Part of
Thetics and Categoricals
Edited by Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss and Yasuhiro Fujinawa
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262] 2020
► pp. 225282
Abbott, Barbara
2008Presuppositions and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(5): 523–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner
1986Unaccusatives in German. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanisti-schen Linguistik (GAGL) 28: 1–72.Google Scholar
2000The 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
2006The 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
2010Types 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
2014Strong 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
2016Was 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
2018Valenzdiversifikationen: 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
2020Modality. Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian
2009There 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) 2015External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 55]. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006The 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) 2018Non-canonically Case-marked Subjects. Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull Papers [Studies in Language Companion Series 200]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef
2004Non-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
1988L’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
2018The silent argument of broad focus: Typology and predictions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina
1993Subject positions and e-positions. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica 7: 51–69. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
Breitbart, Anne
2014Dialect contact and the speed of Jespersen’s cycle in Middle Low German. Taal en Tongval 66(1): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brentano, Franz
1874Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
1986Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna
2004Toward 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
2012Protosyntax: A thetic (unaccusative) stage? Theoria et Historia Scientiarum IX. Nicolaus Copernicus University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
2001Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael J. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1993A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–297.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Brennan, Susan E.
1991Grounding 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
2012Revisiting 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
1990The Syntactic Roots of Semantic Partition. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. [URL]
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf
2001Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 555–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
2007Information Structure: The Syntax-discourse Interface. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline
1993German Intonational Patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E.
1993Grammar in Interaction. Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fujinawa, Yasuhiro
2017Licht 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
2011The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. Are uninterpretable features vulnerable? Theoretical Linguistics.
Grice, Martine & Baumann, Stefan
2002Deutsche Intonation und GToBI. Linguistische Berichte 191: 267–298.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline & Hoekstra, Teun
1988T-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
2006Generic 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
1993Deutsche Syntax generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
1994Detachment – The later the deeper [Working Paper 41 of the Son-derforschungsbereich 340]. Universities of Stuttgart and Tübingen.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1978Conditionals are topics. Language 54: 564–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3): 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986Conditions 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
1999Conditionals, grammatical. In Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, Keith Brown & Jim Miller (ed.). 87–91. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
1993Distributed 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
1968Pronomina and Textkonstitution. München: W. Fink.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees
1998Adverbial 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.
1958A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York NY: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irwin, Patricia
2012Unaccusativity at the Interfaces. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
2018Existential unaccusativity and new discourse referents. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1):142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019How 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
2001Dimensions of Topic-Comment. Linguistics 39: 641–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1958Two 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
1975The English Existential. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli
2003Quirky 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
2000Causal 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
1995Stage-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
2012Information 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
1972Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3): 269–320.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1972The categorical and the thetic judgment. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.Google Scholar
2003Milsark’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
1994Thetic 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
1974Syntactic 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
1994Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth
2020Categorical 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
2000Postverbal 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
1884–1897Über 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
1997Fukubun (Complex Sentences). Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.Google Scholar
Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard
2010Über 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
1974Gendai 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
1994Some 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
2004A 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
1973Bunkaku 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
1995Wa 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
2000Accordo 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
2013Variation 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
1978Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistic Society 4, 157–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David
2017Complementizer-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
2019Exfoliation: Towards a derivational theory of clause size. Ms, MIT. [URL] (27 March 2020).
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther
2011Case. In Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, Cedric Boeckx (ed.), 52–73. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Pietroski, Paul M.
2019Conjoining meanings. Semantics without Truth Values. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Pinto, Manuela
1997Licensing and Interpretation of Inverted Subjects in Italian. Utrecht: OTS.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1995Theticity 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
1987The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sode, Frank
2014Zur Semantik und Pragmatik des Konjunktivs der Indirektheit des Deutschen. PhD dissertation, Humboldt-Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Sode, Frank & Truckebrodt, Hubert
2018Verbal 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
1990From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radford, Andrew G.
2000Children in search of perfection: Towards a minimalist model of acquisition. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 34.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
(ed.) 2005The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 2. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craig
2012Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6): 1–69.Google Scholar
Saccon, Graziella
1993Post-verbal Subjects: A Study Based on Italian and its Dialects. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Sæbø, Kjell Johan
2006Theticity 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
2007Focus interpretation in Thetic statements: Alternative semantics and optimality theory pragmatics. Journal of Logic and Language Information 36: 15–33.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1987The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, Kenneth L.
1974Enriching the copula. The Review of Metaphysics 27(3): 495–512. (A Commemorative Issue: Thomas Aquinas).Google Scholar
Sigwart, Christoph
1888Die Impersonalien. Eine logische Untersuchung. Freiburg: Mohr.Google Scholar
Sorrenti, Elisa
2015Opacity and the Definiteness Effect: A Contrastive Analysis in Languages with and without Articles. PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
2002Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T.
2001Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 93]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabakowska, Elżbieta
1997Conceptualization: Conditionals as an instance of figure/ ground alignment. In Athanasiadou & Dirven (eds), 273–289.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1978Figure 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) 2017Grammatische Funktionen aus Sicht der japanischen and deutschen Grammatik [Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 24]. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Shin
2018V2-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
2020B-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
2006Phrasal stress. In The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, Vol. 9, 2nd edn, Keith Brown (ed.), 572–579. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
2011Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria & Dimitrakopoulou, Maria
2007The Interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 23(2): 215–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uhmann, Susanne
1998Verbstellungsvariation in weil-Sätzen: Lexikalische Differenzierung mit grammatischen Folgen. Zeitschrift.für Sprachwissenschaft 17(1): 92–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, Miorita
1985Thetisch 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.
1997Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten
2001Verb movement variation in Germanic and Optimality Theory. Habilitationsschrift, Neuphilologische Fakultät Tübingen.Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide
1999aSyntaxwandel 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
1997Conditionality as cognitive distance. In Athanasiadou & Dirven (eds), 243–272.Google Scholar
Wilson, Daniel
2018Copular and Existential Sentences in Biblical Hebrew. PhD dissertation, University of the Free State Bloemfontein, South Africa.Google Scholar
Włodarczyk, André
1998The 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
2005From 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
2011Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121(11): 1651–1670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa & Nava, Emily
2011Encoding discourse-based meaning: Prosody vs. syntax. Implications for second language acquisition. Lingua 121: 652–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

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 21 february 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.