Cover not available
Part of
Thetics and Categoricals
Edited by Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss and Yasuhiro Fujinawa
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262] 2020
► pp. 1–10

What this volume is about

Article outline
  • Leading ideas and main concepts
  • Part 1.Logic and philosophical background
  • Part 2.Impersonal constructions and types of copula
  • Part 3.From logic content to linguistic form
  • Part 4.The logic-linguistics relation across languages
  • Part 5.Lexical links to attitudinality
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.262.int
References (29)
References
Abraham, Werner. 2020. From philosophical logic to linguistics. The architecture of information autonomy: Categoricals vs. thetics revisited. In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262], Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss & Yasuhiro Fujinawa (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breul, Carsten. 2004. Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An Integrated Syntactic, Semantic and Intonational Approach. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 68]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brentano, Franz. 1874. Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl 1934[2011]. Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language, 2nd rev. edn [Foundations of Semiotics 25], trans. Donald Fraser Goodwin, in collaboration with Achim Eschbach; with a preface by Werner Abraham. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.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: American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1998. On the grammar of pain. Functions of Language 5(1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatch, Rebecca. 2014. Theticity in Tiriyó: An Empirical Investigation. BA thesis, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. 1912[1978]. Frühe Schriften (1912–1916), Martin Heidegger, Gesamtausgabe, Vol. 1. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Irwin, Patricia. 2012. Unaccusativity at the Interfaces. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Kučanda, Dubravko. 1990. On the subject of existential there. In Working with Functional Grammar: Descriptive and Computational Applications, Mike Hannay & Elseline Vester (eds), 73–86. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.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 Press.Google Scholar
Lotze, Rudolf Hermann. 1843[1989]. Logik. Erstes Buch: Vom Denken (Reihe Logik), with an introduction by Georg Misch; newly edited 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 und psychologischem Subject resp. Praedicat. (Zwei Aufsätze, appeared 1897 in Archiv for systematische Philosophie, Vol. 3, 174–190 and 294–333).Google Scholar
Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard. 2010. Über thetische and categoricale Äußerungen im Spanischen (Ha muerto Franco vs. Franco ha muerto). <[URL]> (19 March 2020).
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The Raising of Predicates. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onoe, Keisuke. 1973. Bunkaku to ketsubun no waku – ‘wa’ to ‘ga’ no yoohoo o megutte (Sentence kernel and sentence frame – especially about the use of “wa” and “ga”). Gengo Kenkyu (Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan) 63: 1–26.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craig. 2012. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6): 1–69.Google Scholar
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph. 1907. Vom Ich als Prinzip der Philosophie oder über das Unbedingte im menschlichen Wissen. In Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling: Werke, Band 1. Leipzig: Cott.Google 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
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Shin. 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
Wilson, Daniel. 2018. Copular and Existential Sentences in Biblical Hebrew. PhD dissertation, University of the Free State Bloemfontein, South Africa.Google Scholar
. 2020. Syntactic and Semantic Variation in Copular Sentences: Insights from Classical Hebrew [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 261]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wöllstein-Leisten, Angelika. 2001. Die Syntax der dritten Konstruktion: Eine repräsen-tationelle Analyse zur Monosententialität von “zu”-Infinitiven im Deutschen [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 63]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Albert. 1986. Einleitung zu Thomas von Aquin (1256–1259): Von der Wahrheit (De veritate (Quaestio I)). Lateinisch- Deutsch [Philosophische Bibliothek 384]. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bartlett, Tom
2023. Chapter 3. Atopicality as the unmarked logical structure in Scottish Gaelic. In Reconnecting Form and Meaning [Studies in Language Companion Series, 230], ► pp. 71 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.