Cover not available
Part of
Thetics and Categoricals
Edited by Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss and Yasuhiro Fujinawa
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262] 2020
► pp. 155–178

Strong and weak nominal reference in thetic and categorical sentences

sampling German and Chinese

 | Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
In this paper, it will be discussed how, in both German and Chinese, strong and weak reference in thetic and categorical sentences are expressed if held against Carlson’s (1977) semantic event types of stage-level/SL- and individual-level/IL-predicates. This article will put emphasis on correspondents of indefinite and bare nouns in German on personal pronouns, the construction zhè/nà (this/that) (+Num)+CL(assifier)+N or the repetition of DP, which can only express the strong reference of the subject. The problems arise from the fact that Chinese, in contrast to German, signals reference strength not by articles as there are no articles in Chinese. In order to come to a comparison, we will use the Carlsonian reference option as a criterion.
The article is structured as follows: Section 1 introduces the definition of the strong and weak nominal reference. The second section will discuss thetic and categoric constructions in German and Chinese. The third section deals with the interplay of SL- and IL-predicates, thetic/categorical sentences, and the nominal reference of subjects, whereby the SL- and the IL-predicate are each described in a separate section. Section 4 concludes this paper with a summary of the results obtained in the previous sections.
Keywords: bare noun, classifier, strongly referential, thetic and categorical sentence, weakly referential
Article outline
  • 1.Definition: Strong and weak nominal reference
  • 2.Thetic and categorical in German and Chinese
  • 3.Nominal reference with the stage-level and individual-level predicates in thetic and categorical sentences
    • 3.1Nominal reference with the stage-level predicates
      • SVO-structure
      • OSV construction
    • 3.2Nominal reference with the individual-level predicates
      • SVO construction
  • 4.Conclusion
  • 5.Final outlook
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.262.06lee
References (32)
References
Abraham, Werner. 32013. Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2014. Thetic sentence at the level of modality – An exercise in modal event quantification. Ms, LMU Munich.Google Scholar
. 2020. Thetics and categoricals revisited. From judgment to syntax to speech act. In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262], Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss & Yasuhiro Fujinawa (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aguilar-Guevara, Ana & Zwarts, Joost. 2010. Weak definites and reference to kinds. In Proceedings from SALT 20, Nan Li & David Lutz (eds), 179–196. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Aguilar-Guevara, Ana, Le Bruyn, Bert & Zwarts, Joost. 2014. Advance in weak referentiality. In Weak Referentiality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219], Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn & Joost Zwarts (eds), 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aguilar-Guevara, Ana & Schulpen, Maartje. 2014. Modified weak definites. In Weak Referentiality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219], Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn & Joost Zwarts (eds), 273–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brentano, Franz 1874/1924. Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. (English translation: Brentano, Franz 1973. Psychology from an Empirical Point of View, trans. by Antos C. Rancurello, D. B. Terrell, and Linda L. McAlister).Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1934/1982. Sprachtheorie [Ullstein Taschenbuch 1159]. Stuttgart: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N., Sussmann, Rachel, Klein, Nathalie & Tanenhaus, Michael. 2006. Weak definite noun phrases. In Proceedings of NELS 36, Amy Rose Deal, Christopher Davis & Youri Zabbal (eds), 179–196. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, Bleam, Tonia & Espinal, M. Teresa. 2006. Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation. In Non-definiteness and Plurality. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 95], Svetlana Vogeleer & Liliane Tasmowski (eds), 51–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hallab, Amina Christine. 2011. Referenziälität, Prädikation und die Struktur der Nominalphrase. Kontrastierung artikelloser nominaler Prädikate und Indefinita in Kopulasätzen im Deutschen. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars. 1981. On semantic scope. In Ambiguities in Intensional Contexts, Frank Heny (ed.), 47–81. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus 1997. Salienz und Referenz. Der Epsilonoperator in der Semantik der Nominalphrase und anaphorischer Pronomen [Studia Grammatica 43]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York NY: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C. -T. James. 1987. Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness. In The Representation of (In)definiteness, Eric Reuland & Alice ter Meulen (eds), 226–253. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ioup, Georgette. 1977. Specificity and the interpretation of quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 233–245.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 2001. Topic-comment structure and the contrast between SL and IL predicates. Journal of Semantics 18(2): 83–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorial and the thetic judgment. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9(2): 153–185.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topics, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese. A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molnár, Valéria. 1993. Zur Pragmatik und Grammatik des TOPIK-Begriffes. In Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur [Linguistische Arbeit 306], Marga Reis (ed.), 155–202. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russel, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorial distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 512–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. 2009. Two types of definites in natural language [Open Access Dissertations 122]. <[URL]> (23 March 2020).
Shyu, S. -i. 2011. Aspect selection and sentence final particle de. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the International Association on Chinese Linguistics, Nankai University, Tianjin.
Strawson, Peter F. 1950. On referring. Mind 59(235): 320–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsao, Feng-fu, 1979. A Functional Study of Topic in Chinese: The first step towards discourse analysis. Taipei: Student Book Co.Google Scholar
Wu, Guo 1992. The thetic-categorical distinction as expressed by subject-predicate sentence in Chinese. Australian Journal of Linguistics 12: 271–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhu, De-Xi 1982. Yǔfǎ jiǎngyì (Lectures on Chinese grammar). Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar