Cover not available
Part of
Thetics and Categoricals
Edited by Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss and Yasuhiro Fujinawa
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262] 2020
► pp. 283–310

Pseudocategorical or purely thetic?

A contrastive case study of how thetic statements are expressed in Japanese, English, and German

| Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
According to Marty (1918), thetic statements differ from categorical ones in making a simple existential recognition or rejection rather than a predication. In Japanese, where two subject particles, ga and wa, are presumably available for this differentiation (Kuroda 1972), the point can be expounded especially by the fact that da ‘to be’ hardly appears as an existential verb in ga-marked, but only in wa-marked sentences. Moreover, the same holds true for German optatives. I conclude from these observations that thetic statements find their expression not only pseudocategorically, as originally assumed by Marty (1918), but also in a purely thetic manner in natural languages, provided (at least) there is no personal deictic agreement at work between a syntactic subject and a syntactic predicate.
Keywords: predication, existential recognition or rejection, negation, personal agreement, VP-external subject
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.“Categorical,” “thetic,” and “pseudocategorical” after Marty (1918)
    • 2.1Categorical statements
    • 2.2Thetic statements
    • 2.3Pseudocategorical sentences
  • 3.Ga-sentences and SA-sentences as expressions of thetic statements
    • 3.1Ga- as opposed to wa-sentences in Japanese
    • 3.2SA- vs. non-SA-sentences in English and German
  • 4.Where does pure theticity come from?
  • 5.Optative – A purely thetic expression in German
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.262.10fuj
References (24)
References
Abraham, Werner. 2018. Valenzdiversifikationen: Was ist Thetikvalenz? In Valenz und Dependenz: Theorie und Praxis. Festschrift für Professor Ulrich Engel zum 90. Geburtstag, Andrzej Kątny (ed.), 69–90. Gdańsk: Institut für Germanistik der Universität Gdańsk.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Deguchi, Masanori. 2012. Revisiting the Thetic/Categorical distinction in Japanese. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 48(2): 223–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2006. How to Get an Object-es into the German Prefield. In Form, Structure, and Grammar: A Festschrift Presented to Günther Grewendorf on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Patrick Brandt & Eric Fuß (eds), 159–185. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fujinawa, Yasuhiro. 2017. Licht und Schatten der kategorischen/thetischen Aussage: Kopula und Lokalisierungsverben im deutsch-japanischen Vergleich. In Grammatische Funktionen aus Sicht der japanischen and deutschen Grammatik [Linguistische Berichte, Sonderhefte 24], Shin Tanaka, Elisabeth Leiss, Werner Abraham & Yasuhiro Fujinawa (eds), 15–40. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
. 2020. Kategorik und Thetik als Basis für Sprachvergleiche – dargestellt am Beispiel einer kontrastiven Linguistik des Deutschen und des Japanischen. In Zur Architektur von Thetik und Grammatik: Deutsch, Japanisch, Chinesisch und Norwegisch, Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss & Shin Tanaka (eds), 169–242. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila. 2006. Die Kopula und ihre Komplemente: Zur Kompositionalität in Kopulasätzen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther. 2002. Minimalistische Syntax. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Haberland, Hartmut. 2006. Thetic-Categorical distinction. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 2nd edn, Keith Brown, Anne H. Anderson, Laurie Bauer, Margie Berns, Graeme Hirst & Jim Miller (eds), 676–677. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2010. The Syntax of German. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 2018[1992]. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Beiträge zur deutschen Grammatik: Gesammelte Schriften von Tilman N. Höhle, Stefan Müller, Marga Reis & Frank Richter (eds), 381–416. Berlin: Language Science Press. [First published in Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2009. Sprachphilosophie. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst. 2014. Artenvielfalt in freier Wildbahn – Generative Grammatik. In Syntaxtheorien: Analysen im Vergleich, Jörg Hagemann & Sven Staffeldt (eds), 165–185. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Marty, Anton. 1918. Gesammelte Schriften, II. Bd., 1. Abt. Halle an der Saale: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1973. A University Grammar of English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Theticity. In Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe, Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwartz (eds), 255–308. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2017. Nominalization. In Handbook of Japanese Syntax, Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa & Hisashi Noda (eds), 271–332. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna. 1995. Theticity, VS order and the interplay of syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 48: 72–83.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter Frederic. 1950. On referring. Mind 59: 320–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Isaka, Yukari
2020. Infinitive constructions and theticity in German. In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 262], ► pp. 144 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 july 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.