In this paper the authoress investigates the role of expressions traditionally called obligatory adjuncts, i.e. constituents that seem to be adjuncts (vs. arguments), but cannot be omitted from the sentence. The main question she addresses is whether they are really obligatory, in other words, why certain sentences are ungrammatical in the absence of these constituents. On the basis of English examples, GOLDBERG and ACKERMAN claim that the sentences without obligatory adjuncts are infelicitous. According to GOLDBERG and ACKERMAN, in the absence of obligatory adjuncts, the focal requirement, as a pragmatic constraint, is violated. In the present paper she shows that the Hungarian data take their origin on a more basic level (i.e., the syntax-semantics interface). On the one hand, she suggests that obligatory adjuncts play a role in forming the aspectual structure of the sentence; on the other hand, she emphasizes the ability of arguments (having a theta-role other than theme) to have the same function (i.e., 'obligatory adjuncts' are not always adjuncts). By this argumentation, she refutes not only the pragmatic explanation but also the old concept of preverbs saying that these particles are the unique as pectual operators in Hungarian. She concludes that the reason for these constituents to be obligatory is not their contribution to the meaning of the verb, but their contribution to its aspect. This phenomenon is restricted to sentences involving verbs of creation with definite theme arguments; in this case, the perfective reading is impossible. When obligatory adjuncts are present, however, they form complex predicates with the verb and make the perfective reading possible despite the fact that they are neither resultative nor terminative adjuncts.
Financed by the National Centre for Research and Development under grant No. SP/I/1/77065/10 by the strategic scientific research and experimental development program:
SYNAT - “Interdisciplinary System for Interactive Scientific and Scientific-Technical Information”.