Cover not available

In:Thetics and Categoricals
Edited by Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss and Yasuhiro Fujinawa
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262] 2020
► pp. 225–282

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

From philosophical logic to linguistics

The architecture of information autonomy: Categoricals vs. Thetics revisited

 | Groningen University | University of Vienna
Published online: 22 July 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.262.09abr
Abstract
How are the logical terms of thetic and categorical judgments to be distinguished linguistically? The key questions are how judgments can be thought of in terms of linguistics and what the deeper lying reason is for distinguishing the two notions. In our search for an answer, we can be guided by the distinction in Japanese, i.e. through the use of the particle ga for thetics and wa for categoricals. In German, the German equivalents are marked by accent mark and information structural word order. Syntactically, thetics are represented by VP incorporation of all arguments including the subject. The arguments are not subject to syntactic probing mechanisms but follow semantic preference principles. The following sectionss lead the reader through the paper. (1) What is thetic, what is categorical? What is this difference for? (2) Main working hypothesis: From thetic judgment to thetic sentence. (3) Hypothetic definition 1: the thetic sentence in German. (4) Hypothetic definition 2: Thetic – Categorical. (5) Thetics are presentational, not locative and not existential. (6) Accent and information structure. (7) Common ground contents (speech act felicity conditions). (8) Integrational focus: broad and narrow focus (Jacobs 2001). (9) VP-integrated subject ≠ Unaccusative subject. (10) Speaker deixis implied by subject inversion. (11) Special ga-subjects after Onoe 1973: The deeper key to thetics? (12) Linking thetic syntax with Onoe’s special ga-verb class in Japanese? (13) The origo decision for episodicity and genericity. (14) Typological commonalities. (15) Hypothesis: Passives are near-thetic. (16) Conclusion without a real end: the interface mix. (17) Outgoing: leading ideas and main concepts.
Article outline
  • 1.What is thetic, what is categorical? What is this difference?
    • 1.1Thetics according to text genre? Modal particle/MP selection as a speech act criterion?
    • 1.2Thetics according to sentential form?
    • 1.3Thetics and subject position?
  • 2.Main working hypothesis: From thetic judgment to thetic sentence
    • 2.1The distinction of thetic and categorical in German (V2-OV, subject as well as topic prominent)
    • 2.2The thetic and the categorical judgment in Japanese (OV and topic prominent)
  • 3.Hypothesis 1: The thetic sentence in German
  • 4.Hypothetic definition 2: Thetik – Categorical
  • 5.Thetics are presentational, not locative and not existential
  • 6.Accent and information structure
  • 7.Common ‘Ground contents (speech act felicity conditions)
  • 8.Integrational focus: Broad and narrow focus
  • 9.VP-inegrated subject and unaccusative subject
  • 10.Speaker deixis implied by subject inversion
    • 10.1Our main hypothesis confirmed
    • 10.2How do you leave a sentence without any context?
  • 11.Special ga-subjects after Onoe 1973: The deeper key to thetics?
  • 12.Linking thetic syntax with Onoe’s special ga-verb class in Japanese?
  • 13.The origo decision for episodicity and genericity
    • 13.1Thetic valence and origo deixis
    • 13.2Episodic in contrast to generic: Tense in DP? Referential biographies
  • 14.Typological commonalities
  • 15.Hypothesis: Passives are near-thetic
  • 16.Conclusion without a real end: The interface mix
    • 16.1Is it easy in Japanese to recognize and to encode thetics?
    • 16.2Deep grammatical interfaces for the thetic-categorical distinction
  • 17.Outgoing: Leading ideas and main concepts
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (125)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 2008. Presuppositions and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(5): 523–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner. 1986. Unaccusatives in German. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanisti-schen Linguistik (GAGL) 28: 1–72.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. The aspect-case typology correlation: Perfectivity and Burzio’s generalization. In Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 34], Eric J. Reuland (ed.), 129–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. The compositional nature of the analytic passive: Syntactic vs. event semantic triggers. “Argument Hypothesis” vs. “Aspect Hypothesis”. In Passivization and Typology. Form and Function [Typological Studies in Languages 68], Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds), 462–501. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Types of transitivity. Intransitive objects and intransitivity – and the logic of their designs: Ways to keep apart derivation in syntax and the lexicon. In Transitivity: Form, Meaning, Acquisition, and Processing [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 166], Patrick Brandt & Marco Garcia Garcia (eds), 15–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Strong modality and truth disposability in syntactic subordination: What is the locus of the phase edge validating modal adverbials? Studia Linguistica 69(3): 1–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Was bedeutet Subordination mit V2 im Deutschen and Niederländischen: Omdat and want ebenso wie weil and denn? In Sprache in Raum und Geschichte, System und Kultur. Festschrift für Luk Draaye, Kurt Feyaerts, Geert Brône, Steven Schoonjans & Geert Stuyckens (eds). Leuvense Bijdragen 99–100: 122–132.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Valenzdiversifikationen: Was ist Thetikvalenz? In Valenz und Dependenz, Theorie und Praxis: Festschrift für Professor Ulrich Engel zum 90. Geburtstag. [Studia Germanica Gedanensia 39], Andrzej Kątny (ed.) 69–90. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Modality. Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian. 2009. There down in Spec,vP: An argument. Talk given at Generative Grammitik des Südens – GGS 2009, Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian (eds). 2015. External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 55]. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Pat-El, Na’ama & Carey, Stephen Mark (eds). 2018. Non-canonically Case-marked Subjects. Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull Papers [Studies in Language Companion Series 200]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef 2004. Non-nominative subjects in comparison. In: Peri Bhaskararao & Karamuri V. Subbarao (eds.) Non-nominative subjects. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 1988. L’ordine degli elementi della frase. Costruzioni con ordine marcato degli elementi. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. 1: La frase. I sintagmi nominale e preposizionale, Lorenzo Renzi (ed.), 129–194. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia & Cruschina, Silvio. 2018. The silent argument of broad focus: Typology and predictions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 1993. Subject positions and e-positions. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica 7: 51–69. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breitbart, Anne. 2014. Dialect contact and the speed of Jespersen’s cycle in Middle Low German. Taal en Tongval 66(1): 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brentano, Franz. 1874. Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2004. Toward a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 115–165. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casielles, Eugenia & Progovac, Ljiljana. 2012. Protosyntax: A thetic (unaccusative) stage? Theoria et Historia Scientiarum IX. Nicolaus Copernicus University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael J. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–297.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Brennan, Susan E. 1991. Grounding in communication. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine & Stephanie D. Teasley (eds), 127–149. Washington DC: Psychological Association. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deguchi, Masanori. 2012. Revisiting the Thetic/Categorical distinction in Japanese. Modern and Classical Languages 51. <[URL]>. Also in Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 48(2): 223–237.
Diesing, Molly. 1990. The Syntactic Roots of Semantic Partition. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. <[URL]>
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 555–595. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-discourse Interface. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 1993. German Intonational Patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction. Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fujinawa, Yasuhiro. 2017. Licht and Schatten der kategorischen/thetischen Aussagen: Kopula and Lokalisierungsverben im deutsch-japanischen Vergleich. In Tanaka, Leiss, Abraham & Fujinawa (eds), 5–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. Are uninterpretable features vulnerable? Theoretical Linguistics.
Grice, Martine & Baumann, Stefan. 2002. Deutsche Intonation und GToBI. Linguistische Berichte 191: 267–298.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline & Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. T-chains and the constituent structure of auxiliaries. In Proceedings of the GLOW Conference in Venice 1987, Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque & Giuliana Giusti (eds), 35–99. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline. 2006. Generic sentences and bare plurals. In Non-definiteness and Plurality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 95], Svetlana Vogeleer & Liliane Tasmowski (eds) 219–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Detachment – The later the deeper [Working Paper 41 of the Son-derforschungsbereich 340]. Universities of Stuttgart and Tübingen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54: 564–589. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3): 515–540. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986. Conditions on the form and meaning of the protasis. In On Conditionals, Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Alice ter Meulen, Judy Snitzer Reilly & Charles A. Ferguson (eds), 215–227. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Conditionals, grammatical. In Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, Keith Brown & Jim Miller (ed.). 87–91. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harweg, Rudolf. 1968. Pronomina and Textkonstitution. München: W. Fink.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1998. Adverbial clauses in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Johan van der Auwera (ed.), 335–419. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York NY: Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Irwin, Patricia. 2012. Unaccusativity at the Interfaces. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Existential unaccusativity and new discourse referents. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1):142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. How do you smile along a path? The Linguistic Review 36: 343–363. Special issue Roots in Context, Noam Faust & Andrew Nevins (gues eds). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2001. Dimensions of Topic-Comment. Linguistics 39: 641–681. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman 1958. Two aspects of language and two aspects of apahasic disturbances. In Language: An Equiry into its Meaning and Function, 115–133. New York NY: Harper.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jenkins, Lyle. 1975. The English Existential. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2003. Quirky subjects not so quirky. In New Perspectives in Case Theory, Ellen Brandner & Heike Zinsmeister (eds), 129–164. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2000. Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations. In Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds), 341–360. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The Generic Book, Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds), 125–175. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate. 2012. Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In The Expression of Information Structure, Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds), 1–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3): 269–320.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Milsark’s generalization and categorical judgments. In Proceedings from SALT 13, Robert B. Young & Yuping Zhou (eds), 204–221. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In Proceedings from SALT 4, Mandy Harvey & Lynn Santelmann (eds), 220–229. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1974. Syntactic amalgams. In Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Michael W. la Galy, Robert A. Fox & Anthonhy Bruck (eds), 321–344. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2020. Categorical vs. thetic sentences in the Universal Grammar of Realism. In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262], Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss & Yasuhiro Fujinawa (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2000. Postverbal subjects and the Mapping Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 31(4): 691–702. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lotze, Rudolf Hermann. 1843[1989]. Logik. Erstes Buch: Vom Denken, with an introduction by Georg Misch, new edn by G. Gabriel [Philosophische Bibliothek 421]. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marty, Anton. 1884–1897. Über subjectlose Sätze and das Verhältnis der Grammatik and Psychologie [Sieben Aufsätze, 1884 and 1894/95 in der Vierteljahrschrift for wissenschaftliche Philosophie erschienen]; Über Scheidung von grammatischem, logischem and psychologischem subject resp. Predicate. [Zwei Aufsätze, 1897 im Archiv for systematische Philosophie, Bd. 3 erschienen, S.174–190, 294–333].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Masuoka, Takashi. 1997. Fukubun (Complex Sentences). Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard. 2010. Über thetische and categoricale Äußerungen im Spanischen (Ha muerto Franco vs. Franco ha muerto). Ms. Universität Bielefeld.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart 1859[1963–1991]. On Liberty (citation from The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by John M. Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Minami, Fujio. 1974. Gendai nihongo no “kozo” (The Structure of Modem Japanese). Tokyo: Taishukan-Shoten.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1993 Gendai nihongo bunpö no rinkaku (Outline of Modern Japanese Grammar]. Tokyo: Taishükan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morris Halle & Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Theoretical Issues in Japanese Linguistics [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 2], Yukio Otsu & Anne Farmer (eds), 275–288. Cambridge MA: MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2004. A Distributed Morphology approach to syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In Proceedings of FASL 12. The Ottawa Meeting 2003, Olga Arnaudova, Wayles Browne, Marie-Luisa Rivero & Danijla Stojanovic (eds), 353–373. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Onoe, Keisuke. 1973. Bunkaku to ketsubun no waku -‘wa’ to ‘ga’ no yoohoo o megutte (Satzkern and -rahmen – speziell zu den Gebrauchsarten von ‘wa’ and ‘ga’). Gengo Kenkyu (Journal of Linguistic Society of Japan) 63: 1–26.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Öshima, Motoo. 1995. Wa to rentai shüshokusetsu közö (Wa and relative clause structure). In Nihongo no shudai to toritate, Takashi Masuoka (ed.), 109–138. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parry, Mair. 2000. Accordo e soggetti postverbali in piemontese. In Actes du XXIIe Congrès International de Lingüistique e Philologie Romane, Bruxelles 1998, VI. De la grammaire des formes à la grammaire du sens, 391–402. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Variation and change in the presentational constructions of North-Western Italo-Romance varieties. In Argument Structure in Flux: The Naples/Capri Papers [Studies in Language Companion Series 131], Elly van Gelderen, Jóhanna Barðdal & Michela Cennamo (eds), 511–548. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistic Society 4, 157–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2017. Complementizer-trace effects. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn, Martin B. H. Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds). Oxford: Wiley & Sons.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Exfoliation: Towards a derivational theory of clause size. Ms, MIT. <[URL]> (27 March 2020).
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2011. Case. In Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, Cedric Boeckx (ed.), 52–73. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pietroski, Paul M. 2019. Conjoining meanings. Semantics without Truth Values. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinto, Manuela. 1997. Licensing and Interpretation of Inverted Subjects in Italian. Utrecht: OTS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1995. Theticity and VS order: A case study. Sprachtypologie un Universalienforschung (STUF) 48: 3–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sæbø, Kjell Johan (2007) “Focus interpretation in Thetic statements: Alternative Semantics and Optimality Theory Pragmatics”, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16(1), 15–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sode, Frank 2014. Zur Semantik und Pragmatik des Konjunktivs der Indirektheit des Deutschen. PhD dissertation, Humboldt-Universität Berlin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sode, Frank & Truckebrodt, Hubert. 2018. Verbal position, verbal mood, and root phenomena in German. In Non-Canonical Verb Positioning in Main Clauses [Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 25], Mailin Antomo & Sonja Müller (eds), 92–135. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew G. 2000. Children in search of perfection: Towards a minimalist model of acquisition. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi (ed.). 2005. The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 2. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Craig. 2012. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6): 1–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saccon, Graziella. 1993. Post-verbal Subjects: A Study Based on Italian and its Dialects. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 2006. Theticity in a bidirectional theory of focus. In Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Logic and Language, Beata Gyuris (ed.), 130–137. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Focus interpretation in Thetic statements: Alternative semantics and optimality theory pragmatics. Journal of Logic and Language Information 36: 15–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitz, Kenneth L. 1974. Enriching the copula. The Review of Metaphysics 27(3): 495–512. (A Commemorative Issue: Thomas Aquinas).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sigwart, Christoph. 1888. Die Impersonalien. Eine logische Untersuchung. Freiburg: Mohr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorrenti, Elisa. 2015. Opacity and the Definiteness Effect: A Contrastive Analysis in Languages with and without Articles. PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 93]. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tabakowska, Elżbieta. 1997. Conceptualization: Conditionals as an instance of figure/ ground alignment. In Athanasiadou & Dirven (eds), 273–289.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Universals of Human Language Vol. 4, Joseph Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds), 625–649. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tanaka, Shin, Leiss, Elisabeth, Abraham, Werner & Fujinawa, Yasuhiro (eds). 2017. Grammatische Funktionen aus Sicht der japanischen and deutschen Grammatik [Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 24]. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tanaka, Shin. 2018. V2-Puzzle aus japanischer Perspektive: Zur Affinität von V2 und -wa in der Protasis. In Die Zukunft von Grammatik – die Grammatik der Zukunft, Elisabeth Leiss & Sonja Zeman (eds), 407–428. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. B-grade subjects and theticity. In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262], Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss & Yasuhiro Fujinawa (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. Phrasal stress. In The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, Vol. 9, 2nd edn, Keith Brown (ed.), 572–579. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria & Dimitrakopoulou, Maria. 2007. The Interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 23(2): 215–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uhmann, Susanne. 1998. Verbstellungsvariation in weil-Sätzen: Lexikalische Differenzierung mit grammatischen Folgen. Zeitschrift.für Sprachwissenschaft 17(1): 92–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ulrich, Miorita. 1985. Thetisch und kategorisch: Funktionen der Anordnung von Satzkonstituenten: Am Beispiel des Rumänischen und anderer Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 2001. Verb movement variation in Germanic and Optimality Theory. Habilitationsschrift, Neuphilologische Fakultät Tübingen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 1999a. Syntaxwandel and Degrammatikalisierung im heutigen Deutsch? – Noch einmal zu weil-Verbzweit. Deutsche Sprache 27: 3–26.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999b. Da, denn and weil – der Kampf der Konjunktionen. Zur Grammatikalisierung im kausalen Bereich. In Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie and Praxis, Rolf Thieroff, Matthias Tamrat & Nanna Fuhrhop (eds.), 69–81. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Werth, Paul. 1997. Conditionality as cognitive distance. In Athanasiadou & Dirven (eds), 243–272.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Daniel. 2018. Copular and Existential Sentences in Biblical Hebrew. PhD dissertation, University of the Free State Bloemfontein, South Africa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Włodarczyk, André. 1998. The proper treatment of the Japanese ‘wa’ and ‘ga’ particles. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Human Interface Technology 1998 (IWHIT’98). Aizu-Wakamatsu, Japan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. From Japanese to general linguistics: Staring with the wa- and ga-particles. In Paris Lectures on Japanese Linguistics, Włodarczyk André & Kurosio Shuppan (eds), 27–61. Tokio: Kurosio Shuppan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121(11): 1651–1670. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa & Nava, Emily. 2011. Encoding discourse-based meaning: Prosody vs. syntax. Implications for second language acquisition. Lingua 121: 652–669. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Izre'el, Shlomo
2025. Theticity and subject inversion: a misconception? What can we learn from colloquial Israeli Hebrew?. Journal of Speech Sciences 14 ► pp. e025015 ff. DOI logo
Abraham, Werner
2020. Introduction . In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 262], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue