Chapter published in:
Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 15: Papers from the 2015 Leiden Conference
Edited by Harry van der Hulst and Anikó Lipták
[Approaches to Hungarian 15] 2017
► pp. 3563
References

References

Asbury, Anna
2005Adpositions as case realizations. Leiden Papers in Linguistics 2(3). 69–92.Google Scholar
2008aMarking of semantics roles in Hungarian morphosyntax. In Szilárd Szentgyörgyi et al. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 10: Papers from the Veszprém conference, 9–30. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2008bThe morphosyntax of case and adpositions. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Bacskai-Atkari, Julia
2014aThe syntax of comparative constructions: Operators, ellipsis phenomena and functional left peripheries. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
2014bStructural case and ambiguity in reduced comparative subclauses in English and German. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 61(4). 363–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015aA kérdő modalitás jelölése a beágyazott poláris kérdésekben és viszonya a funkcionális bal perifériák történetéhez [The marking of modality in embedded polar questions and its relation to the history of functional left peripheries]. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Általános nyelvészeti tanulmányok XXVII: Diakrón mondattani kutatások [Papers in general linguistics XVII: Investigations in diachronic syntax], 13–45. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2015bAmbiguity and the internal structure of comparative complements in Greek. Paper presented at: 12th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (ICGL 12), Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, 16–19 September 2015 Handout available at: http://​www​.ling​.uni​-potsdam​.de​/~bacskai​-atkari​/pdf​/handout​_icgl12​_bacskai​_atkari​.pdf (21 April, 2016).
2015cSyntactic features, overtness, and functional left peripheries. Paper presented at: Syntax-Semantics Colloquium, Potsdam, Universität Potsdam, 20 October 2015 Handout available at: http://​www​.ling​.uni​-potsdam​.de​/~bacskai​-atkari​/pdf​/handout​_synsem​_2015​_bacskai​_atkari​.pdf (28 April, 2016).
Bacskai-Atkari, Julia & Gergely Kántor
2011Elliptical comparatives revisited. In Vadim Kimmelman et al. (eds.), Proceedings of MOSS 2: Moscow Syntax and Semantics, 19–34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
2012Deletion in Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian comparatives. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 1(1–2). 44–66.Google Scholar
Bowers, John
1993The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 591–656.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
1973The syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3). 275–343.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael
1990Remarks on the order of elements in the Hungarian focus field. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian 3: Structures and arguments, 95–112. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1977On WH-Movement. In Peter Culicover et al. (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van & Anikó Lipták
2008On the interaction between verb movement and ellipsis: New evidence from Hungarian. In Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 138–146. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1987Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008aFree word order, (non)configurationality, and phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3). 441–475. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008bThe structure of the Hungarian VP revisited. In: Szilárd Szentgyörgyi et al. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 10: Papers from the Veszprém conference, 31–58. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2014The evolution of functional left peripheries in the Hungarian sentence. In: Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), From head-final to head-initial: The evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax, 9–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gyuris, Beáta
2004A new approach to the scope of contrastive topics. In Benjamin Shaer et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, ZAS Berlin, November 2003, 133–156. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
2009The semantics and pragmatics of the contrastive topic in Hungarian. Budapest: The Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences & Lexica Ltd.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge
1973Why there are two than’s in English. In Claudia Corum et al. (eds.), Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 179–191. Chicago, Ill.: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Hegedűs, Veronika
2013Non-verbal predicates and predicate movement in Hungarian. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István
1989Adjuncts and arguments in VP focus in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45(1–2). 61–88.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István & Robert Michael Vago & Anna Fenyvesi
1998Hungarian. London & New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher
2002Comparative Deletion and optimality in syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20. 553–621. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Jason Merchant
2000Attributive Comparative Deletion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18. 89–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin & Omer Preminger
2015Nominative as no case at all: An argument from raising-to-accusative in Sakha. In Andrew Joseph & Esra Predolac (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 9), 109–120. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried
2004Ellipsis in comparatives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lipták, Anikó
2010The structure of the topic field in Hungarian. In Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds.), Mapping the left periphery: The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 5, 163–198. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora
2012On the internal structure of case in Finno-Ugric small clauses. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 1(1–2). 3–43.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas & Sandhya Sundaresan
2011Nominative case is independent of finiteness and agreement. Ms. Available at: http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/001350 (30 August, 2016).
Merchant, Jason
2001The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Kyle Johnson (ed.), Topics in ellipsis, 132–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2009Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Greek and the abstractness of syntax. Journal of Greek Linguistics 9. 134–164.Google Scholar
Molnár, Valéria
1998On the syntax, phonology, semantics and pragmatics of the so-called “contrastive topic” in Hungarian and German. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45(1–2). 89–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T.
2001On the nature of default case. Syntax 4(3). 205–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger
1999GIVENness, avoid F and other constraints on the placement of focus. Natural Language Semantics 7(2). 141–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Surányi, Balázs
2009Verbal particles inside and outside vP. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 56(2–3). 201–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011An interface account of identificational focus movement. In Tibor Laczkó & Catherine O. Ringen (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 12: Papers from the 2009 Debrecen conference, 163–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
1981The semantics of Topic – Focus articulation. In Jeroen Antonius Gerardus Groenendijk et al. (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 513–541. Amsterdam: Matematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter
2001Two comparatives. In István Kenesei & Robert M. Harnish (eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics, and discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer, 75–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar