Thetics and Categoricals
Editors
| Groningen University & University of Vienna
| University of Munich
| Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Thetics and Categoricals do not belong to the categories of German grammar. Thetics were introduced in logic as impersonal and broad focus constructions. They left profound and extensive traces in the logic of the late 19th century. For the class of thetic propositions, the criterion of textual exclusion plays the major role, i.e. the absence of any common grounds and of any anaphorism and background. In the foreground are sentences with subject inversion, subject suppression and detopicalization. These and only these are suitable for text beginnings, jokes, stage advertisements and solipsistic exclamatives, thus speech acts without communicative goals – free expressives in the true sense of the word. The contributions in this volume not only guide the reader through the history of philosophical logic and distributions of impersonals in contrast to Kantian categorical sentences, but also the correspondences in Japanese and Chinese which, in contrast to German and English, sport specific morphological markers for thetics as opposed to categoricals.
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 262] 2020. vii, 390 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
Table of Contents
-
Preface | pp. vii–viii
-
Introduction. Leading ideas and main conceptsWerner Abraham | pp. 1–10
-
Part 1. Logic and philosophical background
-
Categorical versus thetic sentences in the Universal Grammar of RealismElisabeth Leiss | pp. 13–30
-
Part 2. Impersonal constructions
-
Are theticity and sentence-focus encoded grammatical categories of Dutch?Thomas Belligh | pp. 33–68
-
Presentational and related constructions in Norwegian with reference to GermanLars Hellan and Dorothee Beermann | pp. 69–104
-
Copulas and information structure in Tanti DargwaNina Sumbatova | pp. 105–140
-
Part 3. From logic content to linguistic form
-
Infinitive constructions and theticity in GermanYukari Isaka | pp. 143–154
-
Strong and weak nominal reference in thetic and categorical sentences: sampling German and ChineseMeng-Chen Lee | pp. 155–178
-
Adjectives and mode of expression: Psych-adjectives in attributive and predicative usage and implications for the thetic/categorical discussionYoshiyuki Muroi | pp. 179–198
-
Unaccusativity and theticityPatricia Irwin | pp. 199–222
-
Part 4. The logic-linguistics across languages
-
From philosophical logic to linguistics: The architecture of information autonomy: Categoricals vs. Thetics revisitedWerner Abraham | pp. 225–282
-
Pseudocategorical or purely thetic? A contrastive case study of how thetic statements are expressed in Japanese, English, and GermanYasuhiro Fujinawa | pp. 283–310
-
The thetic/categorical distinction as difference in common ground update: With application to Biblical HebrewDaniel J. Wilson | pp. 311–334
-
Part 5. Lexical links to attitudinality
-
B-grade subjects and theticityShin Tanaka | pp. 337–350
-
Perception description, report and thetic statements: Roles of sentence-final particles in Japanese and modal particles in GermanJunji Okamoto | pp. 351–386
-
Index | p. 387
Cited by
Cited by 3 other publications
Belligh, Thomas
2020. Dutch thetic and sentence-focus constructions on the semantics-pragmatics interface.
Studies in Language 44:4 ► pp. 831 ff. 
Belligh, Thomas, Ludovic De Cuypere & Claudia Crocco
2022. Alternating Italian thetic and sentence-focus constructions.
Revue Romane. Langue et littérature. International Journal of Romance Languages and Literatures
Lee, Meng-Chen
2020.
In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 262],
► pp. 156 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 april 2022. 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.
Subjects & Metadata
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax