519019101 03 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code LA 262 Eb 15 9789027260871 06 10.1075/la.262 13 2020022071 00 EA E107 10 01 JB code LA 02 0166-0829 02 262.00 01 02 Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 11 01 JB code jbe-all 01 02 Full EBA collection (ca. 4,200 titles) 11 01 JB code jbe-eba-2023 01 02 Compact EBA Collection 2023 (ca. 700 titles, starting 2018) 11 01 JB code jbe-2020 01 02 2020 collection (131 titles) 11 01 JB code jbe-eba-2024 01 02 Compact EBA Collection 2024 (ca. 600 titles, starting 2019) 01 01 Thetics and Categoricals Thetics and Categoricals 1 B01 01 JB code 98348746 Werner Abraham Abraham, Werner Werner Abraham Groningen University & University of Vienna 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/98348746 2 B01 01 JB code 339403771 Elisabeth Leiss Leiss, Elisabeth Elisabeth Leiss University of Munich 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/339403771 3 B01 01 JB code 695403772 Yasuhiro Fujinawa Fujinawa, Yasuhiro Yasuhiro Fujinawa Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/695403772 01 eng 11 398 03 03 vii 03 00 390 03 01 23 415 03 2018 P240.5 04 Grammar, Comparative and general--Grammatical categories--Congresses. 04 Grammar, Comparative and general--Sentences--Congresses. 04 Rhetoric--Congresses. 04 Language and logic--Congresses. 10 LAN009060 12 CFK 24 JB code LIN.SEMAN Semantics 24 JB code LIN.SYNTAX Syntax 24 JB code LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 01 06 02 00 Contributions in this volume not only guide the reader through the history of philosophical logic and distributions of impersonals in contrast to Kantian categorical sentences, but also the correspondences in Japanese and Chinese which, in contrast to German and English, sport specific morphological markers for thetics as opposed to categoricals. 03 00 Thetics and Categoricals do not belong to the categories of German grammar. Thetics were introduced in logic as impersonal and broad focus constructions. They left profound and extensive traces in the logic of the late 19th century. For the class of thetic propositions, the criterion of textual exclusion plays the major role, i.e. the absence of any common grounds and of any anaphorism and background. In the foreground are sentences with sub­ject inversion, subject suppression and detopicalization. These and only these are suitable for text begin­nings, jokes, stage advertisements and solipsistic exclamatives, thus speech acts without com­mu­nicative goals – free expressives in the true sense of the word. The contribu­tions in this volume not only guide the reader through the history of philosophical logic and distributions of impersonals in contrast to Kantian categorical sentences, but also the correspondences in Japanese and Chinese which, in contrast to German and English, sport specific morphological markers for thetics as opposed to categoricals. 01 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/la.262.png 01 01 D502 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027207401.jpg 01 01 D504 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027207401.tif 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/la.262.hb.png 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/la.262.png 02 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/la.262.hb.png 03 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/la.262.hb.png 01 01 JB code la.262.pre 06 10.1075/la.262.pre vii viii 2 Miscellaneous 1 01 04 Preface Preface 01 eng 01 01 JB code la.262.int 06 10.1075/la.262.int 1 10 10 Chapter 2 01 04 Introduction Introduction 01 04 What this volume is about What this volume is about 1 A01 01 JB code 604415485 Werner Abraham Abraham, Werner Werner Abraham 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/604415485 01 eng 01 01 JB code la.262.p1 06 10.1075/la.262.p1 14 29 16 Section header 3 01 04 Part 1. Logic and philosophical background Part 1. Logic and philosophical background 01 eng 01 01 JB code la.262.01lei 06 10.1075/la.262.01lei 13 30 18 Chapter 4 01 04 Categorical versus thetic sentences in the Universal Grammar of Realism Categorical versus thetic sentences in the Universal Grammar of Realism 1 A01 01 JB code 767415486 Elisabeth Leiss Leiss, Elisabeth Elisabeth Leiss Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/767415486 01 eng 30 00

The aim of this paper is to outline that the notions of thetic versus categorical sentences are characteristic of a long tradition of philosophy, especially of the philosophy of Realism. Characteristic of Realism is a highly developed theory of the copula. Sentences consist of a subject, a rather abstract copula, and a predicate. Thus, the structure of any sentence and of any judgment is conceived as being triadic in nature. The copula appears – overtly or covertly – in synthetic sentences as well as in analytic sentences, both of which are categorical sentences (Roger Bacon 1240/2009: 70), whereby the analytic copula differs from the synthetic copula with respect to the mode of signifying reality. It will be evidenced that the function of analytic sentences is to build up a shared system of knowledge (mental lexicon), whereas synthetic sentences represent a technique to socialize individual experiences. According to the philosophy of Realism, the copula appears even in thetic sentences. Sentences without a copula are meant to be inconceivable. The working hypothesis is that in contrast to categorical sentences, thetic sentences are not triadic, but dyadic in structure. According to the Realist philosopher Lotze, thetic sentences consist of a copula and an amalgam of linguistically unstructured impressions, compressed in the predicate. In line with the philosophy of Realism, thetic sentences are conceived as some premature stage in the evolution of language. Thus, thetic sentences represent an embryonic stage of a categorical sentence as well as of thought (Lotze 1874/1989: 70–74). Thetic sentences are able to imitate the structure of categorical sentences (pseudo-subject – copula – pseudo-predicate). The conclusion is that thetic sentences are pseudo-structured “intransitive” judgments. They consist of a copula and one single chunk of “intransitive experience” only.

01 01 JB code la.262.p2 06 10.1075/la.262.p2 34 140 107 Section header 5 01 04 Part 2. Impersonal constructions Part 2. Impersonal constructions 01 eng 01 01 JB code la.262.02bel 06 10.1075/la.262.02bel 33 68 36 Chapter 6 01 04 Are theticity and sentence-focus encoded grammatical categories of Dutch? Are theticity and sentence-focus encoded grammatical categories of Dutch? 1 A01 01 JB code 364415487 Thomas Belligh Belligh, Thomas Thomas Belligh Ghent University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/364415487 01 eng 30 00

This article examines whether theticity and sentence-focus can be considered to be encoded grammatical categories of Dutch. After providing some background about theticity and sentence-focus, the concept ‘encoded grammatical category’ is operationalized along the lines of Integral Linguistics or Coserian Structural Functionalism. In order for a functional category to qualify as an encoded grammatical category of a language, the language should have at least one construction that encodes the category as a non-defeasible semantic property. The article provides a qualitative investigation of both corpus-based and constructed examples of five Dutch constructions that have hitherto been recognized in the literature as thetic or sentence-focus constructions. It is shown that none of the previously identified Dutch thetic and sentence-focus constructions grammatically encode theticity and sentence-focus as their non-defeasible semantics. All Dutch constructions have uses that are categorically opposed to the categories theticity and sentence-focus. Theticity and sentence-focus are therefore no independently encoded grammatical categories of Dutch, but rather categories of discourse and (normal) language use.

01 01 JB code la.262.03hel 06 10.1075/la.262.03hel 69 104 36 Chapter 7 01 04 Presentational and related constructions in Norwegian with reference to German Presentational and related constructions in Norwegian with reference to German 1 A01 01 JB code 91415488 Lars Hellan Hellan, Lars Lars Hellan NTNU, Trondheim 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/91415488 2 A01 01 JB code 278415489 Dorothee Beermann Beermann, Dorothee Dorothee Beermann NTNU, Trondheim 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/278415489 01 eng 30 00

This paper investigates constructions in Norwegian and German with an expletive pronoun in subject position, and for Norwegian also in object position. The discussion covers presentational, impersonal and extrapositional constructions in both languages, and in Norwegian also the ‘light reflexive’ seg in its interaction with presentationals. We relate the discussion to a parameter of theticity, whereby sentences with an expletive subject will count as thetic while sentences with a content-full NP subject will count as categorical. Also sentences with expletive object are argued to have a thetic value. Categorical sentences on their side are ranked according to a parameter of transitivity, accounting for constraints on presentational constructions in Norwegian, and seen as constituting an opposite dimension of constructional values to that of theticity.

01 01 JB code la.262.04sum 06 10.1075/la.262.04sum 105 140 36 Chapter 8 01 04 Copulas and information structure in Tanti Dargwa Copulas and information structure in Tanti Dargwa 1 A01 01 JB code 157415490 Nina R. Sumbatova Sumbatova, Nina R. Nina R. Sumbatova Russian State University for the Humanities 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/157415490 01 eng 30 00

The paper describes the basic types of independent clauses in the Tanti dialect of Dargwa (Nakh-Dagestanian (= East Caucasian), Russian Federation). Most independent clauses in Tanti are headed either by the identificational copula or a finite verb form. Less frequently, we meet sentences headed by one of the four existential copulas. There are also some independent clauses headed by a non-finite verb form or a non-verbal predicate and containing no copula. The paper shows that the basic difference between the sentences with different copula types and without any copulas is the type of information structure of the relevant sentence. The identificational copula is a feature of categorical sentences; the position of the copula points at the focused constituent. The existential copulas tend to head thetic structures. Copula-less converbal clauses are often interpreted as mirative sentences, which can also be analyzed as thetic, but differ from the existential structures by the moment when the speaker obtains the knowledge of the situation.

01 01 JB code la.262.p3 06 10.1075/la.262.p3 144 222 79 Section header 9 01 04 Part 3. From logic content to linguistic form Part 3. From logic content to linguistic form 01 eng 01 01 JB code la.262.05yuk 06 10.1075/la.262.05yuk 143 154 12 Chapter 10 01 04 Infinitive constructions and theticity in German Infinitive constructions and theticity in German 1 A01 01 JB code 181415491 Yukari Isaka Isaka, Yukari Yukari Isaka Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/181415491 01 eng 30 00

In this research, I examine the correlation of coherent/incoherent constructions with thetic/categorical judgments in modern German, based on ideas put forward by Isaka (2020). Coherence/incoherence is a syntactic distinction first studied extensively by Bech (1983), while theticity/categoricality is a semantic distinction discussed by Marty (1918). An analysis of authentic data of the verb wagen ‘dare’ with subject keiner ‘no one’ and er ‘he’ reveals that incoherent constructions are less preferred for the purpose of expressing thetic judgments with keiner ‘no one’. In this avoidance of incoherence for theticity, there is a correspondence of form with content. To express a thetic judgment, which is also called simple judgment because of its indivisibility, incoherent constructions, consisting of two clauses, seem to be less suitable.

01 01 JB code la.262.06lee 06 10.1075/la.262.06lee 155 178 24 Chapter 11 01 04 Strong and weak nominal reference in thetic and categorical sentences Strong and weak nominal reference in thetic and categorical sentences 01 04 sampling German and Chinese sampling German and Chinese 1 A01 01 JB code 140415492 Meng-Chen Lee Lee, Meng-Chen Meng-Chen Lee Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/140415492 01 eng 30 00

In this paper, it will be discussed how, in both German and Chinese, strong and weak reference in thetic and categorical sentences are expressed if held against Carlson’s (1977) semantic event types of stage-level/SL- and individual-level/IL-predicates. This article will put emphasis on correspondents of indefinite and bare nouns in German on personal pronouns, the construction zhè/nà (this/that) (+Num)+CL(assifier)+N or the repetition of DP, which can only express the strong reference of the subject. The problems arise from the fact that Chinese, in contrast to German, signals reference strength not by articles as there are no articles in Chinese. In order to come to a comparison, we will use the Carlsonian reference option as a criterion.

The article is structured as follows: Section 1 introduces the definition of the strong and weak nominal reference. The second section will discuss thetic and categoric constructions in German and Chinese. The third section deals with the interplay of SL- and IL-predicates, thetic/categorical sentences, and the nominal reference of subjects, whereby the SL- and the IL-predicate are each described in a separate section. Section 4 concludes this paper with a summary of the results obtained in the previous sections.

01 01 JB code la.262.07mur 06 10.1075/la.262.07mur 179 198 20 Chapter 12 01 04 Adjectives and mode of expression Adjectives and mode of expression 01 04 Psych-adjectives in attributive and predicative usage and implications for the thetic/categorical discussion Psych-adjectives in attributive and predicative usage and implications for the thetic/categorical discussion 1 A01 01 JB code 848415493 Yoshiyuki Muroi Muroi, Yoshiyuki Yoshiyuki Muroi Waseda University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/848415493 01 eng 30 00

The German psych-adjectives glücklich (happy) and traurig (sad) and their Japanese counterparts shiawase and kanashii are considered here with regard to their semantics, the hierarchy of thematic roles, and the mode of expression. The attributive usage has a semantic structure with broad focus on the entire structure, which shows a similarity to thetic judgments despite its nonpropositional status. By contrast, the predicative usage with the subject/topic as the stimulus denotes a permanent property of the entity evoking the emotion and consists of two components respectively with narrow focus, which corresponds to the double judgment of categoricals. This structure is possible owing to the property of the copulative predication that it gives the sentence definiteness, but does not give any semantic role to the arguments.

01 01 JB code la.262.08irw 06 10.1075/la.262.08irw 199 222 24 Chapter 13 01 04 Unaccusativity and theticity Unaccusativity and theticity 1 A01 01 JB code 805415494 Patricia Irwin Irwin, Patricia Patricia Irwin Swarthmore College 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/805415494 01 eng 30 00

This chapter examines theticity in intransitive sentences. Starting with the assumption that the function of a thetic sentence is to introduce a referent into a discourse (without predicating anything of it), two requirements are proposed to characterize thetic intransitives: (A) the sole argument of the sentence must be vP-internal; and (B) the sole argument must be interpreted as a property. Both requirements have precedents in previous work: (A) incorporates Guéron’s (1980) observations on what she called the Presentation LF; and (B) builds on McNally’s (1998a) work on the semantics and discourse function of existential sentences. These requirements show that theticity cannot be explained by lexical verb or verb class; what matters for theticity is syntactic structure and semantic interpretation. It is then shown that the thetic/categorical distinction cuts across a commonly-accepted distinction in intransitive sentences, the unergative-unaccusative distinction. Specifically, only a subtype of unaccusative sentence, those with the “existential unaccusative” structure (Irwin 2018a), satisfies (A) and (B). By contrast, change-of-state unaccusatives pattern with unergative sentences in not being thetic.

01 01 JB code la.262.p4 06 10.1075/la.262.p4 226 333 108 Section header 14 01 04 Part 4. The logic-linguistics across languages Part 4. The logic-linguistics across languages 01 eng 01 01 JB code la.262.09abr 06 10.1075/la.262.09abr 225 282 58 Chapter 15 01 04 From philosophical logic to linguistics From philosophical logic to linguistics 01 04 The architecture of information autonomy: Categoricals vs. Thetics revisited The architecture of information autonomy: Categoricals vs. Thetics revisited 1 A01 01 JB code 342415495 Werner Abraham Abraham, Werner Werner Abraham Groningen University/University of Vienna 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/342415495 01 eng 30 00

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.

01 01 JB code la.262.10fuj 06 10.1075/la.262.10fuj 283 310 28 Chapter 16 01 04 Pseudocategorical or purely thetic? Pseudocategorical or purely thetic? 01 04 A contrastive case study of how thetic statements are expressed in Japanese, English, and German A contrastive case study of how thetic statements are expressed in Japanese, English, and German 1 A01 01 JB code 115415496 Yasuhiro Fujinawa Fujinawa, Yasuhiro Yasuhiro Fujinawa Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/115415496 01 eng 30 00

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.

01 01 JB code la.262.11wil 06 10.1075/la.262.11wil 311 334 24 Chapter 17 01 04 The thetic/categorical distinction as difference in common ground update The thetic/categorical distinction as difference in common ground update 01 04 With application to Biblical Hebrew With application to Biblical Hebrew 1 A01 01 JB code 187415497 Daniel J. Wilson Wilson, Daniel J. Daniel J. Wilson University of the Free State 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/187415497 01 eng 30 00

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).

01 01 JB code la.262.p5 06 10.1075/la.262.p5 338 385 48 Section header 18 01 04 Part 5. Lexical links to attitudinality Part 5. Lexical links to attitudinality 01 eng 01 01 JB code la.262.12tan 06 10.1075/la.262.12tan 337 350 14 Chapter 19 01 04 B-grade subjects and theticity B-grade subjects and theticity 1 A01 01 JB code 781415498 Shin Tanaka Tanaka, Shin Shin Tanaka Keio University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/781415498 01 eng 30 00

This study investigates the linguistic subject in categorical and thetic sentences. In the “subjectless” thetic sentence, as Kuroda (1972) pointed out, we have a nonprototypical subject, a B-grade subject, which is preferably combined in Japanese with the nominative marker ga. By contrasting B-grade subjects in Japanese with their corresponding expressions in German (and other languages), we discover two types of subjects, internal and external. In Japanese, B-grade subjects are realizations of internal subjects, which are verbalized differently in other languages as a subject, as a dummy subject, or an object. Comparing different realization forms of weather expressions crosslinguistically, we suggest that the language-specific realizations of B-grade subjects correspond to three types of thetic judgments: entity-central, event-central, and mixed type of both.

01 01 JB code la.262.13oka 06 10.1075/la.262.13oka 351 386 36 Chapter 20 01 04 Perception description, report and thetic statements Perception description, report and thetic statements 01 04 Roles of sentence-final particles in Japanese and modal particles in German Roles of sentence-final particles in Japanese and modal particles in German 1 A01 01 JB code 588415499 Junji Okamoto Okamoto, Junji Junji Okamoto Gakushuin University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/588415499 01 eng 30 00

This paper aims to explain the relationship between thetic statements and two groups of particles, i.e. Japanese sentence-final particles (sfps) and German modal particles (mps). Thetic statements are generally associated with predicates of temporary states, verbs of existence or verbs of appearance. By examining the properties of predicates in thetic statements, I argue that perception description is a key characteristic for theticity. I propose a common representational framework (Pragmatic Function Representation; PFR) and a distributional map (Spectrum for Persons Involved and Reference Points; SfPI&RP) to capture commonalities and differences of sfps and mps. What is common in the use of sfps and mps is that they both can contribute to form a speech act directed to addressees (report), so that the sentences thus formed are non-thetic. Most sfps contribute to convert private expressions into public ones, which is not the case in German mps.

01 01 JB code la.262.ti 06 10.1075/la.262.ti Miscellaneous 21 01 04 Index Index 01 01 JB code la.262.index 06 10.1075/la.262.index 387 387 1 Miscellaneous 22 01 04 Index Index 01 eng
01 JB code JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/la.262 Amsterdam NL 00 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 04 01 00 20200722 C 2020 John Benjamins D 2020 John Benjamins 02 WORLD 13 15 9789027207401 WORLD 09 01 JB 3 John Benjamins e-Platform 03 https://jbe-platform.com 29 https://jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027260871 21 01 00 Unqualified price 02 99.00 EUR 01 00 Unqualified price 02 83.00 GBP GB 01 00 Unqualified price 02 149.00 USD
596026831 03 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code LA 262 GE 15 9789027260871 06 10.1075/la.262 13 2020022071 00 EA E133 10 01 JB code LA 02 JB code 0166-0829 02 262.00 01 02 Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 01 01 Thetics and Categoricals Thetics and Categoricals 1 B01 01 JB code 98348746 Werner Abraham Abraham, Werner Werner Abraham Groningen University & University of Vienna 2 B01 01 JB code 339403771 Elisabeth Leiss Leiss, Elisabeth Elisabeth Leiss University of Munich 3 B01 01 JB code 695403772 Yasuhiro Fujinawa Fujinawa, Yasuhiro Yasuhiro Fujinawa Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 01 eng 11 398 03 03 vii 03 00 390 03 24 JB code LIN.SEMAN Semantics 24 JB code LIN.SYNTAX Syntax 24 JB code LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 10 LAN009060 12 CFK 01 06 02 00 Contributions in this volume not only guide the reader through the history of philosophical logic and distributions of impersonals in contrast to Kantian categorical sentences, but also the correspondences in Japanese and Chinese which, in contrast to German and English, sport specific morphological markers for thetics as opposed to categoricals. 03 00 Thetics and Categoricals do not belong to the categories of German grammar. Thetics were introduced in logic as impersonal and broad focus constructions. They left profound and extensive traces in the logic of the late 19th century. For the class of thetic propositions, the criterion of textual exclusion plays the major role, i.e. the absence of any common grounds and of any anaphorism and background. In the foreground are sentences with sub­ject inversion, subject suppression and detopicalization. These and only these are suitable for text begin­nings, jokes, stage advertisements and solipsistic exclamatives, thus speech acts without com­mu­nicative goals – free expressives in the true sense of the word. The contribu­tions in this volume not only guide the reader through the history of philosophical logic and distributions of impersonals in contrast to Kantian categorical sentences, but also the correspondences in Japanese and Chinese which, in contrast to German and English, sport specific morphological markers for thetics as opposed to categoricals. 01 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/la.262.png 01 01 D502 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027207401.jpg 01 01 D504 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027207401.tif 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/la.262.hb.png 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/la.262.png 02 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/la.262.hb.png 03 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/la.262.hb.png 01 01 JB code la.262.pre 06 10.1075/la.262.pre Miscellaneous 1 01 04 Preface Preface 01 01 JB code la.262.int 06 10.1075/la.262.int 2 10 9 Chapter 2 01 04 Introduction Introduction 01 04 What this volume is about What this volume is about 1 A01 01 JB code 604415485 Werner Abraham Abraham, Werner Werner Abraham 01 01 JB code la.262.p1 06 10.1075/la.262.p1 14 29 16 Section header 3 01 04 Part 1. Logic and philosophical background Part 1. Logic and philosophical background 01 01 JB code la.262.01lei 06 10.1075/la.262.01lei 14 29 16 Chapter 4 01 04 Categorical versus thetic sentences in the Universal Grammar of Realism Categorical versus thetic sentences in the Universal Grammar of Realism 1 A01 01 JB code 767415486 Elisabeth Leiss Leiss, Elisabeth Elisabeth Leiss Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München 01 01 JB code la.262.p2 06 10.1075/la.262.p2 34 140 107 Section header 5 01 04 Part 2. Impersonal constructions Part 2. Impersonal constructions 01 01 JB code la.262.02bel 06 10.1075/la.262.02bel 34 68 35 Chapter 6 01 04 Are theticity and sentence-focus encoded grammatical categories of Dutch? Are theticity and sentence-focus encoded grammatical categories of Dutch? 1 A01 01 JB code 364415487 Thomas Belligh Belligh, Thomas Thomas Belligh Ghent University 01 01 JB code la.262.03hel 06 10.1075/la.262.03hel 70 103 34 Chapter 7 01 04 Presentational and related constructions in Norwegian with reference to German Presentational and related constructions in Norwegian with reference to German 1 A01 01 JB code 91415488 Lars Hellan Hellan, Lars Lars Hellan NTNU, Trondheim 2 A01 01 JB code 278415489 Dorothee Beermann Beermann, Dorothee Dorothee Beermann NTNU, Trondheim 01 01 JB code la.262.04sum 06 10.1075/la.262.04sum 106 140 35 Chapter 8 01 04 Copulas and information structure in Tanti Dargwa Copulas and information structure in Tanti Dargwa 1 A01 01 JB code 157415490 Nina R. Sumbatova Sumbatova, Nina R. Nina R. Sumbatova Russian State University for the Humanities 01 01 JB code la.262.p3 06 10.1075/la.262.p3 144 222 79 Section header 9 01 04 Part 3. From logic content to linguistic form Part 3. From logic content to linguistic form 01 01 JB code la.262.05yuk 06 10.1075/la.262.05yuk 144 153 10 Chapter 10 01 04 Infinitive constructions and theticity in German Infinitive constructions and theticity in German 1 A01 01 JB code 181415491 Yukari Isaka Isaka, Yukari Yukari Isaka Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 01 01 JB code la.262.06lee 06 10.1075/la.262.06lee 156 177 22 Chapter 11 01 04 Strong and weak nominal reference in thetic and categorical sentences Strong and weak nominal reference in thetic and categorical sentences 01 04 sampling German and Chinese sampling German and Chinese 1 A01 01 JB code 140415492 Meng-Chen Lee Lee, Meng-Chen Meng-Chen