Cover not available
Part of
Thetics and Categoricals
Edited by Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss and Yasuhiro Fujinawa
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262] 2020
► pp. 311–334

The thetic/categorical distinction as difference in common ground update

With application to Biblical Hebrew

| University of the Free State
The distinction between thetics and categoricals in natural language has been observed in more and more languages recently. The theoretical discussion about the thetic/categorical distinction has also become increasingly relevant. This article presents a few challenges to an assertion/judgment-based analysis of the thetic/categorical distinction and offers instead an analysis based on common ground update within a theory of alternative semantics. In this approach, I follow Murray (2009, 2010, 2014) and Roberts (2012) that each sentence offers different kinds of update to the common ground based on the question(s) under discussion (or at-issue/not-at-issue content). I suggest that thetics present a unique type of update which explains why sentences such as It is raining, prosodically inflected sentences (known as those with sentence focus), existentials, and presentatives have been called thetics. Each statement contributes to (or updates) the information interlocutors use, and this common ground shapes the assertions they make. I ultimately propose that the thetic/categorical distinction may no longer be helpful for a description of natural language. Instead, these phenomena can be situated within the increasingly robust frameworks which bridge the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interfaces. Finally, I apply this proposal to a construction type in Biblical Hebrew which I previously labelled a thetic construction in Wilson (2017, 2019).
Keywords: thetic, categorical, Ancient Hebrew, update, common ground, at-issue, not-at-issue, alternative semantics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background to thetic/categorical distinction
  • 3.Problems with the thetic/categorical distinction
  • 4.Situating theticity and categoricality
  • 5.Update in Biblical Hebrew
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.262.11wil
References (33)
References
Bailey, Nicholas Andrew. 2009. Thetic Constructions in Koine Greek: With Special Attention to Clauses with εἰµί be, γίνοµαι occur, ἔρχοµαι come, ἰδού/ἴδε behold, and Complement Clauses of ὁράω see’. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia, Ciconte, Francesco Maria & Cruschina, Silvio. 2013. Existential constructions in cross-linguistic perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics 25(1): 15–43.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia & Cruschina, Silvio. 2018. The silent argument of broad focus: Typology and predictions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brentano, F. 1870–1877[1956]. Die Lehre vom Richtigen Urteil, published posthumously in an edition edited by Franziska Mayer-Hillebrand. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Khalilov, Madzhid & Khalilova, Zaira. 2015. Valency and valency classes in Bezhta. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages: Introducing the Framework and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia, Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 541–570. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2015. Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), Harvard Dataverse, Version 2. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Macías, Jose Hugo Garcia. 2016. From the Unexpected to the Unbelievable: Thetics, Miratives and Exclamatives in Conceptual Space. PhD dissertation, University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
Marty, Anton. 1908. Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung der allgemeinen Grammatik und Sprachphilosophie. Halle an der Saale: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatav, Galia. 1997. The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series 34]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. The Semantics-pragmatics Interface of the Biblical Hebrew Verb Forms. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical 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: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud & Polinsky, Maria. 1997. Typological variation in sentence-focus constructions. In Proceedings of the Thirty-third Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the Panels, Kora Singer, Eggert Randall & Gregory Anderson (eds), 189–206. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Martin, Wayne Michael. 2010. Fichte’s logical legacy: Thetic judgment from the Wissenschaftslehre to Brentano. In Fichte and the Phenomenological Tradition, Violetta L. Waibel, J. Daniel Breazeale & Tom Rockmore (eds), 379–406. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan. 2003. Topics, Presuppositions, and Theticity: An Empirical Study of Verb-Subject Clauses in Albanian, Greek, and Serbo-Croat. PhD dissertation, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Murray, Sarah E. 2009. A Hamblin semantics for evidentials. In Proceedings of SALT 19, Ed Cormany, Satoshi Ito, and David Lutz (eds), 324–341. Washington DC: LSA. <[URL]> (28 March 2020).
2010. Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University. <[URL]> (28 March 2020).
2014. Varieties of update. Semantics and Pragmatics 7: 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5: 6–1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25(3): 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Theticity [Arbeitspapiere 27]. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Anne. 2016. Discourse principles in grammar: The thetic/categorical dichotomy. eTropic: Electronic Journal of Studies in the Tropics 9. <[URL]> (18 May 2016). DOI logo
Seidel, George Joseph. 1993. Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre of 1794: A Commentary on. West Lafayette IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
Shkapa, Maria. 2012. Cleft as a marker of a thetic sentence: Evidence from Irish and Russian. In Transforming Traditions: Studies in Archaeology, Comparative Linguistics and Narrative: Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium of Societas Celtas-Slavica, Held at Příbram, 26–29 July 2010 [Studia Celto-Slavica 6], Maxim Fomin, Václav Blažek & Piotr Stalmaszczyk (eds), 51–63. Łódź: Łódź University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre, 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C., 1978. Assertion. In P. Cole (ed.), Pragmatics, 315–332. New York: New YorkAcademia Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina. 2011. Complementation and Finiteness in Dargwa. Доклад на рабочем сове-‐щании про проблемам сложного предложения. Майнц, Университет г. Майнца, но-‐ябрь 2011.Google Scholar
Van der Merwe, Christiaan Hendrik Jacobus. 1999. The elusive Biblical Hebrew term וַיְהִי : A perspective in terms of its syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in 1 Samuel. Hebrew Studies 40(1): 83–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Daniel J. 2017. Copular and Existential Sentences in Biblical Hebrew. PhD dissertation, University of the Free State.Google Scholar
2019. Wayhi- and theticity in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 45(1): 89–118.Google Scholar
Zólyomi, Gábor. 2014. Copular Clauses and Focus Marking in Sumerian. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar