Part of
Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba Conference
Edited by Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi and Éva Dékány
[Approaches to Hungarian 14] 2015
► pp. 3764
Adger, David & Daniel Harbour
2007Syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint. Syntax 10(1). 2–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith
2003Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21. 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartos, Huba
1999Morfoszintaxis és interpretáció: A magyar inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere. Budapest: ELTE dissertation.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Milan Rezac
2009Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1). 35–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Phil Branigan
2006Eccentric agreement and multiple case-checking. In Alana Johns, Diane Massam & Juvenal Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 47–77. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1980Inverse verb forms in Siberia: Evidence from Chukchee, Koryak and Kamchadal. Folia Linguistica Historica 1. 61–74.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth
2013A semantic solution to the problem of Hungarian object agreement. Natural Language Semantics 21. 345–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth & Stephen Wechsler
2010Less-travelled paths from pronoun to agreement: the case of the Uralic object conjugations. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG10 conference, 165–185. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2012The objective conjugation in Hungarian: agreement without phi-features. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30. 699–740. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva
2011Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dékány, Éva
2011A profile of the Hungarian DP: the interaction of lexicalization, agreement and linearization with the functional sequence: University of Tromsø dissertation. [URL].
Dikken, Marcel den
2004Agreement and ‘clause union’, 445–498. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006When Hungarians agree (to disagree). Ms., CUNY Graduate Center. New York.
É. Kiss, Katalin
2003A szibériai kapcsolat — avagy miért nem tárgyasan ragozzuk az igét 1. és 2. személyű tárgy esetén. Magyar Nyelvjárások 41. 321–326.Google Scholar
2005The inverse agreement constraint in Hungarian — a relic of a Uralic-Siberian sprachbund? In Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinheinz & Jan Koster (eds.), Organizing grammar — Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 108–116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008Free Word Order, (Non)configurationality, and Phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3). 441–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013The inverse agreement constraint in Uralic languages. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 2(3). 2–21.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter
2002Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3). 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kozinsky, Isaac Š., Vladimir P. Nedjalkov & Maria S. Polinskaja
1988Antipassive in Chukchee: oblique object, object incorporation, zero object. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 651–706. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
2009Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2). 187–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer
2011Agreement as a Fallible Operation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logo
Rebrus, Péter
2000Morfofonológiai jelenségek. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan, vol. 3. Morfológia, 763–947. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc
2008Defective agree, case alternations, and the prominence of person (Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86), 137–161. Universität Leipzig.
Rocquet, Amélie
2013Splitting objects: a nanosyntactic account of direct object marking. Ghent: Ghent University dissertation.Google Scholar
Rullman, Hotze
2004First and second person pronouns as bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 35(1). 159–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Safir, Ken
2014One true anaphor. Linguistic Inquiry 45(1). 91–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Skorik, Piotr Ja
1977Грамматика чукотского языка, часть II: глагол, наречие, служебные слова [Grammar of Chukchi, vol II: verb, adverb and auxiliary words], Nauka.
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Coppock, Elizabeth
2022. Object agreement in Hungarian. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 1:1  pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Dékány, Éva
2021. Pronouns. In The Hungarian Nominal Functional Sequence [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 100],  pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Kiss, Katalin É.
2021. What determines the varying relation of case and agreement? Evidence from the Ugric languages. Acta Linguistica Academica 67:4  pp. 397 ff. DOI logo
Ruda, Marta
2018. Local Operations Deriving Long-Distance Relations: Object Agreement in Hungarian and the Genitive of Negation in Polish. In Boundaries Crossed, at the Interfaces of Morphosyntax, Phonology, Pragmatics and Semantics [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 94],  pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. References. In On the Syntax of Missing Objects [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 244],  pp. 178 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 may 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.