The feature geometry of generic inclusive null DPs in Hungarian 173
(31) [Ha az emberGN isz-ik], proGN /*őGN
if the man drink-pres 3 sg (the man) /he
nem vezet-0.
not drive-pres 3 sg
‘If one drinks, one/*he does not drive.’
(32) Azok-ban az idők-ben az emberGN nem
those-iness the times-iness the man not
akar-t [meg-operál-ni PROGN egy gyógyíthatatlan beteg-et].
want-past 3 sg pfx-operate-inf an incurable patient-acc
‘In those times, one would not want to operate on incurable patients.’
These properties indicate that generic inclusive lexical and null DPs in Hungarian have
phi features, which are licensed via Cyclic Agree (see Bèjar & Rezac 2009) in the rel-
evant functional projection.
Holmberg (2005, 2010 ) derives the availability of lexical vs. null generic inclusive
DPs in Consistent vs. Partial NSLs, from the presence or absence of the [+D] feature on
the T head. In Hungarian, generic inclusive DPs have no similar choice: once they are
spelt out, they cannot be lexical a second time:^7
(33) Az ember szeretné tudni, [hogy *az ember
the man like.cond 3 sg k n ow.inf that the man
ő/proGN meddig élhet].
he/(the man) for how long live.opt 3 sg
‘One would like to know how long one /he can live.’
Just like one and oneself in English, Hungarian generic inclusive lexical and null DPs
(az emberGN and proGN) are first person-oriented, group-denoting, context-sensitive
items.^8 Their inner feature geometry differs from that of 3sg unique reference (lexical
- Kenesei (p.c.) notes that generic inclusive DPs are pronominalized when they are in FocP
or TOPcP. The feature bundle of generic inclusive DPs in such cases materializes as an overt
3 sg pronoun only to carry contrastive stress. Both FocP and TOPcP introduce a complement
set. The contrast between a focussed or a contrastively topicalised XP and the complement set
necessitates an overt lexical item, capable of carrying heavy stress. - As an anonymous reviewer notes, Hungarian generic inclusive null DPs need not be c-
commanded by their generic inclusive lexical antecedent. This distinguishes them from long-
distance anaphors in the Germanic languages (see Koster & Reuland 1991 on long-distance
anaphors).