Marking the type of speaker bias: Hungarian nem-e interrogatives

Chapter 10 Marking the type of speaker bias: Hungarian nem-e interrogatives Beáta Gyuris HUN-REN Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest and ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest This paper investigates the use conditions of a noncanonical polar interrogative form type in Hungarian, which contains the (surface) constituent nem-e (consisting of a negative and an interrogative particle), and compares them to those of the two canonical negative polar interrogatives. It is shown for the first time that nemein fact appears in three different construals, which are connected to at least two different dialects. Focusing on nem-e interrogatives used by speakers of the Standard Dialect, we point out that they lack non-epistemic speaker expectation bias, cannot be used to encode indirect reproaches, offers or requests, they do not realize initiating moves in discourse, they do not give rise to rhetorical question readings, and they cannot felicitously be responded to by isolated response particles. These properties are accounted for on the basis of the assumption that the focusbackground structure of the form involves a focused proposition, which leads to certain restrictions regarding the structure of discourses it can appear in. 1 Introduction The aim of this paper is to review the use conditions, particularly the “bias profiles” of different form types of negative polar interrogatives in Hungarian in general, and then focus on a non-canonical form type that contains the (surface) constituent nem-e, consisting of the negative particle nem and the interrogative particle -e, illustrated in (1). (Until we present our account of the interpretation of interrogatives with nem-e in Section 5, they will be translated into English in terms of negative polar interrogatives with “high negation”, as other negative Beáta Gyuris. 2025. Marking the type of speaker bias: Hungarian nem-e interrogatives. In Tue Trinh, Anton Benz, Daniel Goodhue, Kazuko Yatsushiro & Manfred Krifka (eds.), Biased questions: Experimental results and theoretical modelling, 293–330. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17158194 Beáta Gyuris interrogative forms in Hungarian normally are, cf. Gyuris 2017, a.o.. In Section 5 we will argue for a more appropriate translation.) (1) A and B are wondering why their friends haven’t arrived in time for a meeting. A says: Nem-e not-q történt happened valami something az the úton? way.on ‘Didn’t something happen on the way?’1 We rely on a distinction made in the literature between two dimensions of bias in polar questions (cf. Sudo 2013). The first one, usually referred to as evidential bias, indicates sensitivity to evidence in the context for the positive or the negative answer (𝑝vs. ¬𝑝) (Cf. Ladd 1981, Büring & Gunlogson 2000, Roelofsen et al. 2013). The second one, which is going to be referred to here as (speaker) expectation bias (following Silk 2020), indicates sensitivity to the speaker’s previous expectations regarding the answer. These expectations can stem from the speaker’s beliefs, wishes or some set of rules, and are thus referred to in the literature as epistemic,bouletic or deontic bias, respectively.2(For relevant discussion, cf. Romero & Han 2004, Reese 2007, Reese & Asher 2009, Domaneschi et al. 2017, Silk 2020, a.o.) Interrogatives containing the constituent nem-e complement the inventory of negative polar interrogative forms found in the Standard Dialect, to be introduced below. In traditional descriptive grammars and style guides they have been referred to as a “substandard” (cf. Szász 1905, Tompa 1961/1962, Grétsy & Kovalovszky 1980/1985), in modern descriptive grammars as a “non-standard” form type of negative interrogatives (cf. Kenesei et al. 1998: 2).3No semantic or pragmatic distinctions between interrogatives with nem-e and the other negative interrogative form types have been mentioned so far in the literature. In this first systematic study of the interpretation of interrogatives with neme, we argue that they appear in at least two dialects in Hungarian, in different structural environments and with different use conditions. In the first dialect, they are used in lieu of a standard negative interrogative form. 1q stands for ‘interrogative particle’. 2Note that Sudo (2013) and Gärtner & Gyuris (2017, 2023) refer to all types of (speaker) expectation bias as epistemic bias for brevity. 3In spite of the stigmatization of the form by descriptive linguists and language educators, a sociolinguistic survey reported on by Kassai (1994) has found that 36,7% of 832 participants considered an interrogative with nem-e acceptable, and 45,9% of 812 participants did not correct the form in a text where they were asked to correct what they consider “mistakes” . These data indicate how widely the form is used and accepted among speakers. 294 10 Marking the type of speaker bias In the second dialect, they appear in addition to the canonical negative polar interrogative forms, but are used for a special effect. In the latter dialect, nem-e turns out to be sensitive to the type of the (speaker) expectation bias (epistemic vs. deontic/bouletic). The central question to be addressed in this paper is how to account for the interpretational features of nem-e in the second dialect, with particular attention to its bias profile. The paper is structured as follows. First, in Section 2, we review previous claims about the bias profiles of the (two) canonical positive and negative polar interrogative form types in Hungarian. Section 3 presents a set of examples with nem-e, and sorts them into two dialects. Section 4 focuses on nem-e interrogatives in one of these dialects, investigating the type of negation they encode, the type of the speaker expectation bias they introduce, and further conditions on the use of the form in context. Section 5 makes a proposal for an account of the interpretation of nem-e interrogatives in the latter dialect, which explains the properties discussed above. The paper ends with the conclusions in Section 6. 2 Polar interrogatives in Hungarian: Forms and biases This section presents the interrogative forms that can appear in matrix clauses in Hungarian. (For more detailed overviews, cf. Gyuris 2017, 2018.) (2) represents the form type referred to as -e-interrogative, marked by the -einterrogative particle, which cliticizes onto the finite verb. It is pronounced with an end-falling intonation contour. (3) is a so-called rise-fall (⋀)-interrogative, which is marked by prosodic means, with a global rise-fall tune (L*HL%, cf. Ladd 1996), peaking on the penultimate syllable.4 (2) János János ki-utazott-e vm-travelled-q Berlinbe? Berlin.into ‘Did János go to Berlin?’5 4For a detailed discussion of Hungarian intonation, including that of polar interrogatives, cf. Varga (2002). 5vm stands for ‘verb modifier’. The category of verb modifiers includes verbal prefixes (e.g. ki), bare nominal complements, oblique complements expressing a goal, and non-agentive subjects, cf. É. Kiss (2002: 57). In non-negative sentences, these constituents are situated immediately in front of the verb in the absence of a constituent in preverbal focus, but stay behind the verb in case the latter is preceded by the negative particle (nem) or a constituent in focus position (to be illustrated below). The verb–vm order will be referred to here as “inversion”. According to standard Hungarian orthography, a verb is written together as one word with the verbal prefix preceding it. To make the verbal prefix more visible, we will in most cases use a hyphen to connect it with the following verb. 295 Beáta Gyuris (3) János János ki-utazott vm-travelled Berlinbe Berlin.into ⋀? (q) ‘Did János go to Berlin?’ As a comparison between (3) and (4) illustrates, ⋀-interrogatives are stringidentical to the corresponding declaratives, which are pronounced with an endfalling tune as a default: (4) János János ki-utazott vm-travelled Berlinbe. Berlin.into ‘János went to Berlin.’ In subordinate clauses, the only interrogative form available is the -einterrogative, as in (5).6 (5) Mari Mari tudja, knows hogy that János János ki-utazott-e vm-travelled-q Berlinbe. Berlin.into ‘Mari knows whether János went to Berlin.’ It is argued in Gyuris (2017) that whereas -e-interrogatives are equally infelicitous in the presence of compelling contextual evidence (cf. Büring & Gunlogson 2000) for the positive or the negative answer, ⋀-interrogatives can be compatible with the presence of compelling contextual evidence for the former.7(6) shows the use of the two forms in a context with compelling contextual evidence for the positive answer, and (7) illustrates their uses in a neutral context (i.e., one with no compelling evidence for any of the answers). (6) A enters the building in sunglasses and t-shirt. S, who has been sitting in a windowless office during the last couple of hours, wants to know what the weather is like outside. S asks A: a. # Jó good idő weather van-e? is-q ‘Is the weather nice?’ 6Note that (i) can only be analysed as containing an embedded declarative: (i) Mari Mari tudja, knows hogy that János János ki-utazott vm-travelled Berlinbe. Berlin.into ‘Mari knows that János went to Berlin.’ 7In case the speaker believes that the contextual evidence is only compatible with the positive answer, the ⋀-interrogative form is blocked by a declarative pronounced with multiple rise-fall tunes (cf. Gyuris 2019, Varga 2010), the counterpart of English ‘rising declaratives’ (cf. Gunlogson 2003). 296 10 Marking the type of speaker bias b. Jó good idő weather van is ⋀ (q) ? ‘Is the weather nice?’ (7) A and S talk long-distance on the phone. S wants to know what the weather is like at A’s place. S asks A: a. Jó good idő weather van-e? is-q ‘Is the weather nice?’ b. Jó good idő weather van is ⋀ (q) ? ‘Is the weather nice?’ As noted in Gyuris (2017), and confirmed experimentally in Gyuris et al. (2020, 2021), speakers from different regions judge the appropriateness of -e-interrogatives for encoding informal information-seeking questions differently. As opposed to speakers from certain regions in Eastern Hungary and in Transylvania (Romania), speakers from Western Hungary and Budapest tend to accept them only in official, formal contexts (e.g., court or police interrogations), where they are intentionally used to indicate the impartiality of the questioner (cf. Varga 2021). Nevertheless, speakers of all dialects give for -e-interrogatives significantly higher acceptability ratings in neutral contexts than in contexts with evidence for the positive answer. We turn now to the corresponding negative form types. The negative counterparts of (2) and (3) are illustrated in (8) and (9), respectively. The corresponding negative declarative, which is string-identical to (9), is shown in (10). (8) Nem not utazott-e travelled-q ki vm János János Berlinbe? Berlin.into ‘Didn’t János go to Berlin?’ (9) Nem not utazott travelled ki vm János János Berlinbe Berlin.into ⋀? (q) ‘Didn’t János go to Berlin?’ (10) Nem not utazott travelled ki vm János János Berlinbe. Berlin.into ‘János didn’t go to Berlin.’ 297 Beáta Gyuris All of (8–10) display inversion between the vm and the verb, due to the fact that the negative particle attracts the verb to NegP, cf. É. Kiss (2009). The syntactic structure of (10) is shown in (11) (Cf. Surányi 2009.): (11) [NegP Nem [ utazott𝑖[IP ki t𝑖János Berlinbe ]]] In what follows, standard negative -e-interrogatives of the form illustrated in (8) will be referred to as nem V-e interrogatives, and negative ⋀-interrogatives as nem ⋀interrogatives. The bias profiles of nem V-e and nem ⋀interrogatives are different, as discussed in Gyuris (2017). Both of them are compatible with vala-indefinites, which Szabolcsi (2002) considers positive polarity items (PPIs). This indicates, following Ladd (1981), that both give rise to an “outside negation” (ON, non-propositional negation) reading. Nem ⋀interrogatives are also compatible with negative polarity items (NPIs), including phrases with sem (that É. Kiss 2009 refers to as “negative polarity item, minimizer”), which indicates, following Ladd (1981), that they also give rise to a so-called “inside negation” (IN, propositional negation) reading.8The availability of the ONvs. IN-readings is illustrated for the two negative interrogative forms in (12)–(13): (12) Nem not utazott-e travelled-q ki vm János János Berlinbe Berlin.into (valamikor at.some.time / *semmikor)? never ‘Didn’t János go to Berlin (at some point/*ever)?’ ON, *IN (13) Nem not utazott travelled ki vm János János Berlinbe Berlin.into (valamikor at.some.time / semmikor) never ⋀? (q) ‘Didn’t János (at some point/ever) go to Berlin?’ ON, IN The examples in (14)–(15), where nem V-e and nem ⋀interrogatives are presented in contexts with no previous expectation regarding any of the possible answers vs. with expectation towards the positive answer 𝑝, respectively, show that both negative forms are incompatible with contexts where the speaker has no expectation bias, but that they are both compatible with contexts with bias towards 𝑝(independently of the ON/IN distinction). (14) No expectation: You told me that you went to a party yesterday. I have no idea who else did (or was supposed to go). I ask: 8Further diagnostics of ON vs. IN readings include compatibility with is ‘too’ vs. sem ‘neither’, respectively, to be illustrated in (14–15). 298 10 Marking the type of speaker bias a. # Nem not volt-e was-q ott there (esetleg) perhaps János János (is) too a the buliban? party.in #‘Didn’t (perhaps) János go to the party (too)?’ b. # Nem not volt was ott there (esetleg) perhaps János János (is/sem) too/neither a the buliban party.in ⋀? (q) ‘Didn’t (perhaps) János go to the party (too/either)?’ (15) Positive expectation: You have just told me about Mary’s birthday party you went to. I have no idea who else went (or was supposed to go). I know that John is a good friend of Mary’s. I ask: a. Nem volt-e ott (esetleg) János (is) a buliban? b. Nem volt ott (esetleg) János (is/sem) a buliban ⋀? Having looked at the canonical positive and negative interrogative form types in Hungarian, the next section zooms in on interrogatives with nem-e. 3 Interrogatives with nem-e: Data and dialects In the following examples, the majority of which was taken from the Hungarian National Corpus (HNC)9, the particle -eappears cliticized onto the negative particle nem. (16)-(17)10 encode information-seeking questions, in (18), (19), (20)11, and (21)12 nem-e appears in “embedded root” environments: (16) Az the üzletközpont shopping.centre útvesztőjéből labyrinth.its.from óriási giant szatyrokkal bags.with betéved vm.come.3sg néhány some civil: civilian “nem-e not-q itt here árulják sell.3pl az the akciós sale rozsdamentes stainless edénykészletet.” cookware.acc [HNC] ‘From the labyrinth of the shopping centre some civilians come in with big shopping bags: “isn’t it here where the stainless steel cookware is sold?” ’ 9http://corpus.nytud.hu/mnsz/index_eng.html, cf. Oravecz et al. (2014). 10Repeated with original spelling. 11https://www.gyakorikerdesek.hu/sport-mozgas__egyeb-kerdesek__2716148-hogyan-nezzemmeg-hogy-nem-e-atvernek (Last accessed: 15 June 2025) 12This example is from the questionnaire reported on in Kassai (1994). 299 Beáta Gyuris (17) figyu, look.subj.2sg vince, Vince nem-e not-q vetted took.2sg még still észre, vm hogy that a the mti MTI híreit news.its.acc MINDENKI everybody szószerint literally hozza bring.3sg le/ismétli, vm/repeat.3sg mert because valószínűleg probably ez this kikötés? requirement [HNC] ‘Look, Vince, haven’t you noticed yet that the news of the MTI (Hungarian News Agency) are brought/repeated by everybody using the same words, because probably that’s a requirement?’ (18) nëm-ë not-q gyün come.3sg el, vm kérdëzzítëk ask.subj.2pl mëg vm (Hegedűs 2001) ‘Isn’t he coming? Ask him!’ (19) Kérdés, question hogy that nem-e not-q a the második second emeleti floor.of folyosó corridor végén end.its.on lévő being hátsó back ajtónál door.at fognak will.3pl csöngetni? (Nádasdy 2024) ring.inf ‘It is a question whether they won’t ring the bell at the back door at the end of the corridor on the second floor.’ (20) Hogyan how nézzem look.subj.1sg meg vm hogy that nem-e not-q átvernek? vm.deceive.3pl ‘How should I find out whether they don’t deceive me?’ (21) Jó good lenne be.subj.3sg tudni, know.inf nem-e not-q lesz be.fut.3sg vihar. storm ‘It would be good to know whether there won’t be a storm.’ (22) realizes a rhetorical question (cf. the particle hiszen ‘indeed’): (22) Ráadásul in.addition egy a ilyen such hadüzenetnek declaration.of.war.dat megvolnának vm.be.cond.3pl a the történelmi historical gyökerei roots.its is. too Hiszen indeed nem-e not-q a the magyar Hungarian kalandozó adventuring hadak troops portyáinak raids.their.dat igáját yoke.its.acc nyögte suffered.3sg Szent Saint Gallen Gallen büszke proud kolostora? cloister.its [HNC] ‘In addition, such a declaration of war would have its roots in history. Wasn’t it the yoke of the raids of Hungarian “adventuring” troops that the proud cloister of Saint Gallen suffered from?’ 300 10 Marking the type of speaker bias The question realized by the next example is to be interpreted as a suggestion for an explanation: (23) Nem-e not-q az that az the oka reason.its ennek, this.dat hogy that annyi so.many embernek person.dat van is megnyilatkozási expression lehetősége opportunity.its (mindenki everybody szerkeszthet create.poss.3sg magának himself.dat honlapot homepage.acc pl.), e.g. hogy that egyszerűen simply nem not tudjuk know.1pl átlátni vm.see.inf a the helyzetet. situation.acc [HNC] ‘Isn’t the reason for this that so many people have an opportunity to express themselves (everybody can create a homepage for themselves, for example) that we simply cannot understand the situation?’ In (24)13 the interrogative encodes an indirect offer: (24) – Másvalamit other.something.acc nem-e not-q tetszik like.3sg kérni? ask.inf – folytatta continued.3sg a the leány. girl ‘ – Don’t you wish something else? – the girl continued.’ The interrogative in (25) is used to encode a threat. (Note the remark by one of the interlocutors in this dialogue about the education of the original speaker whose utterance is reported on here, to be discussed below.) (25) Azt that.acc kérdezte asked.3sg egy a férfihang, man’s.voice hogy that asszonyom, madam nem-e not-q fél afraid … – Így so kérdezte, asked.3sg hogy that “nem-e not-q fél”? afraid Nem not lehetett be.poss.past.3sg egy an akadémikus. academic Szóval, so mit what.acc kérdezett? asked.3sg – Nem-e not-q fél afraid a the kedves kind férje, husband.your hogy that lóba horse.into varrjuk? sew.1pl [HNC] ‘A man’s voice asked, madam, isn’t he afraid … – Did he ask this way, “isn’t he afraid”? He surely wasn’t an academic. So, what did he ask? – Isn’t your dear husband afraid that we sew him into a horse?’ 13Kondor, Vilmos 2018. A haldokló részvényes. (’The shareholder on his deathbed.’) Libri Kiadó, Budapest. (Courtesy of László Simon.) 301 Beáta Gyuris associated with the two readings are “distinct kinds of meaning”: the biases of IN readings constitute “some type of implicature”, whereas those of ON readings are “entailments, reflecting a speaker commitment which functions as a weak assertion”. Interrogatives with ON readings, which “share the distributional properties of questions and assertions” are accounted for by the author by assigning to them “a conventionalized complex speech act type assertion • question”, cf. Asher & Lascarides (2001, 2003). The claim that deontic and bouletic biases can only arise for IN readings does indeed explain the infelicity of nem-e vm-V interrogatives, which can only have ON readings, in contexts (32–35). However, in these contexts nem V-e interrogatives, which also only give rise to ON readings, are all felicitous. This suggests that Reese’s general proposal for the types of expectation biases available on the basis of the availability of IN/ON readings cannot be extended to the relevant Hungarian data. Contrary to Reese, Sudo (2013: 284) assumes that there are negative interrogatives in English with ON readings that “imply a positive expectation stemming from the norm/rules (deontic) or what the speaker desires (bouletic), rather than what the speaker believes to be true”, as in Aren’t you ashamed of yourselves?, or Don’t you like it?, respectively,23 although without further theoretical justification. Having illustrated that nem-e interrogatives in Hungarian introduce a distinction between types of expectation biases that has not yet been observed in the literature, we turn to some other properties that determine their use in discourse. 4.3 Further discourse properties of nem-e vm-V interrogatives 4.3.1 Unresolved question in the discourse (31), repeated in (36) below, shows that all the three negative interrogative forms under consideration are felicitous in situations where the aim of the speaker’s utterance is to put forward a suggestion for a congruent answer (cf. von Stechow 1991) to an unresolved question in the discourse. (36) Suggestion scenario A, B and János are colleagues. A and B talk after a meeting. A: Why wasn’t János present at the meeting? B replies: 23The examples are used by Asher & Reese (2007), originally due to Huddleston & Pullum (2002). 308 10 Marking the type of speaker bias a. Nem-e not-q ki-utazott vm-travelled Berlinbe? Berlin.into ‘Didn’t he go to Berlin?’ b. Nem utazott-e ki Berlinbe? ‘Didn’t he go to Berlin?’ c. Nem utazott ki Berlinbe ⋀? ‘Didn’t he go to Berlin?’ The unresolved question under consideration in the dialogue above is the one uttered by A, which activates a set of alternative (full) answers of the type ‘János wasn’t at the meeting because 𝑞’, where 𝑞stands for a proposition. 𝑞itself thus corresponds to a term answer to the unresolved question above.24 The proposition ‘He went to Berlin’ is offered by B in the dialogue as the value of 𝑞. (37) presents the three negative interrogatives in a context with no unresolved question in the context: (37) I have to ask something scenario A to B: I have to ask you something. a. # Nem-e not-q át-ment vm-went.3sg János János a the vizsgán? exam.on ‘Didn’t János pass the exam?’ b. Nem ment-e át János a vizsgán? ‘Didn’t János pass the exam?’ c. Nem ment át János a vizsgán ⋀? ‘Didn’t János pass the exam?’ The felicity of (37b–37c) and the infelicity of (37a) confirms the suggestion according to which nem-e vm-V interrogatives require the presence of an unresolved question in the context. 4.3.2 No coordination Here we want to point out that the coordination of two nem-e vm-V interrogatives is infelicitous, as opposed to the coordination of two exemplars of the other two negative interrogative form types, as illustrated in (38) below: (38) A, B and János are colleagues. A and B talk after a meeting. A: Why wasn’t János present at the meeting? B replies: 24Cf. Krifka (2011) for the definitions of full vs. term answers. 309 Beáta Gyuris a. # Nem-e not-q el-felejtette vm-forgot az the időpontot date.acc és and nem-e not-q ki-utazott vm-travelled Berlinbe? Berlin.into ‘Didn’t he forget the date and didn’t he go to Berlin?’ b. Nem felejtette-e el az időpontot és nem utazott-e ki Berlinbe? ‘Didn’t he forget the date and didn’t he go to Berlin?’ c. Nem felejtette el az időpontot és nem utazott ki Berlinbe ⋀? ‘Didn’t he forget the date and didn’t he go to Berlin?’ Based on the discussion in Section 4.3.1, the contrast between (38a) and (38b– 38c) can be interpreted as indicating that nem-e vm-V interrogatives can only be used to suggest a complete congruent answer to the unresolved question (thus making the conjunction of two such forms infelicitous), whereas the other two forms can also be used to suggest a partial answer. 4.3.3 Possible replies to questions with nem-e We look next at how to react to questions encoded by nem-e vm-V interrogatives. (39b)–(39h) present potential replies to the question in (39a) in the context illustrated: (39) A and B see their colleague János from a distance, and note that he has a suntan. a. A: Nem-e not-q nyaralni be.on.holiday.inf volt? was ‘Wasn’t he on holiday?’ b. B: Lehet. maybe ‘Maybe.’ c. B: #Igen yes (, nyaralni be.on.holiday.inf volt). was #‘Yes (, he was on holiday).’ d. B: %De but (igen) yes (, nyaralni be.on.holiday.inf volt). was %‘Yes (, he was on holiday).’ 310 10 Marking the type of speaker bias e. B: Nem, no #(nem not volt was nyaralni). be.on.holiday.inf ‘No, #(he was not on holiday).’ f. B: Nem, no a the kertben garden.in dolgozott. worked ‘No, he was working in the garden.’ g. B: Volt was nyaralni, be.on.holiday.inf de but nem not azért because.of.that barna. brown ‘He was on holiday, but he does not have a tan because of that.’ h. B: (Nem,) not (volt was nyaralni, be.on.holiday.inf de) but azért because.of.that barna, brown mert because a the kertben garden.in dolgozott. worked ‘(No,) (he was on holiday, but) he has a tan because he worked in the garden.’ I suggest that these data indicate that, in spite of appearances, the set of congruent answers to questions realized by nem-e vm-V interrogatives does not consist of the denotation of the surface constituent following nem-e and its negation. For (39a), this set would include the propositions ‘He was on holiday’ and ‘He was not on holiday’. (39b) illustrates the most natural reply to (39a) in the context. Since the response particle igen ‘yes’ is infelicitous in answers to canonical forms of negative interrogatives in Hungarian (cf. Farkas 2009 for an account), it comes as no surprise that, as evidenced by (39c), it is also excluded as answer to a question realized by a nem-e vm-V interrogative. It is more unexpected that the response particle de ‘but’25 (with or without the assumed positive answer) is not considered acceptable by all speakers of this dialect in the context under consideration, (39d)26 and that the response particle nem ‘not’ in (39e) does not constitute a felicitous reply in isolation, either, only if followed by the utterance of a declarative disambiguating the answer. (39f), where nem is followed by the utterance of an alternative answer to the superordinate question (How did he get a suntan?), is fine, as is (39g), which gives a polarity-reversing answer to the nem-e question, but explicitly denies that it also answers the superordinate question. Finally, (39h) answers the nem25De is analogous to German doch ‘but’, encoding a reverse polarity reply to a negative polar question. 26I thank Lilla Kamilla Sándor and Viktória Virovec for discussions on the data. 311 Beáta Gyuris equestion, but rejects that the latter is identical to the complete answer to the superordinate question, by also explicitly giving an answer to the latter. 4.3.4 No rhetorical question reading The final property of nem-e vm-V interrogatives we wish to mention here is that they cannot be used by a speaker in a situation where the denotation of the surface constituent following nem-e or its negation is part of the common ground, in other words, where they encode a rhetorical question (cf. Caponigro & Sprouse 2007). Consider the relevant three forms (containing a covert copula) in a context where they are supposed to realize a rhetorical question: (40) Rhetorical question scenario A and B are talking. They both know that Péter is A’s oldest friend. A: Why is Péter always so helpful? B replies: a. # Nem-e not-q ő he a the legrégebbi oldest barátod? friend.your ‘Isn’t he your oldest friend?’ (Intended: ‘He is your oldest friend.’) b. Nem ő-e a legrégebbi barátod? ‘Isn’t he your oldest friend?’ (Intended: ‘He is your oldest friend.’) c. Nem ő a legrégebbi barátod ⋀? ‘Isn’t he your oldest friend?’ (Intended: ‘He is your oldest friend.’) (40b–40c) are available to commit the speaker to the proposition ‘Péter is your oldest friend’, and to indicate, based on the Maxim of Relevance, that this is B’s answer to A’s question. (40a), however, is not available for this purpose in Dialect E (although it would be available in Dialect S). The latter can only be interpreted as a suggestion for an answer to A’s question by the speaker, without assuming that the answer is in the common ground, thus, not as a rhetorical question. The next subsection presents the proposal explaining these data. 312 10 Marking the type of speaker bias 5Nem-e vm-V interrogatives: The account 5.1 Structural assumptions As it was shown in the previous sections, nem-e vm-V interrogatives have a more restricted use in Dialect E than the canonical nem V-e interrogatives. Thus, the former represent a special form type having a specific interpretation. One possible approach towards explaining their distribution would be to consider nem-e a discourse/pragmatic particle, which indicates that the rest of the sentence denotes a proposition that the speaker puts forward as a suggested answer to an unresolved question. This proposal, however, fails to account for why clauses containing nem-e count as interrogatives, and thus can be embedded under matrix predicates that embed interrogatives, as in (41).27 (41) Ilike Ilike töpreng contemplates rajta, on.it hogy that nem-e not-q ő she bántotta offended meg vm valamivel. something.with ‘Ilike contemplates whether it was her who offended him with something.’ [HNC] As an alternative, we propose that nem-e is the visible subpart of a matrix copular negative interrogative clause, and the rest of the nem-e interrogative originates from an embedded declarative, whose polarity (other things being equal) is positive. The essentials of the full structure of the nem-e interrogative in (42), including covert parts, are shown in (43): (42) Nem-e not-q ki-utazott vm-travelled Berlinbe? Berlin.into ‘Isn’t it that he went to Berlin?’ (43) [CP1… [NegP Nem not [FocP az that van-e be.3sg-q [IP1… [CP2hogy that [IP2ki-utazott vm-travelled Berlinbe ]]]] …] Berlin.into ‘Isn’t it that he went to Berlin?’ Let us consider the properties of the structure in (43). First, the covert expletive az is the “correlate” of the subordinate declarative clause. It is situated in the preverbal focus position.28 Second, az is followed by the covert copula van ‘be.3sg’. 27Note that the embedded (root) interrogative in (41) would license the “reflectivity” particle vajon ‘I wonder’, a diagnostic of interrogative clauses, cf. Kenesei (1994) and Kálmán (2001). 28Cf. Kenesei (1994) for a comprehensive account of the syntax of subordinate clauses in Hungarian. 313 Beáta Gyuris Third, the clitic -e ends up attached to the negative particle nem because both the copula and the correlate are covert. Finally, the complementizer hogy, introducing the subordinate clause, also remains covert.29 It is well known that the preverbal focus position within the Hungarian sentence (which, other things being equal, hosts the constituent serving as the term answer to the Immediate Question Under Discussion, discussed below, cf. Gyuris 2012), is associated with an exhaustive/identificational reading (cf. É. Kiss 2002, Szabolcsi 1994 for general discussion, a.o.). Since the expletive az in the focus position of the main clause functions as a “placeholder” for the subordinate declarative clause, we assume that the nem-e construction makes the denotation of the declarative a propositional focus with an exhaustive/identificational reading. These interpretational features are emphasized in the English translation given in (43), which contains a cleft construction, and is thus preferable to the English translations given previously for nem-e interrogatives, in terms of plain negative polar interrogatives. In what follows, we will therefore use the cleft construction in the translations. The structural assumptions listed above can account for the lack of inversion between the verb and the verb modifier, which is the default word order in positive declaratives, cf. (4) above. Additional support for the biclausal analysis is provided by the possibility of nem-e preceding another nem ‘not’, illustrated in (44). Here the second negative particle is a constituent of the “embedded declarative”. (44) A and B are talking. A: I thought John went to a conference but his car is in the car park opposite the building. B replies: Nem-e not-q nem not utazott travelled el? vm ‘Isn’t it that he did not go away (perhaps)?’ In the next section we present the preliminaries for an account of the interpretation of nem-e vm-V interrogatives listed in Section 4 on the basis of the structure postulated above. 5.2 Interpreting nem-e vm-V interrogatives: Basic assumptions In Section 4 above nem-e vm-V interrogatives were associated with the interpretational properties listed in (45). Here, 𝑝stands for the denotation of the embedded declarative (cf. CP2in (43)) following nem-e: 29Obligatory covertness is the result of a certain degree of grammaticalization having affected nem-e. For discussion of the trade-off between compositional and construction-specific properties see Reis (1999) and Jacobs (2016). 314 10 Marking the type of speaker bias (45) Semantic and discourse properties of nem-e vm-V interrogatives in Dialect E a. They give rise to ON readings but not to IN readings. (Section 4.1.) b. They are infelicitous as indirect reproaches, offers and requests. (Section 4.2.1.) c. They are only felicitous in contexts where there is an unresolved question Q in the context such that 𝑝counts as a term answer to Q. (Section 4.3.1.) d. The conjunction of two nem-e vm-V interrogatives is infelicitous. (Section 4.3.2.) e. Replies consisting of the isolated response particles igen ‘yes’, de ‘but’ or nem ‘no’ are dispreferred or infelicitous. (Section 4.3.3.) f. They do not give rise to rhetorical question readings. (Section 4.3.4.) The fact that nem-e interrogatives are compatible with PPIs, which was used as a diagnostic for ON-readings (property (45a)), follows from analysing the constituent following nem-e as an embedded positive declarative (which is compatible with PPIs as a default). The incompatibility with NPIs, which indicates the absence of IN-readings, follows from the general incompatibility of the interrogative particle -e in the matrix clause with NPIs, as shown in Section 2.30 Note that NPIs are still felicitous in nem-e interrogatives in case the “embedded” declarative contains another negation, which licenses NPIs, as in (44). The remaining properties (45b–45f) are going to be accounted for by referring to the covert structure shown in (43) above, in which the embedded declarative (CP2) is interpreted as exhaustively focused, a result of the correlate (placeholding expletive) az being situated in the preverbal focus position of the matrix clause (CP1). For describing the felicity conditions of nem-e vm-V interrogatives in the discourse we rely on insights from the Question Under Discussion (QUD) framework. (For general discussion, cf. Roberts 2012 and Büring 2003, a.o..) Here the (explicit or implicit) question that an utterance (of a declarative or interrogative) is assumed to react to is referred to as the I(mmediate) QUD, modelled as a set of propositions. For utterances of declaratives, the IQUD is constituted by a (contextually determined) subset of the set of focus alternatives to the declarative. (Cf. Rooth 1992, Beaver & Clark 2008, a.o..) As far as the IQUD of utterances of polar 30Cf. Gärtner & Gyuris (2022) for an analysis of the ban on IN readings of -e-interrogatives as a syntactic intervention effect. 