LEADER 05566nam 2200685 450 001 9910790548603321 005 20230803021735.0 010 $a90-272-7147-X 035 $a(CKB)2550000001117338 035 $a(EBL)1394968 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001127068 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11625655 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001127068 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11137047 035 $a(PQKB)10320400 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1394968 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1394968 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10767249 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL517776 035 $a(OCoLC)858653862 035 $a(EXLCZ)992550000001117338 100 $a20131008h20132013 uy| 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aPapers from the 2011 Lund conference /$fedited by Johan Brandtler, Vale?ria Molna?r, Christer Platzack, Lund University 210 1$aAmsterdam :$cJohn Benjamins Publishing Company,$d[2013] 210 4$dİ2013 215 $a1 online resource (260 p.) 225 1 $aApproaches to Hungarian,$x1878-7916 ;$vvolume 13 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a90-272-0483-7 311 $a1-299-86525-9 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aApproaches 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" 327 $a5.6 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 327 $a4. 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 327 $a5. (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: Lipta?k (2001) 327 $a3. 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 327 $aA phi-agreement constraint on subject extraction in Finnish 330 $aMandatory phrasal prominence on a constituent in English is often attributed to the presence of a focus interpretation for that constituent, be it focus as discourse new or as selection among discourse relevant alternatives. It is argued here that these two functions of focus should be empirically distinguished and use of the notion "focus" restricted to the latter function alone. Phrasal prosodic prominence in discourse new constituents is attributed to default prosody, namely the focus-insensitive mapping between syntactic and prosodic structures. Evidence is garnered to support the notion 410 0$aApproaches to Hungarian ;$vv. 13. 606 $aHungarian language$xGrammar 606 $aHungarian language$xGrammar$vCongresses 615 0$aHungarian language$xGrammar. 615 0$aHungarian language$xGrammar 676 $a494.5115 676 $a494/.5115 701 $aBrandtler$b Johan$01497431 701 $aMolna?r$b Vale?ria$01465901 701 $aPlatzack$b Christer$f1943-$0929428 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910790548603321 996 $aPapers from the 2011 Lund conference$93722525 997 $aUNINA