Abstract
This paper investigates the distribution and significance of object morphology in Hungarian. Hungarian direct objects exhibit two morphological properties: they bear accusative case, and they trigger object agreement with the finite verb in their clause. Focus-raising constructions exhibit both of these morphological properties, but I argue that this object coding does not go along with object behavior; hence, though certain object-coded nominals look like objects, they are not. This conclusion raises problems for the characterization of the distribution of Hungarian definiteness agreement that can be found in grammars and textbooks, which is stated in terms of objecthood; focus-raising constructions exhibit object agreement between a verb and an accusative nominal in the same clause that is not its object. It is not the case that object agreement follows from accusative case, either; verbs in Hungarian do not always agree with the accusative nominals in their clause. I conclude that a verb shows object agreement with a nominal if and only if the verb assigns accusative case to the nominal.