315 Beáta Gyuris interrogatives with (exhaustive) focus is concerned, we follow Kamali & Krifka (2020: 26–27), who take it to be a contextually determined subset of the set of focus alternatives introduced by the declarative encoding the positive answer. As an illustration, consider (46a), a polar interrogative with a constituent in the preverbal focus position (followed by vm-V inversion). The set of focus alternatives to the positive answer is shown in (46b). Assuming that the set of contextually relevant individuals contains Anna and Béla, the denotation of (46c) is a subset of the set of alternatives in (46b), and thus (46c) denotes an appropriate IQUD for (46a). (46) a. Anna𝐹 Anna ment went el vm moziba? movies.into ‘Was it Anna who went to the movies?’ b. {‘It was Anna who went to the movies’, ‘It was Béla who went to the movies’, ‘It was Cili who went to the movies’, ‘It was Anna and Béla who went to the movies’, ‘It was Anna and Cili who went to the movies’, ‘It was Anna, Béla and Cili who went to the movies’, … } c. (Anna Anna és and Béla Béla közül) among ki who ment went el vm a the moziba? movies.into ‘Who (of Anna and Béla) went to the movies?’ The fact that the focus in the polar interrogative in (46a) has an exhaustive/ identificational reading entails that the focus alternatives in (46b) exclude each other, and thus that the positive answer to (46a) provides a complete answer to the IQUD in (46c). Now the assumptions above will be applied to nem-e vm-V interrogatives. For simplicity, here we only consider nem-e vm-V interrogatives without a preverbal focus constituent in the “embedded” CP2, as in (43). We suggest that the focussing of the whole CP2indicates that its proposition denotation constitutes a term answer to the IQUD. The fact that CP2is exhaustively focused means that the propositions in the set constituting the alternatives to its denotation mutually exclude each other as term answers to the IQUD (and thus that all constitute maximally informative answers to the latter, cf. Dayal 1996). Thus, the IQUD for any nem-e vm-V interrogative is to be schematically represented as the set of propositions shown in (47), where 𝑝,𝑝′, and 𝑝″stand for the denotation of CP2and its alternatives, 𝒫denotes a property of propositions determined by the specific IQUD (to be discussed below), and exactly one of the propositions in the set can be true at the same time. This means, informally, that a nem-e vm-V 316 10 Marking the type of speaker bias interrogative is used for the purpose of asking whether the denotation of CP2is equivalent to the only proposition that has the contextually given property 𝒫. (47) {‘It is 𝑝that has property 𝒫’, ‘It is 𝑝′that has property 𝒫’, ‘It is 𝑝″that has property 𝒫’, …} Regarding how IQUDs of the form illustrated in (47), with mutually exclusive possible answers, are realized in natural language, empirical observations suggest that there are at least two wh-interrogative forms available for this purpose. The first one is why-interrogatives asking for reasons, which, according to Oshima (2007: 152) are presupposed to have “only one true resolution” in a particular context.31 This means that all possible answers to why-questions are also complete. (36), repeated in (48), provides an illustration: (48) Suggestion scenario A, B and János are colleagues. A and B talk after a meeting. a. A: Miért why nem not volt was János János az the értekezleten? meeting.on ‘Why wasn’t János at the meeting?’ b. B: Nem-e not-q ki-utazott vm-travelled Berlinbe? Berlin.into ‘Isn’t it that he went to Berlin?’ The property of having mutually exclusive possible answers does not apply to the question realized by the wh-interrogative in (49a), which, however, can denote the IQUD for the two polar negative interrogative form types in (49c– 49d), but not for the one in (49b). (49) A, B and János are colleagues. A and B talk after a meeting. a. A: Mit what.acc mondott said János János Mariról? Mari.from ‘What did János say about Mari?’ b. B: #Nem-e not-q ki-utazott vm-travelled Berlinbe? Berlin.into ‘Isn’t it that she went to Berlin?’ 31It depends on contextual factors “what counts as a reason” (Oshima 2007: 155). Cf. also Unger (1977). 317 Beáta Gyuris Next, according to property (45d), the conjunction of two nem-e vm-V interrogatives is infelicitous. This follows from the fact that the answers to two conjoined nem-e vm-V interrogatives, given that they share the same IQUD, cannot be independent of each other. As (55) shows, the truth of a positive answer to one nem-e vm-V interrogative entails that no other interrogative having the same IQUD but a different CP2can be answered positively. Now, consider (45f): nem-e vm-V interrogatives, as opposed to other negative interrogatives in Hungarian, cannot be used to signal that the proposition 𝑝denoted by CP2is in the common ground according to the speaker. This property was referred to as the “absence of a rhetorical question reading” above. One of the central claims of the account proposed here is that the set of possible answers to questions encoded by nem-e vm-V interrogatives is not identical to the denotation of the constituent (CP2) following nem-e and its negation ({𝑝,¬𝑝}). Rather, due to the focusing of CP2in the covert structure the denotation of the polar interrogative under consideration is equivalent to the set of propositions {‘It is 𝑝 that has property 𝒫’, ‘It is not 𝑝that has property 𝒫’}. This means that even if 𝑝is in the common ground, a nem-e vm-V interrogative where CP2denotes 𝑝is not an appropriate means of pointing this out, since 𝑝is not a congruent answer to the latter. Finally, we turn to property (45e): the isolated response particles igen ‘yes’, de ‘but’ or nem ‘no’ are dispreferred or even infelicitous as replies to questions realized by nem-e vm-V interrogatives. I suggest that the reason, again, has to do with the non-identity between the set of agreeing and disagreeing answers to nem-e vm-V interrogatives and the set {𝑝,¬𝑝}, where 𝑝equals the denotation of CP2. This non-identity makes it difficult (or even impossible) to reconstruct the propositional content of the actual answer on the basis of a response particle alone. 6 Conclusion This paper investigated the use conditions and the bias profile of the negative interrogative form type in Hungarian that contains the surface constituent neme, composed of a negative and an interrogative particle. It was pointed out for the first time that different occurences of nem-emay represent different uses and belong to different dialects. We have provided different analyses to three different uses of nem-e, attibuting the latter constituent a biclausal struture on the first one, considering it a result of movement according to the second one, and analyzing it as a particle on the third one, respectively. Concentraing on 324 10 Marking the type of speaker bias nem-e interrogatives used by speakers of the Standard Dialect, we have pointed out that they only have ON but no IN readings, they are incompatible with (standard) non-epistemic speaker expectation biases, they cannot be interpreted as indirect reproaches, offers or requests, they are only felicitous in contexts with an unresolved superordinate question under discussion, cannot be coordinated, do not have rhetorical question readings, and cannot felicitously be responded to by isolated response particles. It was argued that these properties follow from the focus-background structure of the interrogative, which involves an (exhaustively) focused declarative clause subordinated to a covert matrix clause. Acknowledgements I wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers of the paper and the editors of this volume for advice and criticism, Hans-Martin Gärtner, Angelika Kiss, Rebeka Kubitsch, Cecília Sarolta Molnár, Ádám Nádasdy, Eva-Maria Remberger, Lilla Kamilla Sándor, Marianna Varga, and Viktória Virovec for discussions and suggestions, and the audience of the SPAGAD workshop Biased Questions: Experimental Results & Theoretical Modelling, as well as audiences at Edinburgh, Newcastle, Vienna and Szeged for valuable comments. Research for the paper was supported by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Fund (NKFIH), under grant No. K 135038. References Abrusán, Márta. 2011. Presuppositional and negative islands: A semantic account. Natural Language Semantics 19. 257–321. Akmajian, Adrian. 1979. Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. New York: Garland. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2001. Indirect speech acts. Synthese 129. 183– 228. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Asher, Nicholas & Brian Reese. 2007. Intonation and discourse: Biased questions. In Shinichiro Ishihara, Stefanie Jannedy & Anne Schwarz (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 8 (Working papers of the SFB 632), 1–38. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag. Beaver, David I. & Brady Z. Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning (Explorations in Semantics). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. 325 Beáta Gyuris Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 511–545. Büring, Daniel & Christine Gunlogson. 2000. Aren’t positive and negative polar questions the same? Unpublished manuscript retrieved from semanticsarchive, UCLA & UCSC. http://hdl.handle.net/1802/1432. Caponigro, Ivano & Jon Sprouse. 2007. Rhetorical questions as questions. In Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 121–133. Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in WH quantification. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Declerck, Renaat. 1979. Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudo-clefts. Dordrecht: Foris. Declerck, Renaat. 1992. The inferential it is that-construction and its congeners. Lingua 87. 203–230. Delahunty, Gerald P. 1990. Inferentials: The story of a forgotten evidential. Kansas Working Papers of Linguistics 15. 1–28. Delahunty, Gerald P. & Laura Gatzkiewicz. 2000. On the Spanish inferential construction ser que.Pragmatics 10. 301–322. Domaneschi, Filippo, Maribel Romero & Bettina Braun. 2017. Bias in polar questions: Evidence from English and German production experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1). 23. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.27. É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. É. Kiss, Katalin. 2009. Negative quantifiers in Hungarian. In Marcel den Dikken & Robert M. Vago (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 11: Papers from the 2007 New York Conference, 65–94. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Farkas, Donka F. 2009. Polarity particles in Hungarian. In Marcel den Dikken & Robert M. Vago (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 11: Papers from the 2007 New York Conference, 95–118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Beáta Gyuris. 2012. Pragmatic markers in Hungarian: Some introductory remarks. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59. 387–426. Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Beáta Gyuris. 2017. On delimiting the space of bias profiles for polar interrogatives. Linguistische Berichte 251. 293–316. Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Beáta Gyuris. 2022. On the absence of propositional negation from Hungarian polar -e interrogatives. Studia Linguistica 76. 661– 683. Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Beáta Gyuris. 2023. On further delimiting the space of bias profiles for polar interrogatives. Linguistische Berichte 275. DOI: 10.46771/ 9783967692839_3. Grétsy, László & Miklós Kovalovszky. 1980/1985. Nyelvművelő kézikönyv I-II [Handbook of language cultivation I-II]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 326 10 Marking the type of speaker bias Gunlogson, Christine. 2003. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York: Routledge. Gyuris, Beáta. 2012. The information structure of Hungarian. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure, 159–186. Berlin: de Gruyter. Gyuris, Beáta. 2017. New perspectives on bias in polar questions: A study of Hungarian -e.International Review of Pragmatics 9. 1–50. DOI: 10.1163/1877310900000003. Gyuris, Beáta. 2018. On two types of polar interrogatives in Hungarian and their interaction with inside and outside negation. In Christine Dimroth & Stefan Sudhoff (eds.), The grammatical realization of polarity contrast: Theoretical, empirical, and typological approaches, 173–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gyuris, Beáta. 2019. Thoughts on the semantics and pragmatics of rising declaratives in English and rise-fall declaratives in Hungarian. In Beáta Gyuris, Katalin Mády & Gábor Recski (eds.), K + K = 120. Papers dedicated to László Kálmán and András Kornai on the occasion of their 60th birthdays, 247–280. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet. Gyuris, Beáta, Cecília Sarolta Molnár & Katalin Mády. 2020. Division of labour between polar interrogatives in Hungarian: A study in dialect semantics. Poster presented at the 13th conference on Syntax, Phonology, and Language Analysis, 24-26 September, 2020, Research Institute for Linguistics, Budapest. Gyuris, Beáta, Cecília Sarolta Molnár & Katalin Mády. 2021. Experimenting with the bias profiles of (positive) polar interrogatives in Hungarian. Poster presented at the 4th Experimental Pragmatics in Italy (XPRAG.it) conference, University of Turin. Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language: International Journal of Language and Philosophy 10. 41–53. Hegedűs, Attila. 2001. Nyelvjárási mondattani jelenségek [Syntactic phenomena in regional dialects]. In Jenő Kiss (ed.), Magyar dialektológia [Hungarian dialectology], 362–374. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó. Higgins, F. Roger. 1976. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacobs, Joachim. 2016. Satztypkonstruktionen und Satztypsensitivität. In Rita Finkbeiner & Jörg Meibauer (eds.), Satztypen und Konstruktionen, 23–71. Berlin: de Gruyter. Kálmán, László. 2001. Magyar leíró nyelvtan. I. Mondattan [Hungarian descriptive grammar. I. Syntax]. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó. 327 Beáta Gyuris Kamali, Beste & Manfred Krifka. 2020. Focus and contrastive topic in questions and answers, with particular reference to Turkish. Theoretical Linguistics 46. 1–71. Kassai, Ilona. 1994. Nyelvi norma és nyelvhasználat viszonyáról az -e kérdőszó mondatbeli helye(i) kapcsán [On the relation between linguistic norms and language use in connection with the position(s) of the interrogative word -e within the sentence]. Magyar Nyelv 90. 42–48. Kenesei, István. 1994. Subordinate clauses. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian, 275–354. New York: Academic Press. Kenesei, István, Robert M. Vago & Anna Fenyvesi. 1998. Hungarian. London: Routledge. Krifka, Manfred. 2011. Questions. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics (HSK 33.2), 1742–1785. Berlin: de Gruyter. Ladd, D. Robert. 1981. A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. In Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 17, 164–171. Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nádasdy, Ádám. 2024. Mignont-e eszel? [Are you eating mignon cakes?] In Szmoking és bermuda. Nyelvészeti írások [Tuxedo and Bermuda shorts. Writings about linguistics.] Budapest: Magvető. Oravecz, Csaba, Tamás Váradi & Bálint Sass. 2014. The Hungarian Gigaword corpus. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asunción Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), LREC 2014 – Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 1719–1723. Lisbon: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Oshima, David Y. 2007. On factive islands: Pragmatic anomaly vs. pragmatic infelicity. In Takashi Washio, Ken Satoh, Hideaki Takeda & Akihiro Inokuchi (eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence. 147–161. Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10. 1007/978-3-540-69902-6_14. Reese, Brian & Nicholas Asher. 2009. Biased questions, intonation, and discourse. In Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds.), Information structure: Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives, 139–173. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reese, Brian Jon. 2007. Bias in questions. The University of Texas at Austin. (Doctoral dissertation). Reis, Marga. 1999. On sentence types in German. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 4. 195–236. 328 10 Marking the type of speaker bias Remberger, Eva-Maria. 2020. Information-structural properties of is that clauses. In Pierre-Yves Modicom & Duplâtre Olivier (eds.), Information-structural perspectives on discourse particles, 48–69. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6). 1–69. Roelofsen, Floris, Noortje Venhuizen & Galit Weidman Sassoon. 2013. Positive and negative polar questions in discourse. In Sinn und Bedeutung 17, 455–472. Romero, Maribel & Chung-Hye Han. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5). 609–658. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116. Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 2016. How questions and the manner-method distinction. Synthese 193. 3169–3194. Schwarz, Bernhard & Alexandra Simonenko. 2018. On the logical makeup of howand why-questions. In Sireemas Maspong, Brynhildur Stefánsdóttir, Katherine Blake & Forrest Davis (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 28, 533– 545. Sheil, Christine M. 2016. Scottish Gaelic clefts: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. University of California at Berkeley. (Doctoral dissertation). Silk, Alex. 2020. Expectation biases and context management with negative polar questions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 49. 51–92. Sudo, Yasutada. 2013. Biased polar questions in English and Japanese. In Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Beyond expressives: Explorations in use-conditional meaning, vol. 28 (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface (CRiSPI)), 275–296. Leiden: Brill. Surányi, Balázs. 2009. Verbal particles inside and outside of vP. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 56(2-3). 201–249. DOI: 10.1556/aling.56.2009.2-3.3. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. All quantifiers are not equal: The case of focus. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 42(3/4). 171–187. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44306737. Szabolcsi, Anna. 2002. Hungarian disjunctions and positive polarity. In István Kenesei & Péter Siptár (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 8: Papers from the Budapest conference, 217–239. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Szász, Károly legifj. 1905. A kérdő -e kérdéséhez [On interrogative -e]. Magyar Nyelv 1. 459–460. Tompa, József (ed.). 1961/1962. A mai magyar nyelv rendszere I-II [The structure of the contemporary Hungarian language I-II]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Uegaki, Wataru. 2018. A unified semantics for the Japanese q-particle ka in indefinites, questions and disjunctions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1). 14. 329 Beáta Gyuris Unger, Peter. 1977. The uniqueness in causation. American Philosophical Quarterly 14. 177–188. Varga, László. 2002. Intonation and stress: Evidence from Hungarian. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan. Varga, László. 2010. Boundary tones and the lack of intermediate phrase in Hungarian (revisiting the Hungarian calling contour). In The Even Yearbook 9, 1–27. Budapest: Department of English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University. Varga, Marianna. 2021. Magyar büntetőperes bírósági kihallgatások komplex nyelvészeti elemzése [A complex linguistic analysis of interrogations in criminal proceedings]. University of Szeged. (Doctoral dissertation). von Stechow, Arnim. 1991. Focusing and backgrounding operators. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles, 37–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 330