Cover not available
Part of
Lexicalising Clausal Syntax: The interaction of syntax, the lexicon and information structure in Hungarian
Tibor Laczkó
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 354] 2021
► pp. 333–346

References

Ackerman, Farrell. 1987. Miscreant morphemes: Phrasal predicates in Ugric. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1990. The 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
. 2003. Lexeme derivation and multiword predicates in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50. 7–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Gert Webelhuth. 1993. The composition of (dis)continuous predicates: Lexical or syntactic? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44. 317–340.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Philip Lesourd. 1997. Toward a lexical representation of phrasal predicates. In Alsina et al. 1997. 67–106.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Gert Webelhuth. 1998. A theory of predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell, Gregory T. Stump & Gert Webelhuth. 2011. Lexicalism, periphrasis, and implicative morphology. In Robert D. Borsley & Kersti Börjars (eds.), Non-transformational syntax: Formal and explicit models of grammar, 325–358. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alberti, Gábor. 1999a. Generative argument structure grammar: A strictly compositional syntax for DRS-type representations. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 46. 3–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999b. GASG: 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
. 2000. A 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
. 2011. ReALIS, avagy a szintaxis dekompozíciója [ReALIS alias the decomposition of syntax]. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok 23. 51–98.Google Scholar
Alberti, Gábor & Judit Kleiber. 2010. The 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. 2015. A 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. 1992. On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 517–555.Google Scholar
. 1996. Resultatives: 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
. 1997. A 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. 1997. Complex predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Attia, Mohammed. 2008. A 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. 1996. Nonconfigurationality in Australian aboriginal languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14. 215–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bartos, Huba. 1999. Morfoszintaxis 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. 1932. Deutsche Syntax IV. Heidelberg: Carl Winters.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Susi Wurmbrand. 2012. Word order and scope: Transparent interfaces and the ¾ signature. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 371–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Gert & Jaap van Marle, eds. 2003. Yearbook of morphology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 1996. Modern phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 591–656.Google Scholar
Bögel, Tina. 2015. The 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. 2009. Prosodic 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
. 2010. Second 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. 1999. On 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. 2019. Lexical-functional grammar: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, ed. 1982a. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1982b. The passive in lexical theory. Bresnan 1982a. 3–84.Google Scholar
. 2000. Optimal syntax. In Dekkers et al. 2000. 334–385.Google Scholar
. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Sam A. Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in chichewa. Language 63. 741–782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Ash Asudeh, Ida Toivonen & Stephen Wechsler. 2016. Lexical-functional syntax. Wiley: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 1990. Remarks 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
. 1995. Focus 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. 2003. Overt scope in Hungarian. Syntax 6. 19–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bródy, Mihály & Kriszta Szendrői. 2011. A 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. 2008. Derivations and evaluations: Object shift in the Germanic languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Veronika Hegedűs. 2009. Predicate movement. Lingua 119. 531–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2003. The light verb jungle. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 9. 1–49.Google Scholar
. 1997. Complex predicates in Urdu. In Alsina et al. 1997. 107–149Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Tracy Holloway King. 1998. Interfacing 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. 1999a. A Grammar writer’s cookbook. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, Stefanie Dipper, Anette Frank & Tracy Holloway King. 1999b. Writing 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. 2003. Complex 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. 2006. Restriction 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. 2004. Particles 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Particles 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalmi, Gréte. 2010. Copular sentences, predication and cyclic agree. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University habilitation dissertation.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical functional grammar. Syntax and semantics, Volume 34. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Helge Dyvik & Tracy Holloway King. 2004. Copular 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. 2007. The 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. 2011. The 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. 2019. The Oxford reference guide to lexical functional grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre & Silke Urban, eds. 2002. Verb-particle explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dekkers, Joost, Frank van der Leeuw & Jeroen van de Weijer, eds. 2000. Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax, and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den. 2006. Relators and linkers. the syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edit. 1988. The semantics of predicate nominals. Linguistics 26. 281–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 1–25.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1981. Structural relations in Hungarian, a “free” word order language. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 185–213.Google Scholar
. 1983. A magyar mondatszerkezet generatív leírása [The generative description of Hungarian sentence structure]. Nyelvtudományi Értekezések 116. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó & Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Az 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
. 1994a. Sentence structure and word order. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian, 1–90. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1994b. Genericity, 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
. 1995a. Discourse configurational languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1995b. Definiteness effect revisited. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 5. Levels and structures, 63–88. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
. 1998a. Verbal 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
. 1998b. Multiple topic, one focus? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45. 3–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Strategies of complex predicate formation and the hungarian verbal complex. In István Kenesei (ed.), Crossing boundaries, 91–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Egy igekötőelmélet vázlata [Outlines of a theory of verbal particles]. Magyar Nyelv 50. 15–43.Google Scholar
. 2005. First 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
. 2006. The function and syntax of the verbal particle. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Event structure and the left periphery, 17–55. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Tagadás 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
. 2009a. Syntactic, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. Deriving 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
. 2011. A 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
. 2014. Ways of licensing Hungarian external possessors. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 61. 45–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Negation 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falk, Yehuda N. 2001. Lexical-functional grammar. An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. CSLI Lecture Notes 126. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2004. The 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. 2004. Cyclic 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. 2003. The semantics of incorporation. From argument structure to discourse transparency. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Forst, Martin, Tracy Holloway King & Tibor Laczkó. 2010. Particle 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. 2012. Towards 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. 2011. On 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. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 149–189. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gyuris, Beáta & Katalin Mády. 2013. Approaching 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. 1993. Distributed 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
. 1994. Some 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. 2008. Expletives in existentials. English there and German da. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University dissertation.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Veronika Hegedűs. 2009. Equation 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. 1988. The syntax of copular structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegedűs, Veronika. 2013. Non-verbal predicates and predicate movement in Hungarian. Tilburg University dissertation, LOT Dissertation Series 337. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline & Anthony Kroch. 1999. Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 365–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Topic, 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. 1979. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard & Tsuneko Nakazawa. 1989. Flipped 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
. 1994. Linearising 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. 1986. FOCUS in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1995. Structural focus, structural case, and the notion of feature-assignment. In É. Kiss 1995a. 28–64.Google Scholar
. 1998. Multiple wh-phrases and the wh-scope-marker strategy in Hungarian interrogatives. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45. 31–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Separating ‘focus movement’ from focus. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture, 108–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Focus, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunyadi, László. 1996. Hungarian syntactic structure and metrical prosody. Language Sciences 18. 139–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. The outlines of a metrical syntax of Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 46. 69–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Hungarian sentence prosody and universal grammar: On the prosody–syntax interface. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jackson, Scott. 2008. The 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. 2006. A 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. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: A Formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan 1982a. 173–281.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Zaenen, Annie. 1989. Long-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. 1984. Hocus, focus, and verb types in Hungarian infinitive constructions. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Lingustík, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 24. 162–177.Google Scholar
. 1989. A 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. 1985. Word order in neutral sentences. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 1. Data and Descriptions, 13–23. Szeged, Hungary: JATE.Google Scholar
, ed. 2001. Magyar leíró nyelvtan. Mondattan 1 [Hungarian descriptive grammar. Syntax 1]. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Kálmán, László & Gábor Rádai. 1998. Word 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. 2000. A 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. 1992. Functional 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
. 1998. Adjuncts and arguments in VP-focus in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45. 61–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Szavak, 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
. 2001. Criteria for auxiliaries in Hungarian. In István Kenesei (ed.), Argument structure in Hungarian, 79–111. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 2008. Funkcionális 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
. 2009. Quantifiers, negation, and focus on the left periphery in Hungarian. Lingua 119. 564–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keszler, Borbála. 1995. A 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. 1995/1996. Prefix reduplication in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 43. 175–194.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc & Mária Ladányi. 2000. Az 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. 1995. Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 1997. Focus 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. 2008. A 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. 1985. Predicate complementation. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 1. Data and descriptions, 53–78. Szeged, Hungary: JATE.Google Scholar
. 1989. Fókuszban az igék [Verbs in focus]. In Zsigmond Telegdi & Ferenc Kiefer (eds.), Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XVII, 171–182. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 1992. Régensek 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
. 1994. Complements and adjuncts. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian, 91–178. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda & Anna Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1994. Predicate 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. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kundera, Milan. 1985. The unbearable lightness of being (translated from Czech by Michael Henry Heim). London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. Categorical and thetic judgments: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9. 1–37.Google Scholar
Laczkó, Tibor. 2000. On 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
. 2003. On 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
. 2012. On 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
. 2013. Hungarian 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
. 2014a. Essentials 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
. 2014b. An 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
. 2014c. Outlines 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
. 2014d. On verbs, auxiliaries and Hungarian sentence structure in LFG. Argumentum 10. 421–438.Google Scholar
. 2015a. On an LFG-XLE treatment of negation in Hungarian. Paper presented at the ParGram Meeting, Warsaw, Poland, February 4.
. 2015b. On 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.
. 2015c. On 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. 2008–2013. HunGram. An XLE Implementation. Implemented grammar, University of Debrecen. Analyses available at [URL] and [URL]
. 2011. On particularly predicative particles in Hungarian. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, 299–319. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2013. Remarks 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipták, Anikó. 2001. On the syntax of wh-items in Hungarian. Utrecht, Netherlands: LOT.Google Scholar
Lowe, John J. & Louise Mycock. 2014. Representing 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. 2001. Indefinite arguments in Hungarian. In István Kenesei (ed.), Argument structure in Hungarian, 157–199. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Marácz, László. 1989. Asymmetries in Hungarian. Groningen, Netherlands: University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
Mády, Katalin. 2012. A 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. 2014. Where 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
M. Korchmáros, Valéria. 1997. Ige 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. 1982. Grammatical relations and clause structure in Malayalam. In Bresnan 1982a. 504–589.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1974. Object-verb agreement. Working Papers in Language Universals 15. 25–140.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates. Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2006. Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language 82. 850–883. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mycock, Louise. 2006. A new typology of wh-questions. Manchester, England: University of Manchester dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2010. Prominence in Hungarian: The prosody-syntax connection. Transactions of the Philological Society 108. 265–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Discourse 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. 2013. The prosodic marking of discourse functions. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, 440–460. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2014. S-structure features for information structure analysis. Paper presented at the 19th International Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference, University of Michigan, July 17–20.
Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. Constructive case: Evidence from Australia. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel & Joan Bresnan. 1996. Nonconfigurational tense in Wambaya. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG96 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel & Louisa Sadler. 2007. Verbless 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. 2014. The 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. 2014. ReALIS1.1. 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. 2006. Information structure in lexical-functional grammar. Manchester, England: University of Manchester dissertation.Google Scholar
Olsvay, Csaba. 2000. Negative quantifiers in the Hungarian sentence. Budapest, Hungary: Eötvös Loránd University M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
. 2006. Negative universal quantifiers in Hungarian. Lingua 116. 245–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, John & Erika Chisarik. 2000. Negation and focus in Hungarian: An optimality theory account. Transactions of the Philological Society 98. 185–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pelyvás, Péter. 1998. A 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. 1993. The 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. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics, Volume 1. Fundamentals. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam & Agnieszka Patejuk. 2015. Two 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. 1994. Sentential negation in Hungarian. Rivista di Linguistica 6. 5–38.Google Scholar
. 1998. On the neg-criterion in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45. 167–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Word order in Hungarian: The syntax of Ā-positions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rákosi, György. 2006. Dative experiencer predicates in Hungarian. Utrecht, Netherlands: LOT.Google Scholar
. 2013. Negation. Paper presented at the ParGram Meeting, Debrecen, Hungary, July 23.
Rákosi, György & Tibor Laczkó. 2011. Inflecting 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. 1997. Clitics 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. 1980. Noun incorporation in Greenlandic: A case of syntactic word formation. Language 56. 300–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986. Some notes on noun incorporation. Language 62. 19–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2005. Adverb 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. 1911. The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. The American Anthropologist 13. 250–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Helmut, Arne Fitschen & Ulrich Heid. 2004. SMOR: 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. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. The 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. 1998. Scandinavian clause structure and object shift. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG98 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2000. Negation 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. 2001. Formal and empirical issues in optimality theoretic syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1991. Warlpiri morpho-syntax. A lexicalist approach. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soltész, Katalin. 1959. Az 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. 1996. Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte: Zum semantischen Beitrag von verbalen Präfixen und Partikeln. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1978. What 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
. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1983. Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2. 285–312.Google Scholar
. 1991. Small clause restructuring. In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 182–218. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sulger, Sebastian. 2009. Irish clefting and information-structure. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference, 562–582. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2011. A 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. 2002. Negation 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
. 2003. Multiple operator movements in Hungarian. Utrecht, Netherlands: LOT.Google Scholar
. 2006. Mechanisms 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
. 2007. Focus structure and the interpretation of multiple questions. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 229–253. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009a. Incorporated locative adverbials in Hungarian. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Adverbs and adverbial adjuncts at the interfaces, 39–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. Preverbs, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009c. Verbal particles inside and outside vP. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 56. 201–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. An 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 1994. Dependent nexus. Subordinate predication structures in English and Scandinavian languages. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1980. Az aktuális mondattagolás szemantikájához [On the semantics of the discourse articulation of sentences]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 82. 59–82.Google Scholar
. 1981. The 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
. 1992. A birtokos szerkezet és az egzisztenciális mondat [The possessive construction and the existential sentence]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 1994. The noun phrase. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian. Syntax and semantics 27, 179–274. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), ways of scope taking, 109–154. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta. 2001. Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. London, England: University College London dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20. 37–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. A 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szécsényi, Tibor. 2009. Lokalitás 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
. 2011. Magyar 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
. 2013. Argument 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. 2008. The 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. 2007. A 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. 2001. The phrase structure of non-projecting words. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2003. Non-projecting words: A case study of Swedish particles. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trón, Viktor. 2001. Fejközpontú frázisstruktúra-nyelvtan [Head-driven phrase structure grammar]. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Ürögdi, Barbara. 2003. Feature 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. 1982. Két szintaktikai pozícióról [On two syntactic positions]. Magyar Nyelv 78. 150–169.Google Scholar
. 2002. Intonation and stress: Evidence from Hungarian. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Irene. 1988. Prosodic 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. 1987. The interface between phonology and other components of grammar: The case of Hungarian. Phonology Yearbook 4. 243–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203–238.Google Scholar
. 1983. Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. 423–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1991. VP-internal subjects in VSO and nonconfigurational languages. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 503–540.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. Groningen, Netherlands: University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar