Lexicalising Clausal Syntax

The interaction of syntax, the lexicon and information structure in Hungarian

| Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027210470 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027258984 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
 
The book presents a new perspective on clausal syntax and its interactions with lexical and discourse function information by analysing Hungarian sentences. It also demonstrates ways in which grammar engineering implementations can provide insights into how complex linguistic processes interact. It analyses the most important phenomena in the preverbal domain of Hungarian finite declarative and wh-clauses: sentence structure, operators, verbal modifiers, negation and copula constructions. Based on the results of earlier generative linguistic research, it presents the fundamental empirical generalisations and offers a comparative critical assessment of the most salient analyses in a variety of generative linguistic models from its own perspective. It argues for a lexical approach to the relevant phenomena and develops the first comprehensive analysis in the theoretical framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar. It also reports the successful implementation of crucial aspects of this analysis in the computational linguistic platform of the theory, Xerox Linguistic Environment.
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 354]  2021.  xiii, 353 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Preface
viii
List of abbreviations
x–xiii
Chapter 1. Introduction
2–42
Chapter 2. The basic structure of Hungarian finite clauses
44–98
Chapter 3. Verbal modifiers
100–172
Chapter 4. Operators
174–228
Chapter 5. Negation from an XLE perspective
230–279
Chapter 6. Copula constructions and functional structure
282–323
Chapter 7. Conclusion: Results and outlook
326–332
References
333–346
Author index
347
Subject index
References

References

Ackerman, Farrell
1987Miscreant morphemes: Phrasal predicates in Ugric. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
1990The morphological blocking principle and oblique pronominal incorporation in Hungarian. In Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick M. Farrell & Errapel Meijas-Bikandi (eds.), Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective, 1–19. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2003Lexeme derivation and multiword predicates in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50. 7–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Gert Webelhuth
1993The composition of (dis)continuous predicates: Lexical or syntactic? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44. 317–340.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Philip Lesourd
1997Toward a lexical representation of phrasal predicates. In Alsina et al. 1997 67–106.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Gert Webelhuth
1998A theory of predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell, Gregory T. Stump & Gert Webelhuth
2011Lexicalism, periphrasis, and implicative morphology. In Robert D. Borsley & Kersti Börjars (eds.), Non-transformational syntax: Formal and explicit models of grammar, 325–358. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alberti, Gábor
1999aGenerative argument structure grammar: A strictly compositional syntax for DRS-type representations. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 46. 3–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999bGASG: The grammar of total lexicalism. Working papers in the theory of grammar 6, 1–50. Budapest: Theoretical Linguistics Programme, ELTE and Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
2000A totális lexikalizmus grammatikája [The grammar of total lexicalism]. In István Kenesei (ed.), Igei vonzatszerkezet a magyarban [Verbal argument structure in hungarian], 333–385. Budapest: Osiris.Google Scholar
2011ReALIS, avagy a szintaxis dekompozíciója [ReALIS alias the decomposition of syntax]. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok 23. 51–98.Google Scholar
Alberti, Gábor & Judit Kleiber
2010The grammar of ReALIS and the implementation of its dynamic interpretation. Informatica Ljubljana 34. 103–110.Google Scholar
Alberti, Gábor, Judit Gervain, Zsuzsanna Schnell, Veronika Szabó & Bálint Tóth
2015A vonzatsorrend és az esetmorfológia külső meghatározottsága [The externally determined nature of the order of arguments and case morphology]. In Edit Kádár & Sándor, Szilágyi N. (eds.), Motiváltság és nyelvi ikonicitás [Motivation and linguistic iconicity], 155–186. Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex
1992On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 517–555.Google Scholar
1996Resultatives: A joint operation of semantic and syntactic structures. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG96 Conference, paper 2. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
1997A theory of complex predicates: Evidence from causatives in Bantu and Romance. Alsina et al. 1997 203–246.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex, Joan Bresnan & Peter Sells
eds. 1997Complex predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Attia, Mohammed
2008A unified analysis of copula constructions. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, 89–108. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter & Joan Bresnan
1996Nonconfigurationality in Australian aboriginal languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14. 215–268. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
1988Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bartos, Huba
1999Morfoszintaxis és interpretáció: A magyar inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere [Morphosyntax and interpretation: The syntactic background of Hungarian inflectional phenomena]. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University dissertation.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto
1932Deutsche Syntax IV. Heidelberg: Carl Winters.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Susi Wurmbrand
2012Word order and scope: Transparent interfaces and the ¾ signature. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 371–421. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Gert & Jaap van Marle
eds. 2003Yearbook of morphology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D.
1996Modern phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bowers, John
1993The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 591–656.Google Scholar
Bögel, Tina
2015The syntax-prosody interface in lexical functional grammar. Konstanz: University of Konstanz dissertation.Google Scholar
Bögel, Tina, Miriam Butt, Ronald M. Kaplan, Tracy Holloway King & John T. Maxwell III
2009Prosodic phonology in LFG: A new proposal. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference, 146–166. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2010Second position and the prosody-syntax interface. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, 106–126. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, John Payne & Erika Chisarik
1999On the justification for functional categories in LFG. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Rachel Nordlinger & Louisa Sadler
2019Lexical-functional grammar: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
ed. 1982aThe mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1982bThe passive in lexical theory. Bresnan 1982a 3–84.Google Scholar
2000Optimal syntax. In Dekkers et al. 2000 334–385.Google Scholar
2001Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Sam A. Mchombo
1987Topic, pronoun, and agreement in chichewa. Language 63. 741–782. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Ash Asudeh, Ida Toivonen & Stephen Wechsler
2016Lexical-functional syntax. Wiley: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael
1990Remarks on the order of elements in the Hungarian focus field. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 3. Structures and arguments, 95–122. Szeged, Hungary: JATE.Google Scholar
1995Focus and checking theory. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 5. Levels and structures, 29–43. Szeged, Hungary: JATE.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael & Anna Szabolcsi
2003Overt scope in Hungarian. Syntax 6. 19–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bródy, Mihály & Kriszta Szendrői
2011A kimerítő felsorolás értelmezésű fókusz: válasz [The focus interpreted as exhaustive listing: An answer]. In Huba Bartos (ed.), Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XXIII. Új irányok és eredmények a mondattani kutatásban, 265–279. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans
2008Derivations and evaluations: Object shift in the Germanic languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Veronika Hegedűs
2009Predicate movement. Lingua 119. 531–563. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam
2003The light verb jungle. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 9. 1–49.Google Scholar
1997Complex predicates in Urdu. In Alsina et al. 1997 107–149Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Tracy Holloway King
1998Interfacing phonology with LFG. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG98 Conference, paper 9. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, Tracy Holloway King, María-Eugenia Niño & Frédérique Segond
1999aA Grammar writer’s cookbook. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, Stefanie Dipper, Anette Frank & Tracy Holloway King
1999bWriting large-scale parallel grammars for English, French and German. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference, paper 5. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, Tracy Holloway King & John T. Maxwell III
2003Complex predication via restriction. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG03 Conference, 92–104. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Tracy Holloway King
2006Restriction for morphological valency alternations: The Urdu causative. In Miriam Butt, Mary Dalrymple & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Intelligent linguistic architectures: Variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan, 235–258. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Csirmaz, Anikó
2004Particles and phonologically defective predicates. In Henk van Riemsdijk & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), Verb clusters: A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch, 225–252. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Particles and a two component theory of aspect. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Event structure and the left periphery. Studies on Hungarian, 107–128. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalmi, Gréte
2010Copular sentences, predication and cyclic agree. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University habilitation dissertation.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary
2001Lexical functional grammar. Syntax and semantics, Volume 34. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Helge Dyvik & Tracy Holloway King
2004Copular complements: Closed or open? In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference, 188–198. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald M. Kaplan & Tracy Holloway King
2007The absence of traces: Evidence from weak crossover. In Annie Zaenen, Jane Simpson, Tracy Holloway King, Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling & Chris Manning (eds.), Architectures, rules, and preferences. Variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan, 85–102. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Louise Mycock
2011The prosody-semantics interface. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, 173–193. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, John J. Lowe & Louise Mycock
2019The Oxford reference guide to lexical functional grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre & Silke Urban
eds. 2002Verb-particle explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dekkers, Joost, Frank van der Leeuw & Jeroen van de Weijer
eds. 2000Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax, and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den
2006Relators and linkers. the syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edit
1988The semantics of predicate nominals. Linguistics 26. 281–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enç, Mürvet
1991The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 1–25.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1981Structural relations in Hungarian, a “free” word order language. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 185–213.Google Scholar
1983A magyar mondatszerkezet generatív leírása [The generative description of Hungarian sentence structure]. Nyelvtudományi Értekezések 116. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
1987Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó & Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992Az egyszerű mondat szerkezete [The structure of the simple sentence]. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 1. Mondattan. [Structural Hungarian grammar 1. Syntax], 79–177. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
1994aSentence structure and word order. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian, 1–90. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1994bGenericity, predication and focus. In Zoltán Bánréti (ed.), Papers in the theory of grammar, 107–139. Budapest: Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
1995aDiscourse configurational languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1995bDefiniteness effect revisited. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 5. Levels and structures, 63–88. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
1998aVerbal prefixes or postpositions? Postpositional aspectualisers in Hungarian. In Casper de Groot & István Kenesei (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 6. Papers from the Amsterdam Conference, 123–148. Szeged, Hungary: JATE.Google Scholar
1998bMultiple topic, one focus? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45. 3–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Strategies of complex predicate formation and the hungarian verbal complex. In István Kenesei (ed.), Crossing boundaries, 91–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Egy igekötőelmélet vázlata [Outlines of a theory of verbal particles]. Magyar Nyelv 50. 15–43.Google Scholar
2005First steps towards a theory of the verbal prefix. In Christopher Piñón & Péter Siptár (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 9. Papers from the Düsseldorf Conference, 57–88. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2006The function and syntax of the verbal particle. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Event structure and the left periphery, 17–55. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Tagadás vagy egyeztetés? A senki, semmi típusú névmások szórendi helye, jelentése és hangsúlyozása [Negation or concord? The word order, interpretation and prosody of SE-pronouns]. Magyar Nyelv 104. 129–143.Google Scholar
2009aSyntactic, semantic, and prosodic factors determining the position of adverbial adjuncts. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Adverbs and adverbial adjuncts at the interfaces, 21–38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009bDeriving the properties of structural focus. In Arndt Riester & Edgar Onea (eds.), The syntax–semantics interface: Working papers of Sonderforschungsbereich 732, Volume 3, 19–33. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
2011A sem szinkrón és diakrón szerepéről [On the syncronic and diacronic roles of sem ]. In Edit Kádár & Sándor, Szilágyi M. (eds.), Szinkronikus nyelvleírás és diakrónia [The synchronic description of languages and diachrony], 95–109. Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület.Google Scholar
2014Ways of licensing Hungarian external possessors. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 61. 45–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Negation in Hungarian. In Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm & Beáta Wagner-Nagy (eds.), Negation in Uralic Languages. Typological Studies in Language 108, 219–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Yehuda N.
2001Lexical-functional grammar. An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. CSLI Lecture Notes 126. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2004The Hebrew present-tense copula as a mixed category. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.) Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference, 188–198. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert
2004Cyclic phonology-syntax interaction: Movement to first position in German. In Shinichiro Ishihara, Michaela Schmitz & Anne Schwarz (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure: Working papers of Sonderforschungsbereich 732, Volume 1, 1–42. Potsdam, Germany: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka & Henriette de Swarts
2003The semantics of incorporation. From argument structure to discourse transparency. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Forst, Martin, Tracy Holloway King & Tibor Laczkó
2010Particle verbs in computational LFGs: Issues from English, German, and Hungarian. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, 228–248. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Gazdik, Anna
2012Towards an LFG analysis of discourse functions in Hungarian. In Ferenc Kiefer & Zoltán Bánréti (eds.), Twenty years of theoretical linguistics in Budapest, 59–92. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet & Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Gazdik, Anna & András Komlósy
2011On the syntax-discourse interface in Hungarian. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, 215–235. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1976Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 149–189. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gyuris, Beáta & Katalin Mády
2013Approaching the prosody of Hungarian wh-exclamatives. In Péter Szigetvári (ed.), VLLXX. Papers presented to László Varga on his 70th birthday, 333–349. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz
1993Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Current Studies in Linguistics, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1994Some key features of distributed morphology. Papers on Phonology and Morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21, 275–288. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M.
2008Expletives in existentials. English there and German da. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University dissertation.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Veronika Hegedűs
2009Equation is predication: Evidence from Hungarian. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on the Structure of Hungarian, University of Debrecen, August 30-September 1.
Heggie, Lorie A.
1988The syntax of copular structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1993Auxiliaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegedűs, Veronika
2013Non-verbal predicates and predicate movement in Hungarian. Tilburg University dissertation, LOT Dissertation Series 337. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline & Anthony Kroch
1999Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 365–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Topic, focus, and syntactic representations. In Line Mikkelsen & Christopher Potts (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL [ West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics ] 21, 101–125. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, Francis R.
1979The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard & Tsuneko Nakazawa
1989Flipped out: AUX in German. In Wiltshire, Caroline, Randolph Graczyk, & Bradley Music (eds.), CLS 25: Papers form the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society, 193–202. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1994Linearising finite AUX in German verbal complexes. In John A. Nerbonne, Klaus Netter & Carl Jesse Pollard (eds.), German in head-driven phrase structure grammar, 11–38. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia
1986FOCUS in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar
1995Structural focus, structural case, and the notion of feature-assignment. In É. Kiss 1995a 28–64.Google Scholar
1998Multiple wh-phrases and the wh-scope-marker strategy in Hungarian interrogatives. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45. 31–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Separating ‘focus movement’ from focus. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture, 108–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Focus, exhaustivity and the syntax of wh-interrogatives: The case of Hungarian. In Johan Brandtler, Valéria Molnár & Christer Platzack (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 13. Papers from the 2011 Lund Conference, 97–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunyadi, László
1996Hungarian syntactic structure and metrical prosody. Language Sciences 18. 139–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999The outlines of a metrical syntax of Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 46. 69–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Hungarian sentence prosody and universal grammar: On the prosody–syntax interface. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jackson, Scott
2008The prosody–scope relation in Hungarian. In Christopher Piñón & Szilárd Szentgyörgyi (eds.), Approches to Hungarian 10. Papers from the Veszprém Conference, 83–102. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kádár, Edit
2006A kopula és a nominális mondat a magyarban [The copula and nominal sentences in Hungarian]. Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Babeş-Bolyai University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Joan Bresnan
1982Lexical-functional grammar: A Formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan 1982a 173–281.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Zaenen, Annie
1989Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In Mark R. Baltin & Anthony S. Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 17–42. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kálmán, C. György, László Kálmán, Ádám Nádasdy & Gábor Prószéky
1984Hocus, focus, and verb types in Hungarian infinitive constructions. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Lingustík, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 24. 162–177.Google Scholar
1989A magyar segédigék rendszere [The system of Hungarian auxiliaries]. In Zsigmond Telegdi & Ferenc Kiefer (eds.), Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XVII, 49–103. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kálmán, László
1985Word order in neutral sentences. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 1. Data and Descriptions, 13–23. Szeged, Hungary: JATE.Google Scholar
ed. 2001Magyar leíró nyelvtan. Mondattan 1 [Hungarian descriptive grammar. Syntax 1]. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Kálmán, László & Gábor Rádai
1998Word order variation in Hungarian from a constructionist perspective. In Casper de Groot & István Kenesei (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 6. Papers from the Amsterdam Conference, 141–181. Szeged, Hungary: JATE.Google Scholar
Kálmán, László & Viktor Trón
2000A magyar igekötő egyeztetése [Agreement relations of the hungarian verbal particle]. In László Büky & Márta Maleczki (eds.), A mai magyar nyelv leírásának újabb módszerei IV [New methods in the description of the Hungarian language IV], 203–211. Szeged, Hungary: SZTE.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István
1992Functional categories in Finno-Ugric. In Kersti Börjars & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Complement structures in the languages of Europe. EUROTYP Working Paper III/3, 22–42. Strasbourg: ESF.Google Scholar
1998Adjuncts and arguments in VP-focus in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45. 61–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Szavak, szófajok, toldalékok [Words, parts of speech, suffixes]. Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 3. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Morfológia [ Structural Hungarian grammar 3. Morphology ], 75–136. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2001Criteria for auxiliaries in Hungarian. In István Kenesei (ed.), Argument structure in Hungarian, 79–111. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2008Funkcionális kategóriák [Functional categories]. Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 4. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), A szótár szerkezete [Structural Hungarian grammar 4. The structure of the lexicon], 601–637. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2009Quantifiers, negation, and focus on the left periphery in Hungarian. Lingua 119. 564–591. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keszler, Borbála
1995A mai magyar nyelv szófaji rendszere [The part-of-speech system of present day Hungarian]. In Katalin Faluvégi, Borbála Keszler & Krisztina Laczkó (eds.), Magyar leíró nyelvtani segédköny [An auxiliary book of Hungarian descriptive grammar], 43–51. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc
1995/1996Prefix reduplication in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 43. 175–194.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc & Mária Ladányi
2000Az igekötők Verbal particles. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 3. Morfológia [Structural Hungarian grammar 3. Morphology], 453–518. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway
1995Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
1997Focus domains and information structure. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference, paper 20. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kleiber, Judit
2008A totális lexikalizmus elméletétől a kísérleti implementációig [From the theory of total lexicalism to experimental implementation]. Pécs, Hungary: University of Pécs dissertation.Google Scholar
Komlósy, András
1985Predicate complementation. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 1. Data and descriptions, 53–78. Szeged, Hungary: JATE.Google Scholar
1989Fókuszban az igék [Verbs in focus]. In Zsigmond Telegdi & Ferenc Kiefer (eds.), Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XVII, 171–182. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
1992Régensek és vonzatok Predicates and arguments. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 1. Mondattan. [Structural Hungarian grammar 1. Syntax], 299–527. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
1994Complements and adjuncts. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian, 91–178. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda & Anna Szabolcsi
2000Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan
1994Predicate incorporation and the word order of Dutch. In Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi & Raffaella Zanuttini (eds.), Paths towards universal grammar. Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne, 255–276. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul
1993Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kundera, Milan
1985The unbearable lightness of being (translated from Czech by Michael Henry Heim). London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1972Categorical and thetic judgments: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9. 1–37.Google Scholar
Laczkó, Tibor
2000On oblique arguments and adjuncts of Hungarian event nominals  a comprehensive LFG account. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG00 Conference, 182–196. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2003On oblique arguments and adjuncts of Hungarian event nominals. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Nominals: Inside and Out, 201–234. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2012On the (un)bearable lightness of being an LFG style copula in Hungarian. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, 341–361. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2013Hungarian particle verbs revisited: Representational, derivational and implementational issues from an LFG perspective. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, 377–397. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2014aEssentials of an LFG analysis of Hungarian finite sentences. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference, 325–345. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2014bAn LFG analysis of verbal modifiers in Hungarian. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference, 346–366. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2014cOutlines of an LFG-XLE account of negation in Hungarian sentences. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference, 304–324. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2014dOn verbs, auxiliaries and Hungarian sentence structure in LFG. Argumentum 10. 421–438.Google Scholar
2015aOn an LFG-XLE treatment of negation in Hungarian. Paper presented at the ParGram Meeting, Warsaw, Poland, February 4.
2015bOn a realistic LFG treatment of the periphrastic irrealis mood in Hungarian. Paper presented at the 20th International Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference, Waseda University, Tokyo, July 18–20.
2015cOn negative particles and negative polarity in Hungarian. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG15 Conference, 166–186. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Laczkó, Tibor & György Rákosi
2008–2013HunGram. An XLE Implementation. Implemented grammar, University of Debrecen. Analyses available at http://​corpus​.hungram​.unideb​.hu/ and https://​clarino​.uib​.no​/iness​/treebanks
2011On particularly predicative particles in Hungarian. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, 299–319. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2013Remarks on a novel LFG approach to spatial particle verb constructions in Hungarian”. In Johan Brandtler, Valéria Molnár & Christer Platzak (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 13. Papers from the 2011 Lund Conference, 149–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lipták, Anikó
2001On the syntax of wh-items in Hungarian. Utrecht, Netherlands: LOT.Google Scholar
Lowe, John J. & Louise Mycock
2014Representing information structure. Paper presented at the The Syntax and Semantics of Unbounded Dependencies workshop at the 19th International Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference, University of Michigan, July 17–20.
Maleczki, Márta
2001Indefinite arguments in Hungarian. In István Kenesei (ed.), Argument structure in Hungarian, 157–199. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Marácz, László
1989Asymmetries in Hungarian. Groningen, Netherlands: University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
Mády, Katalin
2012A fókusz prozódiai jelölése felolvasásban és spontán beszédben [The encoding of focus in reading out texts and in spontaneous speech]. In Mária Gósy (ed.), Beszéd, adatbázis, kutatások [Speech, database, research], 91–107. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Mády, Katalin & Ádám Szalontai
2014Where do questions begin? – Phrase-initial boundary tones in Hungarian polar questions. In Nick Campbell, Dafydd Gibbon & Daniel Hirst (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on speech prosody: Speech Prosody 7, 568–572. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
M. Korchmáros, Valéria
1997Ige vagy segédige [Verb or auxiliary]? In László Büky (ed.), Nyíri Antal kilencvenéves [Antal Nyíri is ninety years old], 109–124. Szeged, Hungary: JATE.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P.
1982Grammatical relations and clause structure in Malayalam. In Bresnan 1982a 504–589.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A.
1974Object-verb agreement. Working Papers in Language Universals 15. 25–140.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea
1997The raising of predicates. Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan
2006Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language 82. 850–883. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mycock, Louise
2006A new typology of wh-questions. Manchester, England: University of Manchester dissertation.Google Scholar
2010Prominence in Hungarian: The prosody-syntax connection. Transactions of the Philological Society 108. 265–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Discourse functions of question words. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, 419–439. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Mycock, Louise & John J. Lowe
2013The prosodic marking of discourse functions. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, 440–460. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2014S-structure features for information structure analysis. Paper presented at the 19th International Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference, University of Michigan, July 17–20.
Nordlinger, Rachel
1998Constructive case: Evidence from Australia. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel & Joan Bresnan
1996Nonconfigurational tense in Wambaya. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG96 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel & Louisa Sadler
2007Verbless clauses: Revealing the structure within. In Jane Grimshaw, Tracy Holloway King, Joan Maling, Chris Manning, Jane Simpson & Annie Zaenen (eds.), Architectures, rules and preferences: A Festschrift for Joan Bresnan, 139–160. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Nőthig, László & Gábor Alberti
2014The discourse-semantic and syntactic background behind ReALIS. In Gábor Rappai & Csilla Filó (eds.), Well-being in information society, 104–129. Pécs, Hungary: Pécsi Tudományegyetem.Google Scholar
Nőthig, László, Gábor Alberti & Mónika Dóla
2014ReALIS1.1. In Attila Tanács, Viktor Varga & Veronika Vincze (eds.), X. Magyar Számítógépes Nyelvészeti Konferencia – MSZNY 20014 [10th Hungarian Conference on Computational Linguistics], 364–372. Szeged, Hungary: Szegedi Tudományegyetem Informatikai Tanszékcsoport.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Robert
2006Information structure in lexical-functional grammar. Manchester, England: University of Manchester dissertation.Google Scholar
Olsvay, Csaba
2000Negative quantifiers in the Hungarian sentence. Budapest, Hungary: Eötvös Loránd University M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
2006Negative universal quantifiers in Hungarian. Lingua 116. 245–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John & Erika Chisarik
2000Negation and focus in Hungarian: An optimality theory account. Transactions of the Philological Society 98. 185–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pelyvás, Péter
1998A magyar segédigék és kognitív predikátumok episztemikus lehorgonyzó szerepéről [On the epistemic grounding role of Hungarian auxiliaries and cognitive predicates]. In László Büky & Márta Maleczki (eds.), A mai magyar nyelv leírásának újabb módszerei 3 [recent methods in the description of present day Hungarian 3], 117–132. Szeged, Hungary: JATE.Google Scholar
Piñón, Christopher J.
1993The preverb problem in German and Hungarian. In Laura A. Buszard-Welcher, Lionel Wee & William Weigel (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 395–408. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Ivan A. Sag
1987Information-based syntax and semantics, Volume 1. Fundamentals. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
1994Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky
2004Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam & Agnieszka Patejuk
2015Two representations of negation in LFG: Evidence from Polish. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG15 Conference, 322–336. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Puskás, Genovéva
1994Sentential negation in Hungarian. Rivista di Linguistica 6. 5–38.Google Scholar
1998On the neg-criterion in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45. 167–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Word order in Hungarian: The syntax of Ā-positions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rákosi, György
2006Dative experiencer predicates in Hungarian. Utrecht, Netherlands: LOT.Google Scholar
2013Negation. Paper presented at the ParGram Meeting, Debrecen, Hungary, July 23.
Rákosi, György & Tibor Laczkó
2011Inflecting spatial particles and shadows of the past in Hungarian. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11Conference, 440–460. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa
1997Clitics and the structure-function mapping. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference ed. by. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M.
1980Noun incorporation in Greenlandic: A case of syntactic word formation. Language 56. 300–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1986Some notes on noun incorporation. Language 62. 19–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A.
2005Adverb extraction and coordination: A reply to Levine. In Stefan Müller (ed.), The Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 322–342. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1911The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. The American Anthropologist 13. 250–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Helmut, Arne Fitschen & Ulrich Heid
2004SMOR: A German computational morphology covering derivation, composition and inflection. In Maria Teresa Lino, Maria Francisca Xavier, Fátima Ferreira, Rute Costa & Raquel Silva (eds.), Proceedings of the IVth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004), 1263–1266. Lisbon, Portugal: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth
1984Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1986On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995The prosodic structure of function words. In Jill N. Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds.), Papers in optimality theory, 439–469. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter
1998Scandinavian clause structure and object shift. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG98 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2000Negation in Swedish: Where it’s not at. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG00 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
ed. 2001Formal and empirical issues in optimality theoretic syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane
1991Warlpiri morpho-syntax. A lexicalist approach. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Soltész, Katalin
1959Az ősi magyar igekötők (meg, el, ki, be, fel, le) [Ancient Hungarian preverbs (‘perf, away, out, in, up, down’)]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara
1996Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte: Zum semantischen Beitrag von verbalen Präfixen und Partikeln. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Tim
1978What was there before there was there. In Donka Farkas, Wesley M. Jacobsen & Karol W. Todrys (eds.), Papers from the Fourteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 458–471. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1981Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
1983Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2. 285–312.Google Scholar
1991Small clause restructuring. In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 182–218. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sulger, Sebastian
2009Irish clefting and information-structure. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference, 562–582. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2011A Parallel analysis of have-type copular constructions in have-less Indo-European languages. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference, 299–319. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Surányi, Balázs
2002Negation and the negativity of n-words in Hungarian. In István Kenesei & Péter Siptár (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 8. 107–132. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2003Multiple operator movements in Hungarian. Utrecht, Netherlands: LOT.Google Scholar
2006Mechanisms of wh-saturation and interpretation in multiple wh-movement. In Lisa Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on, 289–318. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2007Focus structure and the interpretation of multiple questions. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 229–253. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009aIncorporated locative adverbials in Hungarian. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Adverbs and adverbial adjuncts at the interfaces, 39–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009bPreverbs, chain reduction, and phases. In Marcel den Dikken & Robert Vago (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 11. Papers from the 2007 New York conference, 217–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009cVerbal particles inside and outside vP. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 56. 201–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011An interface account of identificational focus movement. In Tibor Laczkó & Catherine O. Ringen (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 12. Papers from the 2009 Debrecen conference, 163–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
1994Dependent nexus. Subordinate predication structures in English and Scandinavian languages. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
1980Az aktuális mondattagolás szemantikájához [On the semantics of the discourse articulation of sentences]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 82. 59–82.Google Scholar
1981The semantics of topic-focus articulation. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 513–540. Amsterdam: Matematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
1992A birtokos szerkezet és az egzisztenciális mondat [The possessive construction and the existential sentence]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
1994The noun phrase. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian. Syntax and semantics 27, 179–274. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Strategies for scope taking. In Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), ways of scope taking, 109–154. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta
2001Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. London, England: University College London dissertation.Google Scholar
2003A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20. 37–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004A stress-based approach to climbing. In Katalin É. Kiss & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Verb clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch, 205–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szécsényi, Tibor
2009Lokalitás és argumentumöröklés: A magyar infinitívuszi szerkezetek leírása HPSG keretben [Locality and argument inheritance: Hungarian infinitival constructions in HPSG]. Szeged, Hungary: University of Szeged dissertation.Google Scholar
2011Magyar mondatszerkezeti jelenségek elemzése HPSG-ben [Hungarian sentence structure in HPSG]. In Huba Bartos (ed.), Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XXIII: Új irányok és eredmények a mondattani kutatásban, 99–138. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2013Argument inheritance and left periphery in Hungarian infinitival constructions. In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 203–221. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Szilágyi, Éva
2008The rank(s) of a totally lexicalist syntax. In Kata Balogh (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th ESSLLI [European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information] Student Session, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, 175–183. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Szilágyi, Éva, Judit Kleiber & Gábor Alberti
2007A totálisan lexikalista szintaxis rangja(i) [Ranks in a totally lexicalist syntax]. In Attila Tanács & Dóra Csendes (eds.), V. Magyar Számítógépes Nyelvészeti Konferencia – MSZNY 2007 [5th Hungarian Conference on Computational Linguistics], 284–287. Szeged, Hungary: Juhász Nyomda.Google Scholar
Toivonen, Ida
2001The phrase structure of non-projecting words. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
2003Non-projecting words: A case study of Swedish particles. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trón, Viktor
2001Fejközpontú frázisstruktúra-nyelvtan [Head-driven phrase structure grammar]. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Ürögdi, Barbara
2003Feature doubling, aspectual structure, and expletives. In Shigeto Kawahara & Makoto Kadowaki (eds.), Proceedings of NELS [ North East Linguistic Society ] 33, 425–444. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Varga, László
1982Két szintaktikai pozícióról [On two syntactic positions]. Magyar Nyelv 78. 150–169.Google Scholar
2002Intonation and stress: Evidence from Hungarian. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Irene
1988Prosodic constituents in Hungarian. In Pier Marco Bertinetto & Michele Loporcaro (eds.), Certamen Phonologicum: Papers from the 1987 Cortona Phonology Meeting, 231–250. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Vogel, Irene & István Kenesei
1987The interface between phonology and other components of grammar: The case of Hungarian. Phonology Yearbook 4. 243–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1980Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203–238.Google Scholar
1983Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. 423–466. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen
1991VP-internal subjects in VSO and nonconfigurational languages. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 503–540.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
1993Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. Groningen, Netherlands: University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
Subjects & Metadata
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2021028771 | Marc record