Article published In:
Journal of Uralic Linguistics
Vol. 1:1 (2022) ► pp.121148
Abbott, Barbara
2010Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith
2003Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 211. 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bárány, András
2013What triggers the Hungarian objective paradigm? A structural and feature-based account. In Martin Kohlberger, Kate Bellamy & Eleanor Dutton (eds.), Con-SOLE XXI: Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, 21–44. Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.Google Scholar
2015aDifferential object marking in Hungarian and the morphosyntax of case and agreement. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.
2015bInverse agreement and Hungarian verb paradigms. In Katalin É Kiss, Balázs Surányi & Éva Dékány (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba Conference, 37–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018Person, case, and agreement: The morphosyntax of inverse agreement and global case splits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bárány, András & Ádám Szalontai
2015Agreement with possessed direct objects in Hungarian. Slides presented at SinFolJA 8, Ljubljana, 25 September 2015.
Barker, Chris
1992Group terms in English: representing groups as atoms. Journal of Semantics 9(1). 69–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartos, Huba
1999Morfoszintaxis és interpretáció: A magyar inflexiós jeleségek szintaktikai háttere [Morphosyntax and interpretation: The syntactic background to inflectional phenomena in Hungarian.]. Budapest: ELTE dissertation.
2001Object agreement in Hungarian: A case for Minimalism. In Galina M. Alexandrova & Olga Arnaudova (eds.), The Minimalist Parameter: Selected papers from the Open Linguistics Forum, Ottawa, 21–23 March 1997, 311–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bassi, Itai
2019Fake indexicals and their sensitivity to focus. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society (NELS) 49 1, 111–124.Google Scholar
Beaver, David & Henk Zeevat
2007Accommodation. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 503–539. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana
2008Conditions on phi-agree. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1983–1984Animacy and markedness in universal grammar. Glossologia 2–31. 7–20.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth
2013A semantic solution to the problem of object agreement in Hungarian. Natural Language Semantics 21(4). 345–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth & Stephen Wechsler
2010Less-travelled paths from pronoun to agreement: The case of the Uralic objective conjugations. In Tracy Holloway King (ed.), The proceedings of the LFG ’10 conference, 165–85. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2012The objective conjugation in Hungarian: Agreement without phi-features. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 301. 699–740. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva
2011Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
2018Dependency and directionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
To appear. Ordinals, reflexives and unaccusatives: Unification by predication. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 21.
den Dikken, Marcel, Anikó Lipták & Zsófia Zvolenszky
2001On inclusive reference anaphora: New perspectives from Hungarian. In Karine Megerdoomian & Leora Anne Bar-el (eds.), WCCFL 20: Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 137–149. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
2000The Hungarian noun phrase is like the English noun phrase. In Gábor Alberti & István Kenesei (eds.), Papers from the Pécs conference, vol. 71 Approaches to Hungarian, 121–49. Szeged: JATE Press.Google Scholar
2002The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005The inverse agreement constraint in Hungarian: A relic of a Uralic-Siberian Sprachbund? In Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Klein-henz & Jan Koster (eds.), Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2013The inverse agreement constraint in Uralic languages. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 21. 2–21.Google Scholar
2017The Person-Case Constraint and the Inverse Agreement Constraint are manifestations of the same Inverse Topicality Constraint. The Linguistic Review 341. 365–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018Possessive agreement turned into a derivational suffix. In Huba Bartos, Marcel den Dikken, Zoltán Bánréti & Tamás Váradi (eds.), Boundaries crossed, at the interfaces of morphosyntax, phonology, pragmatics and semantics, 87–105. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin & Orsolya Tánczos
2018From possessor agreement to object marking in the evolution of the Udmurt -jez suffix: A grammaticalization approach to morpheme syncretism. Language 94(4). 733–757. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elbourne, Paul
2013Definite descriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiengo, Robert & Robert May
1994Indices and identity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gerland, Doris & Albert Ortmann
2009Alienability splits in Hungarian. Paper presented at ‘Verbal and Nominal Possession’ workshop, January 29, 2009.
Geurts, Bart
2007Existential import. In Ileana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax, 253–71. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Gulya, János
1966Eastern Ostyak chrestomathy. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.Google Scholar
Hajdú, Péter
1968Chrestomathia Samojedica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2009The best-supported language universals refer to scalar patterns deriving from processing cost. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5). 457–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene
1983On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Daniel Flickinger, Michael Barlow & Michael Westcoat (eds.), Proceedings of the second west coast conference on formal linguistics, 114–125. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Honti, László
1984Chrestomathia ostiacica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R.
1997All John’s children are as bald as the king of France. In CLS 33: Papers from the main session, 155–179.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giogio & Gerson Klumpp
(eds.) 2014Differential object marking: theoretical and empirical issues. Special issue of Linguistics 521.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline
2012Direct compositionality and ‘uninterpretability’: The case of (sometimes) ‘uninterpretable’ features on pronouns. Journal of Semantics 291. 305–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kálmán, Béla
1965Vogul chresomathy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle
1993From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István
1994Subordinate clauses. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian, 275–354. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keresztes, László
1989Chrestomathia Mordvinica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
2012Greek anaphora in cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Greek Linguistics 121. 84–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
2009Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2). 593–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landman, Fred
1989Groups I and II. Linguistics and Philosophy 121. 559–606, 723–744. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lappin, Shalom & Tanya Reinhart
1988Presuppositional effects of strong determiners: A processing account. Linguistics 261. 1021–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
1989Essays on anaphora. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mardale, Alexandru & Petros Karatsareas
Nikolaeva, Irina
1999Object agreement, grammatical relations, and information structure. Studies in Language 231. 331–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland
1993Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 657–720.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige
2003Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 261. 287–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan
2017Semantics for counting and measuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, Uli
2013Presuppositions and the alternative tier. In Todd Snider (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 23 1, 156–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Florian
2009Two types of definites in natural language. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst dissertation.
Seržant, Ilja A. & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
(eds.) 2018Diachrony of differential argument marking. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
1986From the definiteness effect to lexical integrity. In Sjaak de Meij & Werner Abraham (eds.), Topic, focus and configurationality, 321–348. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994The noun phrase. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian (Syntax and Semantics vol. 27), 179–274. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
van der Sandt, Rob A.
1992Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 91. 333–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Virtanen, Susanna
2015Transitivity in Eastern Mansi: An information structural approach. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.