Chapter published in:
Thetics and Categoricals
Edited by Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss and Yasuhiro Fujinawa
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262] 2020
► pp. 70103
References

References

Askedal, John Ole
1986On ergativity in Modern Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 9: 25–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon
1986The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9(1): 5–16.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Perry
1983John, Situations and Attitudes, London and Cambridge, MA MIT Press,Google Scholar
Bjerre, Anne & Bjerre, Tavs
2008bDanish there-constructions with transitive verbs. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stefan Müller (ed.), 46–66. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti & Vincent, Nigel
2005Position versus function in Scandinavian presentational constructions. In Proceedings of the LFG05 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 54–72. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Brentano, Franz
1995Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, trans. by Antos C. Runcurello, D. B. Terell & Linda L. McAlister. London: Routledge. ( Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt (1874, 1924), Sections V–IX 1973).Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
2001Lexical Functional Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann
2002Implementing Typed Feature Structure Grammars. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann, Flickinger, Dan, Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan
2005Minimal recursion semantics. Journal of Language and Computation 3: 281–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2007Impersonal and related constructions: A typological approach. http://​www​.deniscreissels​.fr​/public​/Creissels​-impers​.constr​.pdf (21 March 2020).
Creissels. Denis
2016Transitivity, valency, and voice. Ms, European Summer School in Linguistic Typology, Porquerolles.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary
2001Lexical Functional Grammar [Syntax and Semantics 34]. New York NY: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul
1946Elementær dansk grammatikk. Københvn: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Dowty, David
1991Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drubig, Hans Bernhard
1992Zur Frage der grammatischen Repräsentation thetischer und kategorischer Sätze. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.). Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 4: 142–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fenstad, Jens Erik, Halvorsen, Per-Kristian, Langholm, Tore & van Benthem, Johan
1985Equations, Schemata and Situations: A Framework for Linguistics Semantics [Technical Report 29]. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
2019‘Reflexives’ coding point of view of the subject. Presentation at SLE, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker & Haas, Florian
2011On the distribution of subject properties in formulaic presentationals of Germanic and Romance. A diachronic-typological approach. In Impersonal Constructions. A Cross-linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 124], Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds), 127–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hellan, Lars
1986Some core features of Norwegian syntax. Lecture, University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
1988Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012On ‘weak’ personal pronouns in Norwegian. Presented at Workshop on Object Shift, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
2019Construction-based Compositional Grammar. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 128: 101–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hellan, Lars & Platzack, Christer
1999Pronouns in Scandinavian languages. An overview. In Eurotyp: Clitics in the Languages of Europe 5 [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20–5], Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), 123–144. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hellan, Lars & Bruland, Tore
2015A cluster of applications around a Deep Grammar. In Proceedings from The Language & Technology Conference (LTC) 2015, Zygmunt Vetulani & Joseph Mariani (eds). Poznan.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars & Beermann, Dorothee
2019Thetische Repräsentationen und die Präsentativkonstruktion im Norwegischen und Deutschen. In Zur übereinzelsprachlichen Architektur von Thetik und Kategorik [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 97], Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss & Shin Tanaka (eds), 43–66. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Holen, Gordana Iljic
2007Automatic anaphora resolution for Norwegian. In 6th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, DAARC 2007, Lagos, Portugal, March 29–30, Antonio Branco (ed.), 151–166 Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A.
1986Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1980Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok and Sag, Ivan
2005English Object Extraposition: A Constraint-Based Approach. In: Müller, St. (ed) Proceedings of the HPSG05 Conference. CSLI Publications. http://​csli​-publications​.stanford​.edu/Google Scholar
Kiss, K.
(ed.) 2005Object Shift. Special issue of Theoretical Linguistics 31(1–2).Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1972The categorical and the thetic judgement. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William A.
1994Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In Proceedings of SALT 4, Mandy Harvey & Lynn Santelmann (eds), 220–229. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71]. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, Helge
1999Linking and optimality in the Norwegian presentational focus construction. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 22: 205–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Underspecification in Lexical Mapping Theory: The case of Norwegian existentials and resultatives. In Argument Realization, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 171–188. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Marty, Anton
1918Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. II, Part 1: Abteilung. Halle an der Saale: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line
2002Reanalyzing the definiteness effect: Evidence from Danish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 69: 1–75.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard
1974The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Formal Philosophy, Richmond Thomason (ed.), 141–162. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer
1983Existential sentences in English, Swedish, German and Icelandic. In Papers from the seventh Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Fred Karlsson (ed.), 80–100. Helsinki: University of HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan
1994Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. and Geoffrey K. Pullum
1988Expletive Noun Phrases in Subcategorized Positions. Linguistic Inquiry 19.4: 635–670.Google Scholar
Pütz, Herbert
1975Über die Syntax der Pronominalform es im modernen Deutsch [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 3]. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan
2004Predicates and their Subjects. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1995“Theticity” and VS order: A case study. Sprachtypologie und Universalien-forschung STUF 48: 3–31.Google Scholar
1996Theticity [Arbeitspapier 27 (Neue Folge)]. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Sveen, Andreas
1996Norwegian Impersonal Actives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959Éleménts de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten
1995Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1997Andreas Sveen: Norwegian impersonal actives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift Årgang 15.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Engdahl, Elisabet & Maling, Joan
2017Subject properties in presentational sentences in Icelandic and Swedish. In The Very Model of a Modern Linguist: In Honor of Helge Dyvik, Victoria Rosén & Koenrad De Smedt (eds). Bergen: Bergen Language and Linguistic Studies. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Åfarli, Tor.
1992The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions [Linguistik Aktuel/Linguistics Today 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar