Part of
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
References (53)
References
Asbury, Anna. 2008. The Morphosyntax of Case and Adpositions: University of Utrecht dissertation.
Asbury, Anna, Berit Gehrke & Veronika Hegedűs. 2007. One 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. 2007. Disharmonic 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. 2010. Mapping 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Suffixes casuels et postpositions en hongrois. Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris 101(1). 225–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dékány, Éva. 2011. A 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. 2012. Mennyire (prototipikus) névutók a ragvonzó névutók a magyarban?. In Gábor Tolcsvai Nagy & Tátrai Szilárd (eds.), Konstrukció és jelentés, 11–29. Budapest: ELTE BTK.Google Scholar
. 2013. A 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. 2010. On 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1999. Mi tartozik a névutók osztályába?. Magyar nyelvjárások 37. 167–172. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. From Proto-Hungarian SOV to Old Hungarian Top Foc V X*. Diachronica 30(2). 202 –231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014a. Az 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.). 2014b. The evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax. Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014c. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2014d. Magyar történeti mondattan. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.). 2004. Verb clusters: A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egedi, Barbara. 2014a. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. Főnévi kifejezések: határozottság, névelőhasználat, birtokos szerkezetek. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Magyar történeti mondattan, 95–125. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Studies in generative grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projection. Ms., Brandeis University.
Hegedűs, Veronika. 2006. Hungarian spatial PPs. Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers in Linguistics 33(2). 220–233.Google Scholar
. 2013. Non-verbal predicates and predicate movement in Hungarian: University of Tilburg dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2014a. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. A névutós kifejezések grammatikalizációja és belső szerkezeti változásai. In Magyar történeti mondattan, 154–176. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1978. Verbal prefixes: a non-category in Hungarian. Glossa: an international journal of lingustics 12(2). 137–162.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1973. The 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. 2004. Here and there. In Lexique, syntaxe et lexique-grammaire, 253–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, István. 1992. Az 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. 2000. Prepositions, 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
. 2010. Prepositions, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marácz, László. 1984. Postposition stranding in Hungarian. In Werner Abraham & Sjaak de Mey (eds.), Groninger arbeiten zur germanistischen linguistik 24, 127–161. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
. 1985. A magyar névutós csoportról. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 87. 173–180.Google Scholar
. 1986. Dressed 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Asymmetries in Hungarian: Rijksuniversität Groningen dissertation.
Pantcheva, Marina. 2011. Decomposing Path: University of Tromsø dissertation.
Radics, Katalin. 1992. Fossilized gerunds with possessive endings in Hungarian. In István Kenesei & Csaba Pléh (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 4, 283–300. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Rákosi, György. 2010. On snakes and locative binding in Hungarian. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, 396–415. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [URL]Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of Prepositional Phrases. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Functional prepositions. In Ham Pinkster & Inge Genee (eds.), Unity in Diversity: Papers Presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th Birthday, 229–241. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Push 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. 2002. Location 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. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew J. & Gregory T. Stump. 2013. Hungarian pronominal case and the dichotomy of content and form in inflectional morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(4). 1207–1248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Surányi, Balázs. 2009. Locative 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2003. Limits on P: Filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers in Linguistics 31(2). 430–445.Google Scholar
. 2007. Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. In Eric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya & Giorgos Spathas (eds.), Argument structure, 63–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Spatial 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Joost. 1997. Vectors as relative positions: a compositional semantics of modified PPs. Journal of Semantics 14. 57–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Joost & Yoad Winter. 2000. Vector space semantics: a model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9. 169–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Burukina, Irina
2023. On the syntax of postpositional phrasesin Mari. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 2:2  pp. 158 ff. DOI logo
Egressy, János & Anikó Lipták
2022. Veronika Hegedűs & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.): Syntax of Hungarian: postpositions and postpositional phrases . Folia Linguistica 56:2  pp. 519 ff. DOI logo
Rákosi, György & Enikő Tóth
2022. Pushed out of arm's reach: Pronouns and spatial anaphora in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Academica 69:2  pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Schvarcz, Brigitta R.
2022.  Hárman, sokan, mindannyian . Journal of Uralic Linguistics 1:2  pp. 181 ff. DOI logo
Hegedűs, Veronika
2020. Back to restitutives (again): A syntactic account of restitutive and counterdirectional verbal particles in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Academica 67:3  pp. 319 ff. DOI logo
Dékány, Éva
2018. The position of case markers relative to possessive agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36:2  pp. 365 ff. DOI logo
Dékány, Éva
2021. Introduction. In The Hungarian Nominal Functional Sequence [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 100],  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hegedűs, Veronika & Éva Dékány
2017. Two positions for verbal modifiers. In Approaches to Hungarian [Approaches to Hungarian, 15],  pp. 65 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 january 2025. 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.