The structure of subordinate clauses]. In F. Kiefer (Ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 1. Mondattan. [Structural Hungarian Grammar 1. Syntax] (pp. 529–713). Akadémiai Kiadó. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373174_005

Kenesei, I. (2026). Finite subordination. Unpublished manuscript.

Kuno, S. (1972). Pronominalization, reflexivization, and direct discourse. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 161–195.

Lasnik, H. (1989). On the necessity of binding conditions. In Essays on anaphora (pp. 149–167). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2542-7_9

Narahara, T. (1991). Nominal categories and binding theory. [Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University]. Harvard University Archives. https://hollis.harvard.edu/permalink/01HVD_INST/726dgh/cdi_proquest_journals_303904569

Sells, P. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3), 445–479.

Stirling, L. (1993). Switch-reference and discourse representation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597886.005

Yashima, J. (2015). Antilogophoricity: In conspiracy with the binding theory. [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles] UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5kz3q670




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/lsmll.2026.50.3.81-93
Date of publication: 2026-10-30 11:37:55
Date of submission: 2026-04-27 11:54:58


Statistics


Total abstract view - 254
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 37

Indicators



Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Krisztina Szécsényi

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.