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. 209244


Abbott, Barbara
2000Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1419–1437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Axel, Katrin & Anke Holler & Helena Trompelt
2011Correlative Es vs. Das in German: An empirical perspective. Handout of the talk presented at the workshop Inner-sentential propositional pro-forms: Syntactic properties and interpretative effects, Annual Conference of the DGfS 33, Göttingen, February 24, 2011.
forthc.) Correlative Es vs. Das in German: An empirical perspective. In Kerstin Schwabe & André Meinunger & Werner Frey (eds.) Inner-sentential propositional pro-forms Amsterdam John Benjamins
Bennis, Hans
1987Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bentzen, Kristine
2011The status of embedded V-Neg word order. Talk given at the workshop Main/embedded clause asymmetries in the Scandinavian languages , Lund University, April 15, 2011.
Bentzen, Kristine & Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson & Thorbjörg Hróarsdottír & Anna-Lena Wiklund
2007The Tromsø guide to the Force behind V2. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 79, 93–118.Google Scholar
Brandtler, Johan
2012The evaluablity hypothesis. The syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of polarity item licensing in Swedish. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company [Linguistics Today 183]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brandtler, Johan & Valéria Molnár
2011Rethinking clausal asymmetries. The case of Swedish and Hungarian. Handout of the talk presented at the workshop Inner-sentential propositional pro-forms: syntactic properties and interpretative effects, Annual Conference of the DGfS 33, February 23-25, Göttingen.
forthc.). Rethinking clausal symmetries: Propositional pronoun insertion in Hungarian. In Kerstin Schwabe & André Meinunger & Werner Frey (eds.) Inner-sentential propositional pro-forms Amsterdam John Benjamins
Breindl, Eva
1989Präpositionalobjekte und Präpositionalobjektsätze im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna
1990Impersonal constructions and sentential aguments in German. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1986Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
1995The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2008On phases. In Robert Freidin & Carlos P. Otero & Maria Louisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter
1994Extraposition in English. Functions of Language 1.1: 7–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elisabeth & David I. Beaver
2013Principles of the exclusive muddle. Journal of Semantics 30, 2013: 1–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Michael S. Rochemont
1990Extraposition and the complement principle. Linguistic Inquiry 21.1: 23–47.Google Scholar
de Cuba, Carlos & Barbara Ürögdi
2009Eliminating factivity from syntax: Sentential complements in Hungarian. In Marcel den Dikken & Robert M. Vago (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 11: Papers from the 2007 New York Conference, 29–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabeth
2011Johan Brandtler, The evaluability hypothesis. The syntax and semantics of polarity item licensing in Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 34 (1): 61–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Engel, Ulrich
2004Deutsche Grammatik. München: Iudicium.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
1973On the nature of island constraints. MIT dissertation.
É. Kiss, Katalin
2006Focusing as predication. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The Architecture of focus, 169–196. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner
2011On the ‘nominal’ character of clauses associated with a pronominal. Ms., ZAS, Berlin.
Giannakidou, Anastasia
1998Polarity sensitivity as a (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Linguistik Aktuell 23). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
2006Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–1669. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Operator movement and topicalization in adverbial clauses. Folia Linguistica 41: 279–325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008The syntax of adverbial clauses and the licensing of main clause phenomena. Truncation or intervention. Talk given at GLOW, Newcastle, March 26, 2008.
Heycock, Caroline
2006Embedded root phenomena. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. II, 174–209. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, Wolfram & Michelle Sheehan
2011Moving towards the edge: The grammar of reference. Linguistic Analysis, 37 (3-4): 405–458.Google Scholar
Holler, Anke
2013Reanalyzing German correlative es . In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th international conference on head-driven phrase structure grammar, 90–109. Freie Universität Berlin: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan
1975On assertive predicates. In John P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and semantics, volume 4, 91–124. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan & Sandra Thompson
1973On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inguiry 4: 465–497.Google Scholar
Horváth, Júlia
1997The status of wh-expletives and the partial wh-movement construction in Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 509–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, Dalina
2006Triggering factivity: Prosodic evidence for syntactic structure. In Donald Baumer, David Montero & Michael Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 211–219. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István
1992Az alárendelt mondatok szerkezete. [The structure of embedded sentences.] In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 1. Mondattan. [A structural grammar of Hungarian 1. Syntax.] 529–713. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
1994 Subordinate clauses . In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian. 275–354. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Ivan A. Sag
2008Variations in English object extraposition. In Proceedings of the 41st regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society , vol. 41, No. 1, 251–265.
Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky
1970Fact. In Manfred Bierwisch & Karl Erich Heidolph (eds.), Progress in linguistics, 313–341. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lipták, Anikó
1998A magyar fókuszemelések egy minimalista elemzése. [A minimalist analysis of the Hungarian focus raisings.] In László Büki & Miklós Maleczki (eds.), A mai magyar nyelv leírásának újabb módszerei [Recent methods of the description of Modern Hungarian], vol. III, 93–116, Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Molnár, Valéria & Susanne Winkler
2010Edges and gaps: Contrast at the interfaces. Lingua 120: 1392–1415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon
1996On extraction and successive cyclicity. In Uli Lutz & Jürgen Pafel (eds.), On extraction and extraposition in German, 213–244. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Christer
2008The edge-feature on C. Manuscript. Lund University, October 2008.
Postal, Paul M. & Geoffrey K. Pullum
1988Expletive noun phrases in subcategorized positions. Linguistic Inquiry 19 (4): 635–670.Google Scholar
Pütz, Herbert
1975Über die Syntax der Pronominalform es im modernen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1986Über die Syntax der Pronominalform es im modernen Deutsch. 2nd edition. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Sandberg, Bengt
1998Zum es bei transitiven Verben vor satzförmigem Akkusativobjekt. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy
2006Presupposition without common ground. Manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Avaliable at: http://​www​.hss​.cmu​.edu​/philosophy​/faculty​-simons​.php.
2007Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117:6: 1034–1056. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sonnenberg, Bernhard
1992Korrelate im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang
2006Syntax. Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.Google Scholar
Stroik, Thomas S.
1996Extraposition and expletive-movement: A minimalist account. Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics 99 (4): 237–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sudhoff, Stefan
2003Argumentsätze und es-Korrelate – zur syntaktischen Struktur von Nebensatzeinbettungen im Deutschen. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
forthc.). Correlates of object clauses in German and Dutch. In Kerstin Schwabe & André Meinunger & Werner Frey (eds.) Inner-sentential propositional pro-forms Amsterdam John Benjamins Crossref
Vikner, Sten
1995Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena & Kristin Bentzen & Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson & Thorbjörg Hróarsdottir
2009On the distribution and illocution of V2 in Scandinavian that-clauses. Lingua 119: 1914–1938. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela
1995Minimalia grammaticalia: das nicht-phorische es als Prüfstein grammatischer Theoriebildung. Deutsche Sprache 23: 39–60.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Ilse
1993Zur Syntax und Semantik der Satzeinbettung. In Inger Rosengren (ed.), Satz und Illokution, Band 2: 231–251. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar