Part of
Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Karolina Krawczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcin Grygiel
[Human Cognitive Processing 73] 2022
► pp. 83114
Arany, J.
1873A szórend. [Word order.] Magyar Nyelvőr, 2, 7–11.Google Scholar
Brassai, S.
2011 [1860]A magyar mondat. Első értekezés. [The Hungarian sentence. First treatise.] In A magyar mondat (12–94). Texts selected by László Elekfi and Ferenc Kiefer. Budapest: Tinta.Google Scholar
Chafe, W.
1976Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (25–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1994Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
1994Speech act classification, language typology and cognition. In S. L. Tsoha­tzidis (Ed.), Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives (460–477). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
2005Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, K.
2002The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003Mondattan. [Syntax.] In É. Kiss, K. Siptár, & F. Kiefer (Eds.) Új magyar nyelvtan (1–126). Budapest: Osiris.Google Scholar
2006Focusing as predication. In V. Molnár, & S. Winkler (Eds.), The architecture of focus (169–196). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008Tagadás vagy egyeztetés? A senki, semmi típusú névmások szórendi helye, jelentése és hangsúlyozása. [Negation or concord? The word order, interpretation and prosody of se-pronouns.] Magyar Nyelv, 104, 129–143.Google Scholar
2009Topic and focus: Two structural positions associated with logical functions in the left periphery of the Hungarian sentence. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55(3/4), 287–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farina, M.
2017The Syro-Arabic glosses to Barhebraeus’ Metrical Grammar. In P. Molinelli (Ed.), Language and identity in multilingual Mediterranean settings (157–170). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
1985Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gécseg Zs., & Kiefer, F.
2009A new look at information structure in Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27, 583–622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
2001Syntax. An introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, P.
1975Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J.
1982Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
2014Halliday’s introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th edition. Revised by Christian Matthiessen. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F.
1958A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1960The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 88–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imrényi, A.
2012Inversion in English and Hungarian: Comparison from a cognitive perspective. In Hart, C. (Ed.), Selected papers from UK-CLA meetings. Vol. 1, 209–228.Google Scholar
2017aAz elemi mondat viszonyhálózata. [The network structure of clauses.] In G. Tolcsvai Nagy (Ed.), Nyelvtan. [Grammar] (664–760). Budapest: Osiris.Google Scholar
2017bForm-meaning correspondences in multiple dimensions: The structure of Hungarian finite clauses. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 287–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imrényi, A., & Vladár, Zs
2020Sámuel Brassai in the history of dependency grammar. In A. Imrényi, & N. Mazziotta (Eds.), Chapters of dependency grammar: A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière (164–187). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, J.
2001The dimensions of topic–comment. Linguistics, 39(4), 641–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A.
2015Cognitive linguistics in the year 2015. Cognitive Semantics, 1, 131–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kas, B.
2005Az óhajtó mondatok kategóriája. [The category of optative-desiderative sentences.] Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, 102, 136–174.Google Scholar
Kugler, N.
2020Contextualizing clauses. Studia Linguistica Hungarica, 32, 76–90.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
2001Topic, subject, and possessor. In H. G. Simonsen, & R. T. Endresen (Eds.), A cognitive approach to the verb. Morphological and constructional perspectives (11–48). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011Semantic motivation of the English auxiliary. In K.–U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (29–48). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012Substrate, system, and expression: Aspects of the functional organization of English finite clauses. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli, & M. Ž. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation (3–52). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2016Baseline and elaboration. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(3), 405–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
This volume. What could be more fundamental?
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S.
1976Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (458–489). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A.
2002Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In E. J. Francis, & L. A. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Modrián-Horváth, B.
2015Topik und Thema. Untersuchungen zur Informationsstruktur in Deutschen und Ungarischen Erzähl- und Berichtstexten. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Olsvay, Cs
2000Formális jegyek egyeztetése a magyar nemsemleges mondatokban. [Agreement of formal features in Hungarian non-neutral sentences.] In L. Büky, & M. Maleczki (Eds.), A mai magyar nyelv leírásának újabb módszerei, vol. 4 (119–152). Szeged: JATEPress.Google Scholar
Ramm, W., & Villiger, C.
1995Global text organization and sentence-grammatical realization: Discourse-level constraints on theme selection. Paper read at RANLP 95, Tzigov Chark, Bulgaria, September 14–15.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de
1966 [1915]Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P.
1977Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Oxford: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Szilágyi N. S.
1996Hogyan teremtsünk világot? [How shall we create a world?] Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Tankönyvtanács.Google Scholar
Tátrai, Sz
2020On the perspectival nature and the metapragmatic reflectiveness of contextualization. Studia Linguistica Hungarica, 32, 109–120.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
1995Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
2003Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J.
1999Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
1995Adjectives vs. verbs: The iconicity of part-of-speech membership. In M. E. Landsberg (Ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes (223–245). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J., Racine, T. P., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E.
(Eds.) 2008The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar