Approaches to Hungarian; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Introduction; References; Hungarian external causatives; 1. Introduction; 2. Horváth & Siloni's arguments; 2.1 What H&S got perfectly right: The 'biclausality vs. monoclausality' issue; 2.1.1 The number of negation domains; 2.1.2 The number of binding domains; 2.2 Where H&S are wrong: Bi-eventivity vs. mono-eventivity; 2.2.1 Control of subjects in participials; 2.2.2 Event modifiability by adverbials; 2.3 Some further observations and claims by H&S
and their assessment; 2.3.1 Coordination below causation

2.3.2 VP-deletion2.3.3 Raising verbs: No causatives; 2.3.4 And a final minor point; 3. A modest proposal for the syntactic derivation of Hungarian external causatives; 3.1 The basics; 3.2 The case patterns of Hungarian external causatives; 3.3 Adverbial modification in Hungarian causatives; 3.3.1 Access of adverbials to the two subevents (cf. 2.2.2 above); 3.3.2 Control into adverbial modifiers; 3.4 Causatives of control verbs; 4. Conclusion; References; (The non-existence of) secondary stress in Hungarian; 1. Secondary stress in Hungarian; 2. Phonological evidence for secondary stress?

2.1 The 'patronising' intonation pattern2.2 Varga (2000): Problems; 3. Experiments; 3.1 Method; 3.2 Phonetic evidence for stress: Preliminary study; 3.3 Statistical methodology; 3.4 Phonetic evidence for stress: The second study; 3.4.1 Words with a heavy third syllable; 3.4.2 Words with a light third syllable; 3.5 Summary of the experiments; 4. Conclusions and further research; References; The syntax-prosody interface and sentential complementation in Hungarian; 1. Introduction; 2. Background; 2.1 The syntax of object clauses; 2.2 Factivity, givenness and referentiality

3.1 Background and definitions3. Referential and non-referential clauses; 3.2 The referentiality of sentential complements in Hungarian; 4. Experiment; 4.1 Stimuli; 4.2 Methods; 4.3 Results; I. No significant prosodic effects of factivity; II. Givenness effects are independent of factivity; III. Prosodic difference between NCP vs RCP; 5. Conclusions; References; On a type of counterfactual construction; 1. Aim; 2. Facts to be accounted for; 3. Which mood is it?; 4. The syntax of mood in universal grammar; 5. The syntax of Hungarian optative sentences

6. The syntax of Hungarian imperative sentences7. The syntax of 'reproaching' sentences; 8. Summary; References; Result states in Hungarian; 1. Result states: a proposal; 2. Temporal modi?ers ending in -rA 'subl'; 2.1 The actuality-based use; 2.2 The intention-based use; 2.3 The incorporated use; 2.4 A fourth use?; 3. Comparisons; 3.1 Kiefer (2006); 3.2 Bende-Farkas (2007); 4. Potential empirical problems; 4.1 ki·vasal 'out-iron'; 4.2 be·csuk 'in-shut' versus be·csap 'in-slam'; 4.3 be·bizonyít 'prev-prove'; References; Paradigmatic variation in Hungarian; 1. Introduction