|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910813442003321 |
|
|
Titolo |
Papers from the 2011 Lund conference / / edited by Johan Brandtler, Valéria Molnár, Christer Platzack, Lund University |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Amsterdam : , : John Benjamins Publishing Company, , [2013] |
|
©2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (260 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Approaches to Hungarian, , 1878-7916 ; ; volume 13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Altri autori (Persone) |
|
BrandtlerJohan |
MolnárValéria |
PlatzackChrister <1943-> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Hungarian language - Grammar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Approaches to Hungarian; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Introduction; References; Reanalysis in Hungarian comparative subclauses; 1. Introduction; 2. The structure of the left periphery in comparative subclauses; 3. Parametric variation concerning Comparative Deletion; 4. Diachronic change in Hungarian - an overview; 5. Reanalysis and parametric change; 5.1 The initial setup; 5.2 The relation of "hogy" and "hogy nem"; 5.3 The relative cycle as a grammaticalization process; 5.4 The appearance of "mint"; 5.5 The reanalysis of "mint" |
5.6 Reanalysis in terms of the two C heads Conclusion; References; Codices; Silent people; 1. Introduction; 2. Some problems of the universal impersonal cum adverbial construction; 3. A shift of perspective; 4. Some problems solved; 5. Stage vs individual level modifiers; References; Clausal Coordinate Ellipsis (CCE) in Hungarian compared to CCE in Dutch, German, and Estonian; 1. Introduction; 2. Definition of the CCE rules; 3. Accuracy of the CCE rules in Hungarian; 3.1 Summary of results for Dutch, Estonian and German CCE; 3.2 Construction of ELLEIPO-INPUT-HU and its evaluation |
4. Conclusions Acknowledgement; References; Pseudoclefts in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hungarian; 1. Introduction; 2. The phenomenon; 2.1 Types of Pseudoclefts; 2.2 Connectivity Effects; 3. Previous approaches; 3.1 The 'question-plus-deletion' (QPD) approach; 3.2 The 'What-you-see-is-what-you-get' (WYSIWIG) approach; 4. A WYSIWYG analysis of Hungarian specificational pseudoclefts; 4.1 Hungarian clause structure; 4.2 Proposal; 4.3 Hungarian copular clauses and information structure; 4.4 Evidence for the subjecthood of the pivot; 4.5 The nature and role of the wh-clause |
5. (Anti-)Connectivity in Hungarian specificational pseudoclefts 5.1 Connectivity effects; 5.2 Connectivity Effects in a WYSIWYG approach; 5.3 Anti-connectivity effects; 6. A comparison of QPD and WYSIWYG accounts; 7. Conclusion; References; Focus, exhaustivity and the syntax of Wh-interrogatives; 1. Introduction; 2. Interrogative wh-phrases and the syntax of "Focus": Previous accounts; 2.1 Wh-questions: Movements and landing sites; 2.2 Syntactic parallels between "Focus" and Wh-interrogatives in Hungarian; 2.3 A [Focus]-feature based account of overt wh-movement: Lipták (2001) |
3. Eliminating [Focus] from the syntax: movement and an Exhaustivity operator 3.1 Separating "Focus-movement" from Focus; 3.2 A syntactic Exhaustivity operator: The EI-Op movement account; 3.3 Possible overt evidence for EI-Op and a clausal EI head: Exclusive csak 'only'; 4. The role of C0 vs. EI0 in wh-questions: Movement and interpretation; 4.1 An Agree relation between C0 and the preposed wh-phrase; 4.2 Divergence between interrogative wh versus non-wh phrases moved to "pre-V" position; 5. EI-Op phrase and wh-interrogative preposing in the same clause?; Acknowledgments; References |
A phi-agreement constraint on subject extraction in Finnish |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
Mandatory phrasal prominence on a constituent in English is often attributed to the presence of a focus interpretation for that constituent, be it focus as discourse new or as selection among discourse relevant alternatives. It is argued here that these two functions of focus should be empirically distinguished and use of the notion "focus" restricted to the latter function alone. Phrasal prosodic prominence in discourse new constituents is attributed to default prosody, namely the focus-insensitive mapping between syntactic and prosodic structures. Evidence is garnered to support the notion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |