| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910788273303321 |
|
|
Titolo |
Approaches to Hungarian . Volume 14 : papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba conference / / editors, Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi, Éva Dékány |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Amsterdam ; ; Philadelphia : , : John Benjamins Publishing Company, , 2015 |
|
©2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
90-272-0484-5 |
90-272-6885-1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (302 pages) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Approaches to Hungarian ; ; Volume 14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Hungarian language - Grammar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Approaches to Hungarian; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Introduction; Arguments for arguments in the complement zone of the Hungarian nominal head; 1. Introduction; 2. Approaches to N-complements; 2.1 The Argument (Inheritance) Principle; 2.2 The complement zone of N in Hungarian: Is there any at all?; 2.3 Constituency tests in Hungarian; 2.4 When the "ill-formed" is quite well-formed (according to the literature); 3. Further potential tests concerning the constituent status of noun phrases with a non-empty complement zone; 3.1 Right periphery |
4.4.3 Are first and second person different from third person? 4.5 Interim summary; 5. Conclusions; Acknowledgements; References; Why do sonorants not voice in Hungarian? And why do they voice in Slovak?; 1. Introduction; 1.2 Pre-sonorant voicing; 1.2 Jansen's (2004) phonetically-based approach; 1.3 Voicing assimilation in Hungarian and Slovak; 2. Experiments; 2.1 Speakers; 2.2 Material; 2.3 Method; 2.4 Measurements; 2.5 Statistical analysis; 3. Results; 3.1 Utterance-final position; 3.2 Word-medial intervocalic position; 3.3 Word-final obstruents before /p/ |
3.4 Word-final obstruents before /b/3.5 Pre-sonorant position; 4. Discussion; 5. Conclusion; References; Appendix: Test sentences; Test |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sentences for Hungarian; Test sentences for Slovak; Word order variation in Hungarian PPs; 1. Introduction; 2. Variation in word order; 2.1 Variation in PP-internal word order; 2.2 Variation in positions in the clause; 2.3 Interim summary; 3. Analysis; 3.1 Background assumptions about PP structure; 3.2 Case-like Ps; 3.3 'Inflexible' case assigning Ps; 3.4 'Flexible' case assigning Ps that cannot be prepositions ; 3.5 'Flexible' case assigning Ps that can be prepositions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
The acoustic properties associated with prominence (e.g. duration, F0) may also serve for "phonemic" contrasts. The question is thus how speakers correctly interpret these properties. We address this question in terms of an extension of the Functional Load Hypothesis (FLH): given that vowel length is contrastive in Hungarian, the FLH predicts that duration will not be the main cue to prominence (i.e. stress or focus). Based on a large, systematically collected corpus, we demonstrate that this is, in fact, the case; the main cue for both is pitch (F0), though its characteristics are different. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |