Article published in:
Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba Conference
Edited by Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi and Éva Dékány
[Approaches to Hungarian 14] 2015
► pp. 95120
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Dékány, Éva
2018. The position of case markers relative to possessive agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36:2  pp. 365 ff. Crossref logo
Hegedüs, Veronika & Éva Dékány
2017.  In Approaches to Hungarian [Approaches to Hungarian, 15],  pp. 65 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 december 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Asbury, Anna
2008The Morphosyntax of Case and Adpositions: University of Utrecht dissertation.
Asbury, Anna, Berit Gehrke & Veronika Hegedűs
2007One size fits all: Prefixes, particles, adpositions and cases as members of the category P. In Cem Keskin (ed.), Uil OTS yearbook 2006, 1–17. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg & Ian Roberts
2007Disharmonic word-order systems and the Final-over-Final-Constraint FOFC. In Antonietta Bisetto & Francesco E. Barbieri (eds.), Proceedings of the XXXIII incontro di grammatica generativa, 86–105. Bologna: Universitá di Bologna.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
2010Mapping spatial PPs: An introduction. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures 6, 3–25. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2006Suffixes casuels et postpositions en hongrois. Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris 101(1). 225–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dékány, Éva
2011A profile of the Hungarian DP. The interaction of lexicalization, agreement and linearization with the functional sequence. Tromsø: University of Tromsø dissertation.Google Scholar
Dér, Csilla
2012Mennyire (prototipikus) névutók a ragvonzó névutók a magyarban?. In Gábor Tolcsvai Nagy & Tátrai Szilárd (eds.), Konstrukció és jelentés, 11–29. Budapest: ELTE BTK.Google Scholar
2013A kontextus szerepe a magyar ragvonzó névutók viselkedésében. In Grammatika és kontextus. Új szempontok az uráli nyelvek kutatásában III, 9–19. Budapest: ELTE Finnugor Tanszék.Google Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den
2010On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 6, 74–126. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1999Mi tartozik a névutók osztályába?. Magyar nyelvjárások 37. 167–172. http://​mnytud​.arts​.unideb​.hu​/mnyj​/37​/index​.html.Google Scholar
2002The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013From Proto-Hungarian SOV to Old Hungarian Top Foc V X*. Diachronica 30(2). 202 –231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014aAz ősmagyar SOV szórendtől az ómagyar ’topik fókusz V X*’ szórendig. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Magyar történeti mondattan, 14–33. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2014bThe evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax. Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014cThe evolution of functional left peripheries in the Hungarian sentence. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), The evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax, 9–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2014dMagyar történeti mondattan. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin & Henk van Riemsdijk
(eds.) 2004Verb clusters: A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Egedi, Barbara
2014aThe DP-cycle in Hungarian and the functional extension of the noun phrase. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), The evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax. Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 11, 56–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014bFőnévi kifejezések: határozottság, névelőhasználat, birtokos szerkezetek. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Magyar történeti mondattan, 95–125. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E.
1985A unified theory of syntactic categories. Studies in generative grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van
2011The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1991Extended projection. Ms., Brandeis University.
Hegedűs, Veronika
2006Hungarian spatial PPs. Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers in Linguistics 33(2). 220–233.Google Scholar
2013Non-verbal predicates and predicate movement in Hungarian: University of Tilburg dissertation.Google Scholar
2014aThe cyclical development of Ps in Hungarian. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), The evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 11, 122–147. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014bA névutós kifejezések grammatikalizációja és belső szerkezeti változásai. In Magyar történeti mondattan, 154–176. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia
1978Verbal prefixes: a non-category in Hungarian. Glossa: an international journal of lingustics 12(2). 137–162.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1973The base rules for prepositional phrases. In Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle, 345–356. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S.
2004Here and there. In Lexique, syntaxe et lexique-grammaire, 253–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, István
1992Az alárendelt mondatok szerkezete [The structure of embedded clauses]. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 1. Mondattan. [Hungarian structural grammar 1. Syntax], 529–714. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda
2000Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles. The structure of Dutch PPs. In Hilda Koopman (ed.), The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads. Collected Essays of Hilda Koopman Routledge leading linguistics, 204–260. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2010Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 6, 26–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leu, Thomas
2008‘What for’ internally. Syntax 11(1). 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marácz, László
1984Postposition stranding in Hungarian. In Werner Abraham & Sjaak de Mey (eds.), Groninger arbeiten zur germanistischen linguistik 24, 127–161. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
1985A magyar névutós csoportról. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 87. 173–180.Google Scholar
1986Dressed or naked: The case of the PP in Hungarian. In Abraham Werner & Sjaak de Meij (eds.), Topic, Focus and Configurationality, 227–252. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989Asymmetries in Hungarian: Rijksuniversität Groningen dissertation.
Pantcheva, Marina
2011Decomposing Path: University of Tromsø dissertation.
Radics, Katalin
1992Fossilized gerunds with possessive endings in Hungarian. In István Kenesei & Csaba Pléh (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 4, 283–300. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Rákosi, György
2010On snakes and locative binding in Hungarian. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, 396–415. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://​www​-csli​.stanford​.edu​/pubs​/.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van
1978A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of Prepositional Phrases. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
1990Functional prepositions. In Ham Pinkster & Inge Genee (eds.), Unity in Diversity: Papers Presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th Birthday, 229–241. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Push chains and drag chains: Complex predicate split in Dutch. In Shigeo Tonoike (ed.), Scrambling, 7–33. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van & Riny Huybregts
2002Location and locality. In Marc van Oostendorp & Elena Anagnostopoulou (eds.), Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg, 1–23. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou
2003Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew J. & Gregory T. Stump
2013Hungarian pronominal case and the dichotomy of content and form in inflectional morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(4). 1207–1248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Surányi, Balázs
2009Locative particle and adverbial incorporation at the interfaces. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Adverbs and adverbial adjuncts at the interfaces Interface explorations 20, 39–74. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2003Limits on P: Filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers in Linguistics 31(2). 430–445.Google Scholar
2007Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. In Eric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya & Giorgos Spathas (eds.), Argument structure, 63–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Spatial P in English. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 6, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen
2008  “Case suffixes”, postpositions and the Phonological Word in Hungarian. Linguistics 46(2). 403–437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Joost
1997Vectors as relative positions: a compositional semantics of modified PPs. Journal of Semantics 14. 57–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Joost & Yoad Winter
2000Vector space semantics: a model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9. 169–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar