Cover not available
Part of
Thetics and Categoricals
Edited by Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss and Yasuhiro Fujinawa
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262] 2020
► pp. 225–282

From philosophical logic to linguistics

The architecture of information autonomy: Categoricals vs. Thetics revisited

| Groningen University | University of Vienna
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.
Keywords: narrow and wide sentential focus, Japanese ga vs. wa , presentational and existential sentence, prosody, thetic – categorical, valence, subject inversion, VP-integrated argument/subject
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
Published online: 22 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.262.09abr
References (125)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 2008. Presuppositions and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(5): 523–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner. 1986. Unaccusatives in German. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanisti-schen Linguistik (GAGL) 28: 1–72.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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
. 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
. 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
. 2020. Modality. Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.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
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian (eds). 2015. External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 55]. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Bentley, Delia & Cruschina, Silvio. 2018. The silent argument of broad focus: Typology and predictions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 1993. Subject positions and e-positions. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica 7: 51–69. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brentano, Franz. 1874. Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle 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
Casielles, Eugenia & Progovac, Ljiljana. 2012. Protosyntax: A thetic (unaccusative) stage? Theoria et Historia Scientiarum IX. Nicolaus Copernicus University.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
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–297.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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-discourse Interface. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 1993. German Intonational Patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction. Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Forthcoming. Are uninterpretable features vulnerable? Theoretical Linguistics.
Grice, Martine & Baumann, Stefan. 2002. Deutsche Intonation und GToBI. Linguistische Berichte 191: 267–298.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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 1994. Detachment – The later the deeper [Working Paper 41 of the Son-derforschungsbereich 340]. Universities of Stuttgart and Tübingen.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54: 564–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3): 515–540. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Conditionals, grammatical. In Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, Keith Brown & Jim Miller (ed.). 87–91. Oxford: Elsevier.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
Harweg, Rudolf. 1968. Pronomina and Textkonstitution. München: W. Fink.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York NY: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irwin, Patricia. 2012. Unaccusativity at the Interfaces. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
. 2018. Existential unaccusativity and new discourse referents. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1):142. DOI logoGoogle 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). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2001. Dimensions of Topic-Comment. Linguistics 39: 641–681. DOI logoGoogle 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
Jenkins, Lyle. 1975. The English Existential. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3): 269–320.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.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
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
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
. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2000. Postverbal subjects and the Mapping Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 31(4): 691–702. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
Masuoka, Takashi. 1997. Fukubun (Complex Sentences). Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.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
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
Minami, Fujio. 1974. Gendai nihongo no “kozo” (The Structure of Modem Japanese). Tokyo: Taishukan-Shoten.Google Scholar
1993 Gendai nihongo bunpö no rinkaku (Outline of Modern Japanese Grammar]. Tokyo: Taishükan.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
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
Narrog, Heiko. 2009 Modality in Japanese. The Layered Structure of the Clause and Hierarchies of Functional Categories [Studies in Language Companion Series 109]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
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
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistic Society 4, 157–189. DOI logoGoogle 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.. DOI logoGoogle 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
Pietroski, Paul M. 2019. Conjoining meanings. Semantics without Truth Values. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Pinto, Manuela. 1997. Licensing and Interpretation of Inverted Subjects in Italian. Utrecht: OTS.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1995. Theticity and VS order: A case study. Sprachtypologie un Universalienforschung (STUF) 48: 3–31.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sode, Frank 2014. Zur Semantik und Pragmatik des Konjunktivs der Indirektheit des Deutschen. PhD dissertation, Humboldt-Universität Berlin.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
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radford, Andrew G. 2000. Children in search of perfection: Towards a minimalist model of acquisition. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 34.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi (ed.). 2005. The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 2. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craig. 2012. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6): 1–69.Google Scholar
Saccon, Graziella. 1993. Post-verbal Subjects: A Study Based on Italian and its Dialects. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.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
. 2007. Focus interpretation in Thetic statements: Alternative semantics and optimality theory pragmatics. Journal of Logic and Language Information 36: 15–33.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, Kenneth L. 1974. Enriching the copula. The Review of Metaphysics 27(3): 495–512. (A Commemorative Issue: Thomas Aquinas).Google Scholar
Sigwart, Christoph. 1888. Die Impersonalien. Eine logische Untersuchung. Freiburg: Mohr.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
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 93]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabakowska, Elżbieta. 1997. Conceptualization: Conditionals as an instance of figure/ ground alignment. In Athanasiadou & Dirven (eds), 273–289.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
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
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
. 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). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. Phrasal stress. In The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, Vol. 9, 2nd edn, Keith Brown (ed.), 572–579. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: OUP.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uhmann, Susanne. 1998. Verbstellungsvariation in weil-Sätzen: Lexikalische Differenzierung mit grammatischen Folgen. Zeitschrift.für Sprachwissenschaft 17(1): 92–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, Miorita. 1985. Thetisch und kategorisch: Funktionen der Anordnung von Satzkonstituenten: Am Beispiel des Rumänischen und anderer Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 2001. Verb movement variation in Germanic and Optimality Theory. Habilitationsschrift, Neuphilologische Fakultät Tübingen.Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 1999a. Syntaxwandel and Degrammatikalisierung im heutigen Deutsch? – Noch einmal zu weil-Verbzweit. Deutsche Sprache 27: 3–26.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
Werth, Paul. 1997. Conditionality as cognitive distance. In Athanasiadou & Dirven (eds), 243–272.Google Scholar
Wilson, Daniel. 2018. Copular and Existential Sentences in Biblical Hebrew. PhD dissertation, University of the Free State Bloemfontein, South Africa.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
. 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
Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121(11): 1651–1670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa & Nava, Emily. 2011. Encoding discourse-based meaning: Prosody vs. syntax. Implications for second language acquisition. Lingua 121: 652–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Abraham, Werner
2020. Introduction . In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 262], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 june 2024. 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.