oa The morphosyntax of the Hungarian sociative and dissociative suffixes

References

1. Aasmäe, Niina
   2018 The morphosyntactic manifestations of the copula in Erzya. Linguistica Uralica541. 191–204. 10.3176/lu.2018.3.03
   https://doi.org/10.3176/lu.2018.3.03 [Google Scholar]
2. Beke, Ödön
   1910 Megfejtetlen névragok [Unresolved noun suffixes]. Magyar Nyelvőr391. 194–200.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Budenz, József
   1884 A -stúl, -stűl comitativus rag [The comitative suffix -stúl, -stűl]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények181. 158–160.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Dékány, Éva
   2011 A profile of the Hungarian DP. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.
5. Dékány, Éva & Veronika Hegedűs
   2021 Postpositions: Formal and semantic classification. InKatalin É. Kiss & Veronika Hegedűs (eds), The syntax of Hungarian: Postpositions and postpositional phrases, 11–191. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Dikken, Marcel den
   2006 Relators and linkers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
7. Dikken, Marcel den
   2022 A phonosyntactic representation of Hungarian ‘lowering’. InJeroen van de Weijer (ed.), Segmental structure and representations, 307–326. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110730098‑016
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110730098-016 [Google Scholar]
8. Dikken, Marcel den
   (forthcoming). On the merger and antecedence of depictive secondary predicates. InMarcel den Dikken & Hideki Kishimoto eds Formal perspectives on secondary predication. Berlin: de Gruyter.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Dikken, Marcel den & Éva Dékány
   2018 A restriction on recursion. Syntax211. 37–71. 10.1111/synt.12149
   https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12149 [Google Scholar]
10. Fekete, István
    2013 Hungarian gyerekestül vs. gyerekkel (‘with [the] kid’). AHEA: E-Journal of the American Hungarian Educators Association61; ahea.net/e-journal/volume-6-2013/12
    [Google Scholar]
11. Groot, Casper de
    2017 The essives in Hungarian. InCasper de Groot (ed.), Uralic essive and the expression of impermanent state, 325–352. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.119.14deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.119.14deg [Google Scholar]
12. Hale, Kenneth
    1986 Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples. InPieter Muysken & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), Features and projections, 233–254. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110871661‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871661-009 [Google Scholar]
13. Hynönen, Emmi
    2017 The essive in Finnish. InCasper de Groot (ed.), Uralic essive and the expression of impermanent state, 29–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.119.02hyn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.119.02hyn [Google Scholar]
14. Jespersen, Otto
    1942 A modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. VI: Morphology. London: George Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Kayne, Richard
    1994 The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Kenesei, István, Robert Vago & Anna Fenyvesi
    1998 Hungarian. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Kiefer, Ferenc & Mária Ladányi
    2000 Morfoszintaktikailag semleges képzések [Morphosyntac-tically neutral derivations]. InFerenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan [A structural grammar of Hungarian]. Vol.31, Morfológia [Morphology], 165–214. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Kühner, Raphael
    1877–1879 Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache [A detailed grammar of the Latin language]. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Piñón, Christopher
    1991 Presupposition and the syntax of negation in Hungarian. InLise M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols & Rosa M. Rodriguez (eds), CLS 27: Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 1991. Part Two: The parasession on negation, 246–262. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou
    2003 Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486326
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486326 [Google Scholar]
21. Schirm, Anita
    2005 Az elidegeníthető és az elidegeníthetetlen birtoklás kifejezésmódjairól [On the expression of alienable and inalienable possession]. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis – Sectio Linguistica421. 155–69; accessed on-line at: publicatio.bibl.u-szeged.hu/7799/6/schirm_elidegenitheto_elidegenithetetlen.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
22. Szabolcsi, Anna
    1983 A specifikus/nem specifikus megkülönböztetésről [On the specific/non-specific distinction]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények851. 83–92.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Ürögdi, Barbara
    2013 Adverbial clauses with -ig and the ‘until-puzzle’. Acta Linguistica Hungarica601. 303–363. 10.1556/ALing.60.2013.3.3
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.60.2013.3.3 [Google Scholar]
24. Zeijlstra, Hedde
    2010 Emphatic multiple negative expressions in Dutch: A by-product of loss of negative concord. The Linguistic Review271. 37–73. 10.1515/tlir.2010.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2010.003 [Google Scholar]