Lee Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich 01 01 JB code la.262.07mur 06 10.1075/la.262.07mur 180 197 18 Chapter 12 01 04 Adjectives and mode of expression Adjectives and mode of expression 01 04 Psych-adjectives in attributive and predicative usage and implications for the thetic/categorical discussion Psych-adjectives in attributive and predicative usage and implications for the thetic/categorical discussion 1 A01 01 JB code 848415493 Yoshiyuki Muroi Muroi, Yoshiyuki Yoshiyuki Muroi Waseda University 01 01 JB code la.262.08irw 06 10.1075/la.262.08irw 200 222 23 Chapter 13 01 04 Unaccusativity and theticity Unaccusativity and theticity 1 A01 01 JB code 805415494 Patricia Irwin Irwin, Patricia Patricia Irwin Swarthmore College 01 01 JB code la.262.p4 06 10.1075/la.262.p4 226 333 108 Section header 14 01 04 Part 4. The logic-linguistics across languages Part 4. The logic-linguistics across languages 01 01 JB code la.262.09abr 06 10.1075/la.262.09abr 226 281 56 Chapter 15 01 04 From philosophical logic to linguistics From philosophical logic to linguistics 01 04 The architecture of information autonomy: Categoricals vs. Thetics revisited The architecture of information autonomy: Categoricals vs. Thetics revisited 1 A01 01 JB code 342415495 Werner Abraham Abraham, Werner Werner Abraham Groningen University/University of Vienna 01 01 JB code la.262.10fuj 06 10.1075/la.262.10fuj 284 309 26 Chapter 16 01 04 Pseudocategorical or purely thetic? Pseudocategorical or purely thetic? 01 04 A contrastive case study of how thetic statements are expressed in Japanese, English, and German A contrastive case study of how thetic statements are expressed in Japanese, English, and German 1 A01 01 JB code 115415496 Yasuhiro Fujinawa Fujinawa, Yasuhiro Yasuhiro Fujinawa Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 01 01 JB code la.262.11wil 06 10.1075/la.262.11wil 312 333 22 Chapter 17 01 04 The thetic/categorical distinction as difference in common ground update The thetic/categorical distinction as difference in common ground update 01 04 With application to Biblical Hebrew With application to Biblical Hebrew 1 A01 01 JB code 187415497 Daniel J. Wilson Wilson, Daniel J. Daniel J. Wilson University of the Free State 01 01 JB code la.262.p5 06 10.1075/la.262.p5 338 385 48 Section header 18 01 04 Part 5. Lexical links to attitudinality Part 5. Lexical links to attitudinality 01 01 JB code la.262.12tan 06 10.1075/la.262.12tan 338 350 13 Chapter 19 01 04 B-grade subjects and theticity B-grade subjects and theticity 1 A01 01 JB code 781415498 Shin Tanaka Tanaka, Shin Shin Tanaka Keio University 01 01 JB code la.262.13oka 06 10.1075/la.262.13oka 352 385 34 Chapter 20 01 04 Perception description, report and thetic statements Perception description, report and thetic statements 01 04 Roles of sentence-final particles in Japanese and modal particles in German Roles of sentence-final particles in Japanese and modal particles in German 1 A01 01 JB code 588415499 Junji Okamoto Okamoto, Junji Junji Okamoto Gakushuin University 01 01 JB code la.262.ti 06 10.1075/la.262.ti Miscellaneous 21 01 04 Index Index 01 01 JB code la.262.index 06 10.1075/la.262.index 387 387 1 Miscellaneous 22 01 04 Index Index 01 JB code JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 https://benjamins.com Amsterdam NL 00 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 04 01 00 20200722 C 2020 John Benjamins D 2020 John Benjamins 02 WORLD 13 15 9789027207401 WORLD 03 01 JB 17 Google 03 https://play.google.com/store/books 21 01 00 Unqualified price 00 99.00 EUR 01 00 Unqualified price 00 83.00 GBP 01 00 Unqualified price 00 149.00 USD 958019100 03 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code LA 262 Hb 15 9789027207401 06 10.1075/la.262 13 2020022070 00 BB 08 850 gr 10 01 JB code LA 02 0166-0829 02 262.00 01 02 Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 01 01 Thetics and Categoricals Thetics and Categoricals 1 B01 01 JB code 98348746 Werner Abraham Abraham, Werner Werner Abraham Groningen University & University of Vienna 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/98348746 2 B01 01 JB code 339403771 Elisabeth Leiss Leiss, Elisabeth Elisabeth Leiss University of Munich 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/339403771 3 B01 01 JB code 695403772 Yasuhiro Fujinawa Fujinawa, Yasuhiro Yasuhiro Fujinawa Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/695403772 01 eng 11 398 03 03 vii 03 00 390 03 01 23 415 03 2018 P240.5 04 Grammar, Comparative and general--Grammatical categories--Congresses. 04 Grammar, Comparative and general--Sentences--Congresses. 04 Rhetoric--Congresses. 04 Language and logic--Congresses. 10 LAN009060 12 CFK 24 JB code LIN.SEMAN Semantics 24 JB code LIN.SYNTAX Syntax 24 JB code LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 01 06 02 00 Contributions in this volume not only guide the reader through the history of philosophical logic and distributions of impersonals in contrast to Kantian categorical sentences, but also the correspondences in Japanese and Chinese which, in contrast to German and English, sport specific morphological markers for thetics as opposed to categoricals. 03 00 Thetics and Categoricals do not belong to the categories of German grammar. Thetics were introduced in logic as impersonal and broad focus constructions. They left profound and extensive traces in the logic of the late 19th century. For the class of thetic propositions, the criterion of textual exclusion plays the major role, i.e. the absence of any common grounds and of any anaphorism and background. In the foreground are sentences with sub­ject inversion, subject suppression and detopicalization. These and only these are suitable for text begin­nings, jokes, stage advertisements and solipsistic exclamatives, thus speech acts without com­mu­nicative goals – free expressives in the true sense of the word. The contribu­tions in this volume not only guide the reader through the history of philosophical logic and distributions of impersonals in contrast to Kantian categorical sentences, but also the correspondences in Japanese and Chinese which, in contrast to German and English, sport specific morphological markers for thetics as opposed to categoricals. 01 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/la.262.png 01 01 D502 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027207401.jpg 01 01 D504 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027207401.tif 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/la.262.hb.png 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/la.262.png 02 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/la.262.hb.png 03 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/la.262.hb.png 01 01 JB code la.262.pre 06 10.1075/la.262.pre vii viii 2 Miscellaneous 1 01 04 Preface Preface 01 eng 01 01 JB code la.262.int 06 10.1075/la.262.int 1 10 10 Chapter 2 01 04 Introduction Introduction 01 04 What this volume is about What this volume is about 1 A01 01 JB code 604415485 Werner Abraham Abraham, Werner Werner Abraham 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/604415485 01 eng 01 01 JB code la.262.p1 06 10.1075/la.262.p1 14 29 16 Section header 3 01 04 Part 1. Logic and philosophical background Part 1. Logic and philosophical background 01 eng 01 01 JB code la.262.01lei 06 10.1075/la.262.01lei 13 30 18 Chapter 4 01 04 Categorical versus thetic sentences in the Universal Grammar of Realism Categorical versus thetic sentences in the Universal Grammar of Realism 1 A01 01 JB code 767415486 Elisabeth Leiss Leiss, Elisabeth Elisabeth Leiss Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/767415486 01 eng 30 00

The aim of this paper is to outline that the notions of thetic versus categorical sentences are characteristic of a long tradition of philosophy, especially of the philosophy of Realism. Characteristic of Realism is a highly developed theory of the copula. Sentences consist of a subject, a rather abstract copula, and a predicate. Thus, the structure of any sentence and of any judgment is conceived as being triadic in nature. The copula appears – overtly or covertly – in synthetic sentences as well as in analytic sentences, both of which are categorical sentences (Roger Bacon 1240/2009: 70), whereby the analytic copula differs from the synthetic copula with respect to the mode of signifying reality. It will be evidenced that the function of analytic sentences is to build up a shared system of knowledge (mental lexicon), whereas synthetic sentences represent a technique to socialize individual experiences. According to the philosophy of Realism, the copula appears even in thetic sentences. Sentences without a copula are meant to be inconceivable. The working hypothesis is that in contrast to categorical sentences, thetic sentences are not triadic, but dyadic in structure. According to the Realist philosopher Lotze, thetic sentences consist of a copula and an amalgam of linguistically unstructured impressions, compressed in the predicate. In line with the philosophy of Realism, thetic sentences are conceived as some premature stage in the evolution of language. Thus, thetic sentences represent an embryonic stage of a categorical sentence as well as of thought (Lotze 1874/1989: 70–74). Thetic sentences are able to imitate the structure of categorical sentences (pseudo-subject – copula – pseudo-predicate). The conclusion is that thetic sentences are pseudo-structured “intransitive” judgments. They consist of a copula and one single chunk of “intransitive experience” only.

01 01 JB code la.262.p2 06 10.1075/la.262.p2 34 140 107 Section header 5 01 04 Part 2. Impersonal constructions Part 2. Impersonal constructions 01 eng 01 01 JB code la.262.02bel 06 10.1075/la.262.02bel 33 68 36 Chapter 6 01 04 Are theticity and sentence-focus encoded grammatical categories of Dutch? Are theticity and sentence-focus encoded grammatical categories of Dutch? 1 A01 01 JB code 364415487 Thomas Belligh Belligh, Thomas Thomas Belligh Ghent University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/364415487 01 eng 30 00

This article examines whether theticity and sentence-focus can be considered to be encoded grammatical categories of Dutch. After providing some background about theticity and sentence-focus, the concept ‘encoded grammatical category’ is operationalized along the lines of Integral Linguistics or Coserian Structural Functionalism. In order for a functional category to qualify as an encoded grammatical category of a language, the language should have at least one construction that encodes the category as a non-defeasible semantic property. The article provides a qualitative investigation of both corpus-based and constructed examples of five Dutch constructions that have hitherto been recognized in the literature as thetic or sentence-focus constructions. It is shown that none of the previously identified Dutch thetic and sentence-focus constructions grammatically encode theticity and sentence-focus as their non-defeasible semantics. All Dutch constructions have uses that are categorically opposed to the categories theticity and sentence-focus. Theticity and sentence-focus are therefore no independently encoded grammatical categories of Dutch, but rather categories of discourse and (normal) language use.

01 01 JB code la.262.03hel 06 10.1075/la.262.03hel 69 104 36 Chapter 7 01 04 Presentational and related constructions in Norwegian with reference to German Presentational and related constructions in Norwegian with reference to German 1 A01 01 JB code 91415488 Lars Hellan Hellan, Lars Lars Hellan NTNU, Trondheim 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/91415488 2 A01 01 JB code 278415489 Dorothee Beermann Beermann, Dorothee Dorothee Beermann NTNU, Trondheim 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/278415489 01 eng 30 00

This paper investigates constructions in Norwegian and German with an expletive pronoun in subject position, and for Norwegian also in object position. The discussion covers presentational, impersonal and extrapositional constructions in both languages, and in Norwegian also the ‘light reflexive’ seg in its interaction with presentationals. We relate the discussion to a parameter of theticity, whereby sentences with an expletive subject will count as thetic while sentences with a content-full NP subject will count as categorical. Also sentences with expletive object are argued to have a thetic value. Categorical sentences on their side are ranked according to a parameter of transitivity, accounting for constraints on presentational constructions in Norwegian, and seen as constituting an opposite dimension of constructional values to that of theticity.

01 01 JB code la.262.04sum 06 10.1075/la.262.04sum 105 140 36 Chapter 8 01 04 Copulas and information structure in Tanti Dargwa Copulas and information structure in Tanti Dargwa 1 A01 01 JB code 157415490 Nina R. Sumbatova Sumbatova, Nina R. Nina R. Sumbatova Russian State University for the Humanities 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/157415490 01 eng 30 00

The paper describes the basic types of independent clauses in the Tanti dialect of Dargwa (Nakh-Dagestanian (= East Caucasian), Russian Federation). Most independent clauses in Tanti are headed either by the identificational copula or a finite verb form. Less frequently, we meet sentences headed by one of the four existential copulas. There are also some independent clauses headed by a non-finite verb form or a non-verbal predicate and containing no copula. The paper shows that the basic difference between the sentences with different copula types and without any copulas is the type of information structure of the relevant sentence. The identificational copula is a feature of categorical sentences; the position of the copula points at the focused constituent. The existential copulas tend to head thetic structures. Copula-less converbal clauses are often interpreted as mirative sentences, which can also be analyzed as thetic, but differ from the existential structures by the moment when the speaker obtains the knowledge of the situation.

01 01 JB code la.262.p3 06 10.1075/la.262.p3 144 222 79 Section header 9 01 04 Part 3. From logic content to linguistic form Part 3. From logic content to linguistic form 01 eng 01 01 JB code la.262.05yuk 06 10.1075/la.262.05yuk 143 154 12 Chapter 10 01 04 Infinitive constructions and theticity in German Infinitive constructions and theticity in German 1 A01 01 JB code 181415491 Yukari Isaka Isaka, Yukari Yukari Isaka Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/181415491 01 eng 30 00

In this research, I examine the correlation of coherent/incoherent constructions with thetic/categorical judgments in modern German, based on ideas put forward by Isaka (2020). Coherence/incoherence is a syntactic distinction first studied extensively by Bech (1983), while theticity/categoricality is a semantic distinction discussed by Marty (1918). An analysis of authentic data of the verb wagen ‘dare’ with subject keiner ‘no one’ and er ‘he’ reveals that incoherent constructions are less preferred for the purpose of expressing thetic judgments with keiner ‘no one’. In this avoidance of incoherence for theticity, there is a correspondence of form with content. To express a thetic judgment, which is also called simple judgment because of its indivisibility, incoherent constructions, consisting of two clauses, seem to be less suitable.

01 01 JB code la.262.06lee 06 10.1075/la.262.06lee 155 178 24 Chapter 11 01 04 Strong and weak nominal reference in thetic and categorical sentences Strong and weak nominal reference in thetic and categorical sentences 01 04 sampling German and Chinese sampling German and Chinese 1 A01 01 JB code 140415492 Meng-Chen Lee Lee, Meng-Chen Meng-Chen Lee Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/140415492 01 eng 30 00

In this paper, it will be discussed how, in both German and Chinese, strong and weak reference in thetic and categorical sentences are expressed if held against Carlson’s (1977) semantic event types of stage-level/SL- and individual-level/IL-predicates. This article will put emphasis on correspondents of indefinite and bare nouns in German on personal pronouns, the construction zhè/nà (this/that) (+Num)+CL(assifier)+N or the repetition of DP, which can only express the strong reference of the subject. The problems arise from the fact that Chinese, in contrast to German, signals reference strength not by articles as there are no articles in Chinese. In order to come to a comparison, we will use the Carlsonian reference option as a criterion.

The article is structured as follows: Section 1 introduces the definition of the strong and weak nominal reference. The second section will discuss thetic and categoric constructions in German and Chinese. The third section deals with the interplay of SL- and IL-predicates, thetic/categorical sentences, and the nominal reference of subjects, whereby the SL- and the IL-predicate are each described in a separate section. Section 4 concludes this paper with a summary of the results obtained in the previous sections.

01 01 JB code la.262.07mur 06 10.1075/la.262.07mur 179 198 20 Chapter 12 01 04 Adjectives and mode of expression Adjectives and mode of expression 01 04 Psych-adjectives in attributive and predicative usage and implications for the thetic/categorical discussion Psych-adjectives in attributive and predicative usage and implications for the thetic/categorical discussion 1 A01 01 JB code 848415493 Yoshiyuki Muroi Muroi, Yoshiyuki Yoshiyuki Muroi Waseda University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/848415493 01 eng 30 00

The German psych-adjectives glücklich (happy) and traurig (sad) and their Japanese counterparts shiawase and kanashii are considered here with regard to their semantics, the hierarchy of thematic roles, and the mode of expression. The attributive usage has a semantic structure with broad focus on the entire structure, which shows a similarity to thetic judgments despite its nonpropositional status. By contrast, the predicative usage with the subject/topic as the stimulus denotes a permanent property of the entity evoking the emotion and consists of two components respectively with narrow focus, which corresponds to the double judgment of categoricals. This structure is possible owing to the property of the copulative predication that it gives the sentence definiteness, but does not give any semantic role to the arguments.

