Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T07:53:03.158Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preverb Climbing in Hungarian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Donka F. Farkas and
Jerrold M. Sadock
Donka F. Farkas*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Jerrold M. Sadock*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
*
Department of Linguistics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520
Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper offers an account of the distributional possibilities of Hungarian preverbal particles in the autolexical framework proposed in Sadock 1985. We show how a complex range of facts can be predicted from the interaction of a few independently motivated assumptions once autonomous modules of the grammar are allowed to assign partially noncongruent representations to the same linguistic entity. In the course of the discussion the Incorporative Principle of Sadock 1985 is extended and turned into a general constraint on allowable discrepancies between representations contributed by various components of the grammar.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , June 1989, pp. 318 - 338
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackerman, Farrell. 1987. Miscreant morphemes: Phrasal predicates in Ugric. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
de Reuse, Willem. 1988. The morphology/semantics interface: An autolexical treatment of Eskimo verbal affix order. Proceedings of the 24th meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 112–25.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. 1984. The status of VP in Hungarian. Proceedings of the 20th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 65–76.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. 1986. On the syntactic position of focus in Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. 1987. DO pro in Hungarian. Approaches to Hungarian, vol. 2., ed. by Kenesei, István, 191–211. Szeged, Hungary: JATE.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K.; and Sag, Ivan. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1978. Some aspects of negation. Universals of Human Language, IV: Syntax, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A., and Moravcsik, Edith A., 127–210. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1981. Aspects of Hungarian syntax and the theory of grammar. Los Angeles: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1986. FOCUS in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kálmán, György C., László, Kálmán, Nádasdy, Ádám; and Prószéky, Gábor. A magyar segédigék rendszere. [The system of Hungarian auxiliaries.] Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok 17, to appear.Google Scholar
Kálmán, László, Gábor Prószéky, Ádám Nádasdy; and Kálmán, György C. 1986. Hocus, Focus and the verb types in Hungarian. Topic, focus and configurationality, ed. by Abraham, Werner and Meij, Sjaak de, 129–42. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizzi, Luigi. 1978. A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. by Keyser, Samuel Jay, 113–58. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 3.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1980. Specifying reference to the subject. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 97–202.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1985. Autolexical syntax: A proposal for the treatment of noun incorporation and similar phenomena. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:379–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. PRO and cons—a double dealer's account. Budapest, ms.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria L. 1982. On the relationship of the lexicon and syntax. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar