Compounds and multi-word expressions in Hungarian: Compounds and Multi-Word Expressions

Full text

Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh
Compounds and multi-word expressions in
Hungarian
The notion of compounding is notoriously difficult to define and there are hardly
any universally accepted criteria for determining what a compound is. In the
present chapter we will make a distinction between prototypical compounds and
non-prototypical compounds. The latter but not the former are syntactically sep-
arable. All compounds are right-headed and are inflected as a whole. Moreover,
according to the received view compounds express a conceptual unit though it is
not easy to define what exactly this means. Finally, typically only the first syllable
of a compound bears stress.
Compounding is a rather late development in the history of Hungarian.
Though compounds can be found sporadically before the 18th century, during the
language reform (end of 18th and beginning of 19th century) new compounds were
massively created partly by using existing patterns and partly by loans mainly
from German. This explains why productive patterns of root (endocentric) com-
pounds are – as far as the categories involved are concerned – identical in Hun-
garian and German.1
The structure of our chapter is as follows: in the first part of the chapter we are
going to provide an overview of productive compounding patterns, i.e. root com-
pounds, morphologically marked compounds, deverbal compounds and coordi-
native compounds. Section 2 is devoted to the description of compound-like
phrases in Hungarian, i.e. preverb + verb constructions and bare noun + verb con-
structions. Finally, Section3 summarizes the main conclusions of the chapter.
1 Prototypical compounds
1.1 Root compounds
Let us first have a look at root compounds. A root compound is a compound
whose head is not deverbal or whose non-head does not have the function of
argument of the verb from which the head is derived. The productive patterns
1Sections 1.1 through 1.3 and 2.2 are heavily based on our earlier works on the subject. Cf., in
particular, Kiefer (1992, 1993, 2009) and Kiefer and Németh (2018).
Open Access. © 2019 Kiefer/Németh, published by DeGruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-012

338 Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh
involve nouns and adjectives only, there are no productive patterns with adverbs
and/or verbs. All endocentric compounds in Hungarian are right-headed and are
formed by juxtaposition of the relevant lexical items. No morphological markers
appear between the constituents of root compounds. (1a–d) shows the chart of
productive patterns.2,3
(1a) N + N
város+háza
‘city hall’
tök+mag
‘pumpkin seed’
(1b) A + N
kis+autó
‘small car’
meleg+ágy
‘hotbed’
(1c) N + A
kő+kemény
‘stone hard’
oszlop+magas
‘pillar high’
(1d) A + A
sötét+zöld
‘dark green’
bal+liberális
‘left-liberal’
Recently a fifth pattern seems to be gaining ground in addition to the ones shown
in (1a–d), namely the pattern N + V. It can be argued, however, that the corre-
sponding compounds are (at least in the majority of cases) backformations from
the corresponding deverbal compounds. For some examples, cf. (2a–c).4
2In Hungarian compounds are usually written as one word. In the examples the constituents
are written separately for the sake of clarity.
31 = first person; 3 = third person;  = accusative;  = comitative;  = conditional; =
dative;  = definite;  = infinitive;  = instrumental;  = intransitive;  = locative;
 = nominalization;  = plural;  = possessive;  = preverb;  = past;  = parti-
ciple;  = resultative;  = singular;  = temporal (terminative).
4Cf. also Ladányi (2007: 64f.).

Compounds and multi-word expressions in Hungarian 339
(2a) N + V
gép+ír
machine write
‘write on a typewriter’
from gép+ír-ás5
machine writing
‘typing’
(2b) ház+kutat
house search (verb)
from ház+kutat-ás
house search (noun)
(2c) tömeg+közlekedik
mass run
from tömeg+közleked-és
mass/public transportation
Similar examples are legion. It should be noted, however, that compounds such
as (2a–c) are more frequent in everyday and newspaper language than in literary
language.
1.2 Morphologically marked compounds
Compounds in Hungarian may be morphologically marked or morphologically
unmarked. In the first case the morphological marker may appear either on the
first or on the second member of the compound, e.g. újjá+épít (új ‘new’ + -já
‘translative case suffix’ + épít ‘build’) ‘reconstruct’, tévét néz6 (tévé ‘television’ + t
‘accusative case suffix’ + néz ‘look, watch’) ‘watch television’. In such cases the
head of the compound is always a V and the nonhead is a syntactic or semantic
argument of the verb. Note that neither újjá nor tévét are independent lexical
items. Moreover syntactic rules may manipulate the internal structure of such
5ás/és is a nominalizing suffix, the choice between the two forms is determined by vowel har-
mony. The usual phonological notation is -Vs where V denotes the harmonizing vowel, i.e. -ás or
-és.
6In contrast to phrases such as könyv-et néz book acc look ‘look at a book, on books’, kép-et néz
‘look at a picture on pictures’, which are not compound-like since they don’t share any property
of compounds. Cf. Section 2.2 for a more detailed discussion of ‘bare object noun + verb’
constructions.

340 Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh
compounds, in other words these compounds must be considered non-proto-
typical.
The morphological marker appears on the second member of the compound
if it is derived from a possessive construction, e.g. város+háza (város ‘city’ + ház
‘house’ + -a ‘possessive suffix’) ‘city hall’, tojás+fehérje (tojás ‘egg’ + fehér ‘white’
+ -je ‘possessive suffix’) ‘egg-white’. Neither can the members of such compounds
be separated by syntactic rules. In this sense they belong to prototypical rather
than to non-prototypical compounds. Note that the second member of such com-
pounds is not an independent word: *háza, *fehérje.7 Though such compounds
are rather frequent, it is unclear to what extent the pattern is productive and/or
rule-governed.
Another case where the second member of the compound is morphologically
marked are N+A compounds in which the head is derived from a past participle.
In such compounds the participle is suffixed by the 3P personal suffix and the
nonhead is interpreted as a kind of causer, i.e. of being the cause of the eventual-
ity, normally referred to as Natural Force.
(3a) vihar+ver-t-e
storm+beat--3
‘storm-beaten’
(3b) víz+mos-t-a
water+wash--3
‘water-lashed’
Once again the participial head adjective of the compound is not an independent
word: *verte, *mosta.8 At first sight it would seem that in these compounds the
first member satisfies the subject argument of the deverbal head. However, such
an analysis would run counter the received view that subject arguments cannot
be satisfied in compound structure (cf., for example, Di Sciullo/Williams 1987).
The analysis of N+A constructions with participial heads as verbal compounds is
not mandatory, however. It can be argued that these constructions are participial
constructions rather than genuine compounds (cf. Kenesei 1986). Productive par-
ticipial constructions must be distinguished from frozen ones, while the former
can freely be modified, modification is impossible in the latter case. Compounds
7Though it is often used in certain contexts as a shortened form of tojásfehérje ‘egg-white’.
8Note that verte and mosta are identical with the 3P Sg Past Tense forms of the verbs ver ‘beat’
and mos ‘wash’, respectively.

Compounds and multi-word expressions in Hungarian 341
such as víz+mosta ‘water-lashed’, por+lepte ‘covered with dust’ are frozen expres-
sions. In contrast, an expression such as (4),
(4) munkás+lak-t-a
worker+inhabit--3
‘inhabited by workers’
can be modified: it is possible to say sok/kevés munkás lakta ‘inhabited by many/
few workers’. Since modification of the nonhead is not possible in the case of
genuine compounds we must conclude that the participial constructions such as
(4) are not compounds.
1.3 Deverbal compounds
Deverbal compounds are special and have received much attention in the perti-
nent literature because there is a clear argument-head relationship between the
elements of the compound. In this case two questions need to be answered: (i)
what kind of arguments can the head inherit from its base; (ii) which arguments
can be satisfied by the nonhead.
Nouns can be derived from verbs by means of the suffix -ás and in a consid-
erable number of cases the derived nouns can be interpreted as event nouns, e.g.
ír-ás ‘writing’ (from the verb ír ‘write’), olvas-ás ‘reading’ (from the verb olvas
‘read’).9 If such an event noun occurs as the head of a compound the nonhead can
be interpreted as an argument of the verb. Apparently in the case of a deverbal
noun derived from a transitive verb the only argument which can occur in non-
head position is the object argument:
(5a) levél+ír-ás
letter+write-
‘letter writing’
(5b) könyv+olvas-ás
book+read-
‘book reading’
9In the case of resultative verbs the derived nominal may be ambiguous between the action and
result reading. The deverbal noun Italics may mean the activity of writing but also the result of
writing.

342 Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh
(5c) levél+ír-ás-a Péternek
letter+write-- Peter.
‘writing a letter to Peter’
(5d) *levél Péternek+írás-a
letter Peter.+write--
In (5c) the dative form Péternek can never occur in compounds.
The situation is similar in (6) where Péterrel ‘with Peter’ is the comitative
form of the noun:
(6a) találkoz-ás Péterrel
meet- Peter.
‘meeting with Peter’
(6b) *Péterrel találkoz-ás
Peter. meet-
The following generalizations hold:
(7a)
If the deverbal head of a compound is derived from a transitive verb the
only argument which can occur in nonhead position is the object
argument.
(7b)
No other internal argument can occur in compounds.
The subject argument is normally considered to be an external argument and it is
claimed that external (subject) arguments can never occur in nonhead position.
In Hungarian the following examples seem to contradict this generalization.
(8a) hó+es-és
snow+fall-
‘snowfall’
(8b) motor+zúg-ás
engine+buzz-
‘hum of the engine’
(8c) dió+ér-és
walnut+ripen-
‘ripening of walnuts’
(9a) liba+gágog-ás
goose+gaggle-
‘gaggling of a goose’

Compounds and multi-word expressions in Hungarian 343
(9b) kutya+ugat-ás
dog+bark-
‘barking of a dog’
(9c) gyermek+sír-ás
child+cry-
‘crying of a child’
In the theory of thematic roles normally a distinction is being made between an
intentionally acting (normally human) agent and an unintentionally acting
actor. In both cases the nonhead is not an agent who acts intentionally in
orderto change the world, the event is rather brought about by natural force
oran unintentionally acting actor. This means that the generalization (7b) can
be saved if we restrict it to agent arguments, i.e. it can be claimed that agent
arguments cannot occur in nonhead position. On the other hand, actor argu-
ments are not excluded from this position. Notice furthermore that the com-
pounds in (8a–c) and (9a–c) seem to fall into two semantic classes: (8a–c)
describe phenomena of nature, while (9a–c) describe events of unintentional
sound production.
Next consider the following examples. The verb csökken ‘decrease’ is intran-
sitive, its transitive counterpart is csökken-t. Prices can decrease transitively and
intransitively as shown by (10a–b).
(10a) ár+csökken-és
price+decrease.-
‘drop in prices’
ár+drágul-ás
price+go.up-
‘rise of prices’
(10b) ár+csökken-t-és
price+decrease--
‘reduction of prices’
ár+drágít-ás
price+raise-
‘raising of prices’
The examples in (10a–b) demonstrate the difference between a head derived from
an intransitive and a head derived from a transitive verb. In (10a) the nonhead
can only be interpreted as the actor argument of the verbal base. In contrast the
head in (10b) is derived from a transitive verb, hence the nonhead is interpreted
as the object argument of the verbal base.

344 Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh
There are a number of compounds in which the nonhead looks very much
like an actor argument but it can be shown that the relation between nonhead
and head can only be interpreted conceptually but not syntactically. Consider:
(11a) bolha+csíp-és
flea+sting-
‘flea-bite’
(11b) kutya+harap-ás
dog+bite-
‘dog-bite’
(11c) disznó+túr-ás
pig+root-
‘rooting of pigs’
In the examples in (11) the head noun is a result nominal (referring to the result of
biting or rooting) which has not inherited the argument structure of the base
verb, hence argument satisfaction does not arise. The properties of result nomi-
nals are well-known from the relevant literature which we will not repeat here.
Suffice it to mention that result nominals are incompatible with durative tempo-
ral adverbials while action nominals are.
Before embarking on the discussion of coordinative compounds it should be
made clear that deverbal compounds can also be formed by means of the parti-
cipial suffixes -ó10 (present participle) and -t (past participle). E.g. dió+darál-ó
‘nut grinder’ and sertés+sül-t ‘roast pork’ (from sül ‘roast’).
1.4 Coordinative compounds
Formally, there are two main categories of coordinative compounds in Hungar-
ian: actual coordinatives and compounds derived by lexical reduplication.
As Kiefer (2000: 525) points out, actual coordinative compounds are derived
from free lexemes, as shown in (12a) below.
(12a) ad-vesz (from ad ‘give’ + vesz ‘buy’) ‘mart, buy and sell’
jön-megy (from jön ‘come’+ megy ‘go’) ‘come and go, fidget’
üt-ver (from üt ‘hit’+ ver ‘beat’) ‘beat, pound’
10Denoting the suffixes -ó or -ő where once again the choice is determined by vowel harmony.

Compounds and multi-word expressions in Hungarian 345
jár-kel (from jár ‘walk’+ kel ‘traverse’) ‘go about, shuttle’
él-hal (from él ‘live’ + hal ‘die’) ‘be overfond of sth’
eszik-iszik (from eszik ‘eat’ + iszik ‘drink’) ‘eat and drink, regale oneself’
(12b) */?rohan-szalad (rush + run)
*/?szeret-imád (love + adore)
*/?sír-bőg (cry + bellow)
*/?esik-zuhan (fall + dive, tumble)
*/?nyomtat-szkennel (print + scan)
The ill-formed examples in (12b) above are meant to demonstrate the limited pro-
ductivity of the construction type: the compounds in (12a) are all fully lexicalized,
frozen items, while derivation from other non-bound elements seems to be rather
problematic.
Another type of coordinative compounds is derived by lexical reduplication,
which has several subcategories, as shown in (13).
(13a) alig-alig (hardly + hardly) ‘hardly, with great difficulty’
sok-sok (many + many) ‘very many’
olykor-olykor (sometimes + sometimes) ‘rarely, seldom’
(13b) egyszer-egyszer (once + once) ‘sometimes, rarely’
ki-ki (who + who) ‘each’
(13c) tarka-barka (from tarka ‘colourful, spotty’)
‘very colourful, spotty’
csiga-biga (from csiga ‘snail’) ‘(tiny, sweet) snail’
cica-mica (from cica ‘kitten’) ‘(tiny, sweet) kitten’
(13d) dimbes-dombos (from domb ‘hill’ + -os ‘adjectivizing suffix’)
‘hummocky, full of hills’
girbe-görbe (from görbe ‘curved’) ‘full of curves, sinuous’
rissz-rossz (from rossz ‘bad’) ‘very bad’
(13e) irul-pirul (from pirul ‘blush’) ‘blush, be blushful’
izeg-mozog (from mozog ‘move’) ‘fidget, wiggle’
ici-pici (from pici ‘tiny’) ‘very tiny’
The examples in (13a–b) demonstrate the case of total lexical reduplication,
where the base is copied without modification. Semantically, the derivation
serves the purpose of intensification, i.e. the meaning of the compound is analo-
gous with that of the reduplicated base, which means that the derivation only
adds the feature of intensification to the base (cf. 13a). However, in some lexical-
ized cases the meaning of the compound is totally different from that of the base
(cf. 13b) (cf. Kiefer 2000: 524f.; Brdar/Brdar-Szabó 2014).

346 Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh
Another type of lexical reduplication is when the base is copied with some
kind of modification: either an initial consonant of the base is replaced by another
one (cf. 13c), or there is a vowel alternation pattern similar to ablaut (cf. 13d).
Brdar/Brdar-Szabó (2014: 39f.) label the former phenomenon as inexact total
reduplication or rhyming(-motivated) reduplication, and the latter as ablaut-moti-
vated reduplication. Finally, the examples in (13e) are instances of partial redupli-
cation, where only a segment of the base is copied (ibid.: 39).
Note that in these cases, too, the semantic feature added to the base is inten-
sification, and the compounds mainly serve as stylistic versions of their bases:
they mostly express the endearing attitude of the speaker, thus they should be
dealt with in a morphopragmatic framework as well.
2 Compound-like phrases
We have already mentioned some cases of non-prototypical compounds; in the
present section a more detailed analysis of such constructions will be provided.
2.1 Preverb + verb constructions
In Hungarian preverbs (particles attached to the verb base) are all separable and
can fulfil various functions. If fully grammaticalized they express telicity, the
most typical being the preverb meg which has completely lost its original mean-
ing and has become an aspectual marker. Among other things, it can express the
resultative Aktionsart as in the case of főz ‘cook’ – meg+főz ‘cook.’, varr ‘sew’
– meg+varr ‘sew.’ or the semelfactive Aktionsart as in vakar ‘scrape’ – meg+
vakar ‘scrape once’, csóvál ‘wag’ – meg+csóvál ‘wag once’.
Most preverbs are less grammaticalized yet they can be used to derive an
Aktionsart. For example, the preverb el (whose original directional meaning is
‘away’) can be used to express inchoativity if it is accompanied by the reflexive
pronoun magát ‘self’, e.g. ordít ‘shout, cry’ – el+ordítja magát ‘cry out’ or nevet
‘laugh’ – el+neveti magát ‘burst out laughing’. In addition to meg some other orig-
inally directional preverbs can be used to express resultativity: takarít ‘tidy, clean’
– ki+takarít ‘clean up’, gereblyéz ‘rake’ – fel+gereblyéz ‘rake up’, kaszál ‘scythe’
– le+kaszál ‘scythe.’, költ ‘spend’ – el+költ ‘spend.’.
At first sight Aktionsart-formation may seem to belong to derivational mor-
phology. This would, however, contradict several generalizations concerning der-
ivational morphology in Hungarian. First, derivational affixes harmonize with

Compounds and multi-word expressions in Hungarian 347
the verbal stem (szép-ség ‘beauty’, jó-ság ‘goodness’), in contrast, preverbs never
harmonize.11 Second, derivational affixes may change the part of speech category
of the base which is not the case with preverbs. Third, derivational affixes are
bound morphemes. On the other hand, preverbs can be detached from their base.
First, they can be used in short answers to a question without their base as in
(14–15) below.
(14a) Meg+írtad a levelet?
‘Have you written the letter?’
(14b) Meg.
‘Yes.’
(15a) Ki+mentél a kertbe?
‘Have you gone out into the garden?’
(15b) Ki.
‘Yes.’
Moreover, preverbs can freely be moved to various positions in the sentence, cf.
the variants of (15a) in (16a–c).
(16a) A kertbe mentél ki?
(16b) Ki a kertbe mentél?
(16c) Mentél ki a kertbe?
We may thus conclude that the formation of complex verbs cannot be part of der-
ivational morphology. On the other hand, preverb+verb constructions are not
prototypical compounds either, at least not with respect to their behavior vis-a-
vis syntax. In other words, their internal structure is accessible to syntactic rules.
Yet they are compounds semantically as testified, among other things, by the
large number of lexicalized forms. It should also be noted that a large number of
preverbs are undistinguishable from the formally identical adverbs.
An interesting property of the Hungarian preverbs is that they can be redupli-
cated to express iterativity.12 Consider:
11Preverbs with a front vowel such as ki can easily be attached to back vowel stems as in ki+mar
‘corrode’, ki+old ‘undo’, ki+rúg ‘kick out’.
12Iterativity can also be expressed by the verbal suffix -gat which is, however, semantically
radically different from the iterativity expressed by preverb reduplication.

348 Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh
(17a) Ki-ki+megy a kertbe.
-+go the garden.
‘From time to time he/she goes out into the garden.’
(17b) Meg-meg+ír egy levelet.
-+write the letter.
‘From time to time he/she writes a letter.’
The type of iterativity is one of the Aktionarten in Hungarian which, however, is
not expressed by a particular preverb or suffix but by reduplicating the preverb.
Note that reduplicated preverbs cannot be separated from the verb base by
another constituent and they cannot be moved after the verbal base either. From
this property it follows that reduplicated verbs cannot be negated since the nega-
tive particle nem must immediately precede the verbal base, cf. (18). External
negation is, of course, possible (19).
(18a) *Nem meg-meg+ír egy levelet.
not -+write a letter.
(18b) *Nem ír egy levelet meg-meg.
not write a letter. -
(19) Nem igaz, hogy meg-meg+ír egy levelet.
not true that -+write a letter.
‘It is not true that he always (repeatedly) writes a letter.’
These properties seem to suggest that reduplicated forms are not only semanti-
cally but also syntactically words. First they have a specific meaning (to do some-
thing repeatedly), second syntactic rules cannot change their internal structure.
Preverb reduplication is not possible across the board: it must obey a phono-
logical and several semantic constraints. The phonological constraint refers to
the length of the preverb in terms of the number of syllables: preverbs longer than
two syllables cannot be reduplicated, as shown by (20).
(20a) *utána-utána+megy ‘go after, follow’ (lit. after-after go)
(20b) *keresztül-keresztül+vág ‘cut through’ (lit. through-through cut)
As far as the semantic constraints are considered, apparently activities if pushed
to the extreme cannot be reduplicated. The preverbs túl ‘over’, agyon ‘over’, tönkre
‘over’ are used to express the extreme degree of an activity, therefore it does not
come as a surprise that such preverbs cannot be reduplicated. Consider:

Compounds and multi-word expressions in Hungarian 349
(21a) *túl-túl+hangsúlyoz ‘over stress’ (lit. over-over stress)
(21b) * agyon-agyon+hajszol ‘over-fatigue, work to death’ (lit. over-over work)
(21c) * tönkre-tönkre+dolgozza magát ‘work oneself to death’ (lit. over-over work)
2.2 Bare noun + verb constructions
According to the literature (Kiefer 1990; Farkas/de Swart 2003), Hungarian bare
noun + verb constructions (in short, BNV constructions) are instances of type I
noun incorporation in terms of Mithun (1984). Mithun describes the phenomenon
as a type of compounding where a verb and a noun with the semantic function of
patient, location or instrument combine to form a new complex verb. The eventu-
ality designated by the BNV construction is not just a random co-occurrence of an
entity and an eventuality, but it is perceived as a recognizable, unitary concept
worth labelling (cf. Mithun 1984: 848f.).
We consider the Hungarian BNV construction type as a special case of com-
pounding by juxtaposition, the general characteristics of which are briefly cap-
tured by Mithun as follows:
A number of languages contain a construction in which a V and its direct object are simply
juxtaposed to form an especially tight bond. The V and N remain separate words phonolog-
ically; but as in all compounding, the N loses its syntactic status as an argument of the
sentence, and the VN unit functions as an intransitive predicate. The semantic effect is the
same as in other compounding: the phrase denotes a unitary activity, in which the compo-
nents lose their individual salience. (ibid.: 849)
The examples in (22)–(23) below demonstrate some of the commonly recognized
features of the Hungarian BNV construction type.
(22a) Péter újságot olvas.
Peter newspaper. read
Péter zenét hallgat.
Peter music. listen
Péter tanulmányt ír.
Peter article. write
Péter keresztrejtvényt fejt.
Peter crossword. solve
Péter ruhát próbál.
Peter outfit. try on
‘Peter is reading (a) newspaper(s) / listening to music / writing an article /
solving (a) crossword puzzle(s) / trying on (an) outfit(s).’

350 Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh
(22b) Péter olvassa az újságot.
Peter read.3. the newspaper.
Péter hallgatja a zenét.
Peter listen.3. the music.
Péter írja a tanulmányt.
Peter write.3. the article.
?Péter fejti a keresztrejtvényt.
Peter solve.3. the crossword.
?Péter próbálja a ruhát.
Peter try on.3. the outfit.
‘Peter is reading the newspaper / listening to the music / writing the article
/ solving the crossword puzzle / trying on the outfit.’
(23) */?Péter újságot olvas, és elégedett vele.
Peter newspaper. read and content 
*/?Péter zenét hallgat, és elégedett vele.
Peter music. listen and content 
*/?Péter tanulmányt ír, és elégedett vele.
Peter article. write and content 
*/?Péter keresztrejtvényt fejt, és elégedett vele.
Peter crossword. solve and content 
*/?Péter ruhát próbál, és elégedett vele.
Peter outfit. try on and content 
‘Peter is reading (a) newspaper(s) / listening to music / writing an article /
solving (a) crossword puzzle(s) / trying on (an) outfit(s), and he is content
with it.’
As pointed out by Kiefer (1990: 153f.) and shown in (22) above, Hungarian BNVs
form one single phonological unit from the point of view of stress assignment
(i.e., only the subject and the incorporated object bear stress on their first sylla-
ble, cf. 22a), while their V + DP counterparts show the opposite pattern (i.e., the
subject, the verb and the direct object all bear separate stress on their first sylla-
ble, cf. 22b). The ill-formedness of some of the constructions in (23) is due to the
fact that some of these BNVs, namely keresztrejtvényt fejt ‘solve crossword puz-
zles’ and ruhát próbál ‘try on outfits’ seem to be lexicalized units without exact
syntactic paraphrases, e.g. V + DP counterparts.
One of the key semantic features of direct object incorporation, often men-
tioned in the literature (cf. Mithun 1984; Kiefer 1990; Farkas/de Swart 2003), is
the non-referentiality of the bare object noun, which means that the nouns in
these BNV constructions do not denote any specific, identifiable entity in the

Compounds and multi-word expressions in Hungarian 351
world. This feature can be tested by adding an anaphoric pronominal constituent
to the sentence, as in (23) above. The examples in (23) are ill-formed because the
nouns in each construction have a type referring function, i.e. they only add a
specific classificatory feature/component to the eventuality expressed by the
verb.
(24a) Péter érdekes újságot olvas, és elégedett vele.
Peter interesting newspaper. read and content 
Péter érdekes tanulmányt ír, és elégedett vele.
Peter interesting article.acc write and content 
‘Peter is reading an interesting newspaper / writing an interesting article,
and he is content with it.’13
(24b) Péter egy érdekes újságot olvas, és elégedett vele.
Peter a interesting newspaper. read and content 
Péter egy érdekes tanulmányt ír, és elégedett vele.
Peter a interesting article. write and content 
‘Peter is reading an interesting newspaper / writing an interesting article,
and he is content with it.’
The constructions in (24a) above are meant to demonstrate the effects of modifi-
cation on BNV constructions. The inserted adjective overrides the non-referenti-
ality property of the object noun and – as a consequence – the complex eventual-
ity meaning of the BNVs. This means that we are dealing with at least two different
construction types from the point of view of semantics and discourse transpar-
ency, as shown by the fact that, contrary to the case of (23), the modified version
of the construction admits the insertion of an anaphoric pronominal constituent
into the sentence. As noted in Kiefer (1990: 152), the constructions like those in
(24a) seem to be some kind of stylistic variants of the full-fledged construction
types shown in (24b).
The number neutrality of the singular incorporated noun is another impor-
tant characteristic of BNVs, and it is strongly connected to the above mentioned
non-referentiality feature. As Farkas/de Swart (2003: 13f.) point out, morpholog-
ically singular incorporated nouns are compatible with both atomic and non-
atomic interpretations. Most of the examples in (22a) above are underspecified
regarding the number of objects involved in the eventualities described by the
BNVs. The singular noun in the BNV újságot olvas ‘read (a) newspaper(s)’, for
13Similar things were discussed in considerable detail in Maleczki (1994).

352 Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh
instance, allows for both an atomic (singular) and a non-atomic (plural) interpre-
tation, i.e. the BNV does not specify whether Peter is reading one newspaper or
several newspapers one after the other. As shown by the examples in (25) below,
the varying interpretations are influenced by pragmatic (contextual) information.
The BNV in (25a) triggers an atomic interpretation due to extra linguistic knowl-
edge about marriage related customs (though it would allow for a non-atomic
interpretation in the context of legal bigamy), the one in (25b) clearly triggers an
atomic interpretation (without any cultural variation), finally, the one in (25c)
unambiguously triggers a non-atomic interpretation.
(25a) Feri feleséget keres. (Farkas/de Swart 2003: 14)
Feri wife. search
‘Feri is looking for a wife.’
(25b) Anna napfelkeltét néz az erkélyen.
Anna sunrise. watch the balcony.
‘Anna is watching the sunrise on the balcony.’
(25c) Mari bélyeget gyűjt. (ibid.: 13)
Mari stamp. collect
‘Mari is collecting stamps.’
As far as plural bare objects are concerned, the following generalization holds:
plural bare object nouns form grammatical BNVs, however, as shown in (26)
below, their discourse transparency properties are similar to the ones of modified
singular objects, as shown in (25a) above.
(26a) Anna leveleket ír, és elküldi őket.
Anna letter.. write and .send.3. them
‘Anna writes letters and sends them.’
(26b) Az orvos betegeket vizsgál, és megpróbál segíteni rajtuk.
The doctor patient.. examine and .try help. .3
‘The doctor examines patients and tries to help them.’
Finally, a distinction must be made between fully productive and idiomatic cases.
As pointed out in Kiefer (1990), the meaning of idiomatic BNVs cannot be derived
from a corresponding free construction (cf. the examples in (27)–(28) below),
while fully productive BNVs generally have matching syntactic paraphrases as
already demonstrated by the examples in (23a–b) above.

Compounds and multi-word expressions in Hungarian 353
(27a) A behaviorista szemlélet gyökeret vert a
the behaviorist approach root. beat. the
nyelvészetben is.
linguistics. too
‘The behaviorist approach invaded linguistics as well.’
(27b) Péter bocsánatot kért a barátjától.
Peter forgiveness. ask. the friend.3..
‘Peter apologized to his friend.’
(27c) Az autó tegnap gazdát cserélt.
the car yesterday owner. change.
‘The car changed owners yesterday.’
(27d) Mari gyereket vár.
Mari child. wait
‘Mari is pregnant.’
(28a) *A behaviorista szemlélet verte a
the behaviorist approach beat..3. the
gyökeret a nyelvészetben is.
root. the linguistics. too
(28b) *Péter kérte a bocsánatot a barátjától.
Peter ask..3. the forgiveness. the friend.3..
(28c) *Az autó tegnap cserélte a
gazdá(já)t.
the car yesterday change..3. the
owner.(3..)
(28d) Mari várja a gyereket /
Mari wait.3. the child. /
vár egy gyereket.
wait a child.
‘Mari is waiting for the / a kid.’
The difference between the lexicalized BNVs in (27a–c) and (27d) is that the for-
mer type cannot be grammatically matched with a syntactic paraphrase (cf.
(28a–c)), while the latter construction type has a well-formed syntactic para-
phrase, however, (synchronically) this paraphrase has nothing to do with the
meaning of its BNV counterpart (compare (27d) and (28d)).

354 Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh
As mentioned above, the most prominent and universal semantic and prag-
matic feature of BNVs is that the eventuality designated by the construction has
to be perceived as a recognizable, unitary concept worth separately labelling.
This ‘institutionalized’ character of the complex activity expressed by the BNV
seems to be a strong criterion regarding the derivation of the construction type.
Thus it does not come as a surprise that not all bare objects are admitted in BNV
constructions with equal ease. Consider the examples in (29b) and (29d) which,
as opposed to those in (29a) and (29c), are odd on their generic reading.
(29a) Mari (épp) újságot olvas a szobájában.
Mari just newspaper. read the room.3..
‘ Mari is reading the newspaper in her room.’
(29b) Mari (épp) csomagolást olvas a húsrészlegen.
Mari just package. read the meat aisle.
‘ Mari is reading (a) package(s) in the meat aisle.’
(29c) Virágék (épp) vendéget várnak.
Virág. just guest. wait.3
‘The Virágs are waiting for (a) guest(s).’
(29d) Virágék (épp) világvégét várnak.
Virág. just apocalypse. wait.3
‘The Virágs are waiting for the end of the world.’
The oddness of (29b) is caused by the fact that, generally speaking, reading pack-
ages is not considered a recognizable, re-occurring complex eventuality, how-
ever, the BNV in question becomes acceptable if matched with a proper context:
if, for example, the participants of the speech situation know that Mari has a
habit of reading the package of meat products trying to avoid certain ingredients.
The same holds true for (29d) as well: waiting for the end of the world is generally
not perceived as an ‘institutionalized’ activity, nevertheless, the use of the BNV is
justified in the context of knowing that the Virágs have prepared for the end of the
world on several occasions in the past due to false predictions.
These types of marginal examples show that, although there may be some
pragmatic factors that influence the derivation of BNVs, if the contextual factors
match the corresponding pragmatic criteria, even seemingly odd BNVs will be
considered well-formed.
Finally, mention must be made of the aspectual restrictions filtering the
range of input verbs. The generalization seems to be as follows: activity/process
verbs, i.e. [+dynamic, –telic] verbs potentiate well-formed BNVs, while accom-
plishment and achievement verbs, i.e. [+dynamic, +telic] verbs as well as stative,

Compounds and multi-word expressions in Hungarian 355
i.e. [–dynamic, –telic] verbs do not tend to form grammatical constructions (cf.
Kiefer 1990), as shown by the examples in (30) below.14
(30a) *Péter újságot elolvasott.
Peter newspaper. .read.
*Péter zenét meghallgatott.
Peter music. .listen.
*Péter keresztrejtvényt megfejtett.
Peter crossword. .solve.
‘Peter read the newspaper / listened to music / solved a cross-word
puzzle.’
(30b) ?István keze autót érintett az utcán.
István hand.3. car. touch. the street.
‘István’s hand touched a car on the street.’
(30c) ?Anna barátot hívott, mert egyedül nem
Anna friend. call. because alone not
tudta megoldani a problémát.
can. solve. the problem.
‘Anna called (for) a friend, as she could not solve the problem alone.’
(30d) *Tamás poharat tört a konyhában,
Tamás glass. break. the kitchen.
és rögtön bocsánatot kért.
and immediately forgiveness. ask.
‘Tamás broke a glass in the kitchen and immediately apologized for it.’
(30e) *Éva fiút szeretett, de nem lett jó vége.
Eva boy. love. but not become good end.3.
‘Eva loved a boy, but it did not end well.’
(30f) *Laci hegyet látott a kiránduláson.
Laci mountain. see. the trip.
*Laci hegyet látott, amikor fölhívtam.
Laci mountain. see. when call..1.
‘Laci saw a mountain on the trip / when I called him.’
14We use the terms activity, achievement, accomplishment and state according to the Vendleri-
an tradition well known in the literature on aspect. Vendler (1967) isolated four situation types:
states (e.g. love, know, etc.), activities (e.g. run), achievements (e.g. reach the summit) and ac-
complishments (e.g. draw a circle). For more on these aspectual categories, cf. Smith (1991), Ten-
ny (1994), Kiefer (2006), etc.

356 Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh
(30g) *Matyi titkot tudott, és hosszú
Matyi secret. know. and long
ideig nem mondhatta el senkinek.
time. not tell..  nobody.
‘Matyi knew a secret, and he was not allowed to tell it to anyone for a long
time.’
According to these examples, the above generalization seems to hold true for
Hungarian BNVs. The constructions in (30a–d) derived from telic verbs are
ungrammatical, although a distinction should be made between prefixed and
unprefixed telic verbs, as the latter are invariably ungrammatical in these con-
structions, while in some cases the former may serve as acceptable input verbs
(as shown in (31a–b) below).15 The ungrammatical BNVs like those in (30e–g)
lead to the conclusion that stative verbs are indeed excluded from the range of
possible input verbs, however, as shown in (31d–e), we may find some grammat-
ical BNVs derived from stative verbs as well.
(31a) István keze labdát érintett, és
István hand.3. ball. touch. and
a biró észrevette.
the referee observe.
‘István’s hand touched the ball, and the referee saw it.’
(31b) Anna mentőt hívott, mert egyedül nem
Anna ambulance. call. because alone not
tudta megoldani a problémát.
can. solve. the problem.
‘Anna called an ambulance, as she could not solve the problem alone.’
(31c) Tamás diót tört a kalákán.
Tamás nut. break. the group work.
‘Tamás was cracking nuts at the group work.’
15The distributional properties of these verb classes are captured in Kiefer (1990: 169) as fol-
lows: “Syntactically, both the bare noun and the prefix belong to the same class of elements, of-
ten referred to as preverb since under normal circumstances an element of this class occupies the
position immediately preceding the verb. Consequently, two preverbs can never co-occur.”

Compounds and multi-word expressions in Hungarian 357
(31d) Mari fájdalmat érzett a bal lábában,
Mari pain. feel. the left foot.3..
ezért orvoshoz ment.
hence doctor. go.
‘Mari felt pain in her left leg, so she went to the doctor.’
(31e) Az éjjeliőr zajt hallott, ezért
the night-watchman noise. hear. hence
újra ellenőrizte a folyosókat.
again check. the hallway..
‘The night watchman heard noise, so he checked the hallways again.’
The well-formed examples in (31) violate the aspectual criteria formulated above,
so we need to take a closer look at the semantic and pragmatic features of these
BNVs. The sentences in (31a–b) contain BNVs derived from telic verbs, while the
ones in (31d–e) contain stative verbs. The example in (31c), contrasted with (30d),
is meant to demonstrate how contextual non-atomicity entailments induce aspec-
tual coercion in the case of punctual verbs (the BNV triggers an iterative interpre-
tation, otherwise, with an atomic interpretation, it would be considered ill-
formed, like the one in (30d) above; and reversely: the BNV poharat tör ‘break
glasses’ becomes well-formed with an iterative and habitual interpretation).
The common feature of these BNVs is that they all denote institutionalized,
re-occurring eventualities. The institutionalized nature of the eventualities
expressed by (31a–b) is also shown by their contrast with the constructions in
(30b–c) above: in football, touching the ball with one’s hand is a frequent, pun-
ishable occurrence. The same institutionalized character holds true for the even-
tuality of calling an ambulance and for the stative predicates in (31d–e).
Based on these observations, we conclude that the aspectual criterion
described above should be reduced to a remark regarding the prevalency of pro-
cess verbs in BNVs, as the range of verbs which (potentially) denote institutional-
ized eventualities strongly overlaps with the category of process verbs, however,
some telic and stative verbs also describe eventualities which satisfy the prag-
matic criterion controlling BNV formation.
3 Summary
In the present paper we have summarized the most important facts concerning
compounds and compound-like phrases (= non-prototypical compounds) in
Hungarian. We have concentrated on the productive, or at least regular patterns
of compounding and derivation of compound-like constructions. In particular,

358 Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh
we have stressed the features which deviate from “Standard Average European”.
Some of such features can be found in the case of deverbal compounds as well,
e.g. that the subject argument can be satisfied in compounds which does not
seem to be the case in Germanic or Romance. However, the most striking feature
of Hungarian compounding is the existence of bare noun constructions and their
relation to verbal aspect.
References
Brdar, Mario/Brdar-Szabó, Rita (2014): Syntactic reduplicative constructions in Hungarian (and
elsewhere): Categorization, topicalization and concessivity rolled into one. In: Rundblad,
Gabriella et al. (eds.): Selected Papers from the 4th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference.
London: UK Cognitive Linguistics Association. 36–51.
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria/Williams, Edwin (1987): On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Farkas, Donka/de Swart, Henriëtte (2003): The semantics of incorporation: From argument
structure to discourse transparency. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Kenesei, István (1986): On the role of the agreement morpheme in Hungarian. ALH 86, 1–4.
104–120.
Kiefer, Ferenc (1990): Noun incorporation in Hungarian. In: Acta Linguistica Hungarica 40, 1–2.
149–177.
Kiefer, Ferenc (1992): Compounding in Hungarian. Rivista di Linguistica 4, 1. 45–55.
Kiefer, Ferenc (1993): Thematic roles and compounds. Folia Linguistica 27, 1–2. 25–55.
Kiefer, Ferenc (2000): A szóösszetétel [Compounds]. In: Kiefer, Ferenc (ed.): Strukturális magyar
nyelvtan 3. Morfológia. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 519–568.
Kiefer, Ferenc (2006): Aspektus és akcióminőség – különös tekintettel a magyar nyelvre [Aspect
and Aktionsart – with special emphasis on Hungarian]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Kiefer, Ferenc (2009): Compounding in Hungarian. In: Lieber, Rochelle/Stekauer, Pavol (eds.):
Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks. 527–541.
Kiefer, Ferenc/Németh, Boglárka (2018): Aspectual constraints on noun incorporation in
Hungarian. In: Zoltán, Huba Bartos/den Dikken, Marcel/Váradi, Tamás (eds.): Boundaries
crossed: Studies of the crossroads of morphosyntax, phonology, pragmatics, and
semantics. Berlin: Springer. 21–32.
Ladányi, Mária (2007): Produktivitás és analógia a szóképzésben [Productivity and analogy in
word formation]. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.
Maleczki, Márta (1994): Bare common nouns and their relation to the temporal constitution of
events in Hungarian. In: Dekker, Paul/Stokhof, Martin (eds.): Proceedings of the Eighth
Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation,
University of Amsterdam. 347–365.
Mithun, Marianne (1984): The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60. 847–895.
Smith, Carlota (1991): The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Springer.
Tenny, Carol L. (1994): Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Springer.
Vendler, Zeno (1967): Verbs and times. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca/New York: Duke
University Press. 97–121.