01 01 JB code la.262.08irw 06 10.1075/la.262.08irw 199 222 24 Chapter 13 01 04 Unaccusativity and theticity Unaccusativity and theticity 1 A01 01 JB code 805415494 Patricia Irwin Irwin, Patricia Patricia Irwin Swarthmore College 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/805415494 01 eng 30 00

This chapter examines theticity in intransitive sentences. Starting with the assumption that the function of a thetic sentence is to introduce a referent into a discourse (without predicating anything of it), two requirements are proposed to characterize thetic intransitives: (A) the sole argument of the sentence must be vP-internal; and (B) the sole argument must be interpreted as a property. Both requirements have precedents in previous work: (A) incorporates Guéron’s (1980) observations on what she called the Presentation LF; and (B) builds on McNally’s (1998a) work on the semantics and discourse function of existential sentences. These requirements show that theticity cannot be explained by lexical verb or verb class; what matters for theticity is syntactic structure and semantic interpretation. It is then shown that the thetic/categorical distinction cuts across a commonly-accepted distinction in intransitive sentences, the unergative-unaccusative distinction. Specifically, only a subtype of unaccusative sentence, those with the “existential unaccusative” structure (Irwin 2018a), satisfies (A) and (B). By contrast, change-of-state unaccusatives pattern with unergative sentences in not being thetic.

01 01 JB code la.262.p4 06 10.1075/la.262.p4 226 333 108 Section header 14 01 04 Part 4. The logic-linguistics across languages Part 4. The logic-linguistics across languages 01 eng 01 01 JB code la.262.09abr 06 10.1075/la.262.09abr 225 282 58 Chapter 15 01 04 From philosophical logic to linguistics From philosophical logic to linguistics 01 04 The architecture of information autonomy: Categoricals vs. Thetics revisited The architecture of information autonomy: Categoricals vs. Thetics revisited 1 A01 01 JB code 342415495 Werner Abraham Abraham, Werner Werner Abraham Groningen University/University of Vienna 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/342415495 01 eng 30 00

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.

01 01 JB code la.262.10fuj 06 10.1075/la.262.10fuj 283 310 28 Chapter 16 01 04 Pseudocategorical or purely thetic? Pseudocategorical or purely thetic? 01 04 A contrastive case study of how thetic statements are expressed in Japanese, English, and German A contrastive case study of how thetic statements are expressed in Japanese, English, and German 1 A01 01 JB code 115415496 Yasuhiro Fujinawa Fujinawa, Yasuhiro Yasuhiro Fujinawa Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/115415496 01 eng 30 00

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.

01 01 JB code la.262.11wil 06 10.1075/la.262.11wil 311 334 24 Chapter 17 01 04 The thetic/categorical distinction as difference in common ground update The thetic/categorical distinction as difference in common ground update 01 04 With application to Biblical Hebrew With application to Biblical Hebrew 1 A01 01 JB code 187415497 Daniel J. Wilson Wilson, Daniel J. Daniel J. Wilson University of the Free State 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/187415497 01 eng 30 00

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).

01 01 JB code la.262.p5 06 10.1075/la.262.p5 338 385 48 Section header 18 01 04 Part 5. Lexical links to attitudinality Part 5. Lexical links to attitudinality 01 eng 01 01 JB code la.262.12tan 06 10.1075/la.262.12tan 337 350 14 Chapter 19 01 04 B-grade subjects and theticity B-grade subjects and theticity 1 A01 01 JB code 781415498 Shin Tanaka Tanaka, Shin Shin Tanaka Keio University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/781415498 01 eng 30 00

This study investigates the linguistic subject in categorical and thetic sentences. In the “subjectless” thetic sentence, as Kuroda (1972) pointed out, we have a nonprototypical subject, a B-grade subject, which is preferably combined in Japanese with the nominative marker ga. By contrasting B-grade subjects in Japanese with their corresponding expressions in German (and other languages), we discover two types of subjects, internal and external. In Japanese, B-grade subjects are realizations of internal subjects, which are verbalized differently in other languages as a subject, as a dummy subject, or an object. Comparing different realization forms of weather expressions crosslinguistically, we suggest that the language-specific realizations of B-grade subjects correspond to three types of thetic judgments: entity-central, event-central, and mixed type of both.

01 01 JB code la.262.13oka 06 10.1075/la.262.13oka 351 386 36 Chapter 20 01 04 Perception description, report and thetic statements Perception description, report and thetic statements 01 04 Roles of sentence-final particles in Japanese and modal particles in German Roles of sentence-final particles in Japanese and modal particles in German 1 A01 01 JB code 588415499 Junji Okamoto Okamoto, Junji Junji Okamoto Gakushuin University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/588415499 01 eng 30 00

This paper aims to explain the relationship between thetic statements and two groups of particles, i.e. Japanese sentence-final particles (sfps) and German modal particles (mps). Thetic statements are generally associated with predicates of temporary states, verbs of existence or verbs of appearance. By examining the properties of predicates in thetic statements, I argue that perception description is a key characteristic for theticity. I propose a common representational framework (Pragmatic Function Representation; PFR) and a distributional map (Spectrum for Persons Involved and Reference Points; SfPI&RP) to capture commonalities and differences of sfps and mps. What is common in the use of sfps and mps is that they both can contribute to form a speech act directed to addressees (report), so that the sentences thus formed are non-thetic. Most sfps contribute to convert private expressions into public ones, which is not the case in German mps.

01 01 JB code la.262.ti 06 10.1075/la.262.ti Miscellaneous 21 01 04 Index Index 01 01 JB code la.262.index 06 10.1075/la.262.index 387 387 1 Miscellaneous 22 01 04 Index Index 01 eng
01 JB code JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/la.262 Amsterdam NL 00 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 04 01 00 20200722 C 2020 John Benjamins D 2020 John Benjamins 02 WORLD WORLD US CA MX 09 01 JB 1 John Benjamins Publishing Company +31 20 6304747 +31 20 6739773 bookorder@benjamins.nl 01 https://benjamins.com 21 73 18 01 00 Unqualified price 02 JB 1 02 99.00 EUR 02 00 Unqualified price 02 83.00 01 Z 0 GBP GB US CA MX 01 01 JB 2 John Benjamins Publishing Company +1 800 562-5666 +1 703 661-1501 benjamins@presswarehouse.com 01 https://benjamins.com 21 73 18 01 00 Unqualified price 02 JB 1 02 149.00 USD