1. Mood in Hungarian Casper de Groot ACLC - Universiteit van Amsterdam

2. ACLC - November 26, 2009 The three universal moods ● The basic illocution of a sentence can be defined as the conversational use conventionally associated with the formal properties of that sentence (cf. Sadock & Zwicky 1985), which together constitute a sentence type. ● By their very nature, basic illocutions are restricted to independent sentences and quotations. ● The most frequently attested basic illocutions in languages of the world are Declarative, Interrogative and Imperative (Sadock & Zwicky 1985). ● The declarative sentence in is conventionally associated with an assertion ● the interrogative with a question ● the imperative with a command.

3. ACLC - November 26, 2009 The three universal moods Declarative Alányokfilmetláttak. thegirlsfilm.ACCthey.saw ‘The girls saw a movie.’ Interrogative Hódmezővásárhely Mayarországonfekszik? Hódmezővásárhely Hungary.inlies ‘Is Hódmezővásárhely situated in Hungary? Imperative Men-j-etek haza! Go-SBJV-2PL home ‘Go home!’

4. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Defining Mood ● The term mood is used in language descriptions for the morphological category that covers the grammatical reflections of a large semantic area. This area can be subdivided into two smaller ones: ● the first concerns the area of illocution the category of illocution is concerned with identifying sentences as instances of specific types of speech act ● the second concerns the area of modality the category of modality is concerned with the modification of the content of speech acts.

5. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Defining Mood ● Apart from the semantic differences, there are also formal reasons to distinguish between the two areas. ● In the expression of illocution the morphological category of mood has to compete with word order and intonation as markers of particular sub-distinctions ● whereas modality is expressed by mood markers only. ● These distinction is from S.C. Dik (1997) and P.C. Hengeveld (2004)

6. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Defining Mood ● A fourth parameter relevant to the discussion of mood in Hungarian is that of Factuality, i.e. the quality of the communicated content being actual (opposed to virtual) or based on fact. ● I will argue that the relations between the four parameters Mood, Illocution, Modality, and Factuality are the following

7. ACLC - November 26, 2009 The parameters defining Mood in Hungarian MoodIndicativeSubjunctiveConditional IllocutionDeclarativeInterrogativeBehavioural ModalityCondition FactualityFactualNon-factual

8. ACLC - November 26, 2009 The parameters defining Mood in Hungarian IllocutionDeclarativeInterrogativeBehavioural

9. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Declarative v Mirative Polar Interrogative v Content Interrogative Imperative>Prohibitative v v Hortative>Dishortative v Admonitive v Supplicative Assertive Questioning Behavioural

10. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Declarative v Mirative Assertive

11. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Assertive ●Declarative ●Mirative There is no distinct form to express Mirative as, for instance, in Albanian.

12. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Polar Interrogative v Content Interrogative Questioning

13. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Questioning ●Polar Interrogative By using the Polar Interrogative, A Speaker requests an Addressee to tell whether a certain proposition is true or false. ●Content Interrogative By using the Content Interrogative, a Speaker requests an Addressee to identify or specify some part of a predication.

14. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Questioning ●Polar Interrogative Szegeden voltál? Szeged.in you.were ‘Were you in Szeged?’

15. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Questioning ●Polar Interrogative Szegeden voltál? Szeged.in you.were ‘Were you in Szeged?’

16. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Questioning ●Modification of Polar Interrogative vajon and the enclitic –e express some kind of doubt, desire, or uncertainty on the part of the Speaker. They do not create sub- types of illocutions; they belong to the area of modality.  Vajon jön(-e) Imre holnap? MOD come(-MOD) Imre tomorrow ‘Will Imre come tomorrow?’  Gondolkozom, hogy jön-e Imre holnap I.wonder that come-MOD Imre tomorrow ‘I wonder whether Imre will come tomorrow.’

17. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Questioning ●Content Interrogative János mikor volt úszni?question János when was swim ‘When was János off for a swim?’ János ma volt úszni.answer János today was swim ‘János was off for a swim TODAY.’

18. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Questioning ●Content Interrogative János mikor volt úszni?question János when was swim ‘When was János off for a swim?’ János ma volt úszni.answer János today was swim ‘János was off for a swim TODAY.’

19. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Imperative>Prohibitative v v Hortative>Dishortative v Admonitive v Supplicative Behavioural

20. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Behavioural Illocution in Hungarian Öl-j-ek ‘Let me kill.’ Öl-j-él ‘Kill!’ Öl-j-ön‘Kill!’, ‘Let him/her kill.’ Öl-j-ünk‘Let us kill.’ Öl-j-etek‘Kill!’ Öl-j-enek‘Kill!’, ‘Let them kill.’ Öl-j-em‘Let me kill it.’ Öl-j-ed‘Kill it!’ Öl-j-e‘Kill it!’, ‘Let him/her kill it’ Öl-j-ük‘Let us kill it.’ Öl-j-étek‘Kill it!’ Öl-j-ék‘Kill it!’, ‘Let them kill it.’ Öl-j-elek‘Let me kill you.’

21. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Behavioural Illocution in Hungarian Öl-j-ek ‘Let me kill.’ Öl-j-él ‘Kill!’ Öl-j-ön‘Kill!’, ‘Let him/her kill.’ Öl-j-ünk‘Let us kill.’ Öl-j-etek‘Kill!’ Öl-j-enek‘Kill!’, ‘Let them kill.’ Öl-j-em‘Let me kill it.’ Öl-j-ed‘Kill it!’ Öl-j-e‘Kill it!’, ‘Let him/her kill it’ Öl-j-ük‘Let us kill it.’ Öl-j-étek‘Kill it!’ Öl-j-ék‘Kill it!’, ‘Let them kill it.’ Öl-j-elek‘Let me kill you.’

22. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Imperative>Prohibitative v v Hortative>Dishortative v Admonitive v Supplicative Behavioural

23. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Behavioural: Imperative ●Imperative The Speaker commands an Addressee to perform some action. The Addressee may be singular or plural. There is an informal and a polite form. 2 pers. sing.várj(ál)‘Wait!’ [informal singular] 3 pers. sing.várjon‘Wait!’ [polite singular] 2 pers. pl.várjatok‘Wait!’ [informal plural] 3 pers. pl.várjanak‘Wait!’ [polite plural] 2 pers. sing.vár(ja)d Pált‘Wait for Paul!’ [informal singular] 3 pers. sing.várja Pált‘Wait for Paul!’ [polite singular] 2 pers. pl.várjátok Pált‘Wait for Paul!’ [informal plural] 3 pers. pl.várják Pált‘Wait for Paul!’ [polite plural]

24. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Behavioural: Imperative ●Modification of the Imperative When the Imperative is used, the perfectivizing prefix is standard as a default and is placed after the verb. The Imperative may be modified. It may be reinforced and becaome a ‘threat’ if the verbal prefix is placed in front of the verb.  Zsuzsát vár-j-ad meg az állomáson. Zsuzsa.ACC wait-SBJV-2p ASP the station.at ‘Go to meet Zsuzsa at the station’  Zsuzsát meg-vár-j-ad az állomáson. Zsuzsa.ACC ASP-wait-SBJV-2p the station.at ‘Go to meet Zsuzsa at the station, or ….’

25. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Imperative>Prohibitative v v Hortative>Dishortative v Admonitive v Supplicative Behavioural

26. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Behavioural: Hortative ●Hortative The interpretation of Hortative occurs in all person distinctions in the verbal paradigm.  Men-j-ünk tovább. Go-SBJV-1PL further ‘Let’s go on.’  Válassz, melyikkel öl-j-elek meg! choose.SBJV.2SG which.with kill-SBJV.1SG.2SG/PLASP ‘Choose the one I kill you with.’

27. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Imperative>Prohibitative v v Hortative>Dishortative v Admonitive v Supplicative Behavioural

28. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Behavioural: Prohibitive ●Prohibitive Utterances used as an Imperative together with a negation yield a Prohibitive interpretation.  Ne men-j el. NEG.SBJV go-SBJV-2SG ASP ‘Don’t go away!’ ●Note the use of the negative ne instead of nem. The negation element used with the Subjunctive is always ne, glossed as NEG>SBJV, whereas nem is used with the Indicative and Conditional.

29. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Imperative>Prohibitative v v Hortative>Dishortative v Admonitive v Supplicative Behavioural

30. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Behavioural: Dishortative ●Dishortative The Hortative use of the behavioural together with a negation yield the Dishortative interpretation.  Téged, kedves ellenség, meg ne öl-j-elek ! you.ACC dear enemy ASP NEG.SBJV kill-SBJV-I.You ‘You, dear enemy, I do not kill !’

31. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Imperative>Prohibitative v v Hortative>Dishortative v Admonitive v Supplicative Behavioural

32. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Behavioural: Admonitive ●Admonitive There are no clear examples of the Bahavioural with the interpretation of the Admonitive. This would then constitute a counter example against the idea that the implicational relations between the subtypes of illocutions also apply to the interpretations, because the Supplicative interpretation does occur in Hungarian.

33. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Imperative>Prohibitative v v Hortative>Dishortative v Admonitive v Supplicative Behavioural

34. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Behavioural: Supplicative ●Supplicative With the form hadd it is possible to express a request for permission  Hadd men-j-ek a moziba! Let.SBJV.2SG go-SBJV-1SG the movie.to ‘Please, let me go to the movies.’  Hadd beszél-j-enek tovább! Let.SBJV.2SG speak-SBJV-3PL further ‘Please, let them speak further.’

35. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Imperative>Prohibitative v v Hortative>Dishortative v (Admonitive) v Supplicative Behavioural

36. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Declarative v (Mirative) Polar Interrogative v Content Interrogative Imperative>Prohibitative v v Hortative>Dishortative v (Admonitive) v Supplicative Assertive Questioning Behavioural

37. ACLC - November 26, 2009 The parameters defining Mood in Hungarian MoodIndicativeSubjunctiveConditional IllocutionDeclarativeInterrogativeBehavioural ModalityCondition FactualityFactualNon-factual

38. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Conditional ●Condition Hungarian distinguishes a Conditional Mood. The Conditional is marked by the suffix –n on the verbal stem.  Bár / Ha / Bárha tud-ná-nak olvasni! Though / If know-COND-3PL read.INF ‘If they could read!.’ ●The Conditional is used in both the protasis and apodosis.  Jó lenne, ha többet lát-n-ám! good be-COND if more.ACC see-COND-1SG ‘It would be good, if I could see him/her/it more.’

39. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Conditional ●Counter factuals Past tense Conditionals form counter factuals.  Jó lett volna, ha többet láttam volna. good be.PST COND if more.ACC see.PST.1SG COND ‘It would have been good, if I had seen more.’

40. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Conditional ●Conditional sentence  Ha nem / *ne késztél volna el … If not / NEG.SBJV be-PST.2SG COND ASP ‘If you had not been late, ….’ ●Optative sentence  Bárcsak ne / *nem késztél volna el! if.only NEG.SBJV / not be-PST.2SG COND ASP ‘If only you had not been late!’

41. ACLC - November 26, 2009 The location of the Optative MoodIndicativeSubjunctiveConditional IllocutionDeclarativeInterrogativeBehavioural ModalityCondition FactualityFactualNon-factual

42. ACLC - November 26, 2009 The location of the Optative MoodIndicativeSubjunctiveConditional IllocutionDeclarativeInterrogativeBehavioural ModalityCondition FactualityFactualNon-factual NeCOND

43. ACLC - November 26, 2009 Conclusions ● Mood covers the areas of Illocution and Modality ● Illocution uses word order and intonation as markers in competition with other sub-distionctions ● Modality uses special markers only ● Intonation ● Word order: the position of the particle ● Negation marker: nem versus ne ● Optative construction c.degroot@uva.nl http://home.medewerkers.uva.nl/c.degroot