Review published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 14:1 (1990) ► pp. 234248
References
Abraham, Werner; and de Meij, Sjaak
(eds) 1986Topic, focus, and configurationality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins [Linguistik Aktuell 41]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter; and Sadock, Jerrold M.
(eds) 1977Grammatical relations. New York, San Francisco: Academic Press [Syntax and Semantics 81]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka F.; and Sadock, Jerrold M.
1989 “Preverb climbing in Hungarian.” Language 65(2):318–338. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, Julia
1981Aspects of Hungarian syntax and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
1985Focus in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1986 “Remarks on the configurationality issue.” In: Abraham and de Meij (eds) 1986 65–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunyadi, László
1986 “The expression of logical scope in Hungarian.” In: Abraham and de Meij (eds) 1986: 89–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, István
1986 “On the logic of word order in Hungarian.” In: Abraham and de Meij (eds) 1986: 143–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1986 “The order and scope of operators in the Hungarian sentence.” In: Abraham and de Meij (eds) 1986: 181–214.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N.; and Thompson, Sandra A.
1976 “Subject and topic: A new typology of language.” In: Li (ed.) 1976: 457–489.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N.
(ed.) 1976Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A.
1984 “The place of direct objects among the noun phrase constituents of Hungarian.” In: Plank (ed.) 1984: 55–85.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
(ed.) 1984Objects. Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul
1977 “Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects.” In: Cole and Sadock (ed.) 1977: 279–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar