Cover not available
Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 14:1 (1990) ► pp.169–219
Book review

Susumu Kuno. Functional syntax: anaphora, discourse and empathy
University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Reviewed by
| University of California, Davis
Published online: 1 January 1990
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.14.1.07van
References
Bach, Emmon and Partee, Barbara
1980 “Anaphora and semantic structure.” In: Kreiman and Ojeda (eds) 1980:1–28.Google Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth
1987 “Language acquisition and language breakdown from a functionalist perspective.” Presented at UC Davis Conference on the Interaction of Form and Function in Language.
Bever, Thomas
1975 “Functional explanations require independently motivated functional theories.” In: Grossman, San and Vance (eds) 1975:580–609.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek
1975 “Some assertions about presuppositions and pronominalization.” In: Grossman, San, and Vance (eds.) 1975:24–35.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1979 “Pronouns in discourse.” In: Givón (ed.) 1979:289–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carden, Guy
1982 “Backwards anaphora in discourse context.” Journal of Linguistics 181: 361 387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1986a Knowledge of language: its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
1986b Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cutrer, Michelle
1987 “Theories of obligatory control.” Davis Working Papers in Lingustics 21: 6–37.Google Scholar
Deane, Paul
1987 “English possessives, topicality, and the Silverstein hierarchy.” BLS 131: 65 76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon
1978 Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1971 Lectures on deixis. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D., Jr.
1984 Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 381.].Google Scholar
Givón, T.
1979 On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K.
1974 The role of topic and comment in lingustic theory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas. Indiana University Linguistics Club 1977.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael K.
1984 An introduction to functional grammar. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul
1987 “Emergent Grammar.” BLS 131: 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jolly, Julia
1987 “An analysis of selected English prepositions within the framework of Role and Reference Grammar.” Davis Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 60–114.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans
1981 “A theory of truth and semantic representation.” In: Groenendijk, Janssen and Stokhof (ed.) 1981:277–321.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L.
1974 “The functional principle: generalizing the notion ‘subject of.” CLS 101:298–309.Google Scholar
1988 “On semantics and the binding theory.” In Hawkins (ed.) 1988.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth
1975 Presuppositon and the delimitation of semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 151].Google Scholar
1984 “Pragmatics, anaphora and logical form.” In Schriffrin (ed.) 1984:1–10.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1972a “Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and English.” Linguistic Inquiry 31: 269–320.Google Scholar
1972b “Pronominalization, reflexivization, and direct discourse.” Linguistic Inquiry 31: 161–196.Google Scholar
1975 “Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax.” In: Grossman, San, and Vance (eds) 1975:276–336.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1986 Topic, focus and the grammar of spoken French. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
1987 “Sentence focus, information structure, and the thetic-categorial distinction.” BLS 131: 366–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1969 “On pronominalization and the chain of command.” In: Reibel and Schane (eds) 1969:160–186.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
1976 “Remarks on coreference.” Linguistic Analysis 21: 1–22.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1987 “Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena.” Journal of Linguistics 231: 379–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P.
1983 “Functional and anaphoric control.” Linguistic Inquiry 141:641–674.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1984 “Functional theories of grammar.” Annual Review of Anthropology 131: 97–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen
1981 “Topicalization, focus movement and Yiddish movement: a pragmatic differentiation.” BLS 71: 249–264.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1981 “Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics.” Philosophica 271: 53–94.Google Scholar
1983 Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Riddle, Elizabeth
1984 “The English possessives as topic-focus structures.” Presented at 1984 LSA Annual Meeting.
Ross, John Robert
1967 “On the cyclic nature of English pronominalization.” To Honor Roman Jakobson 1967:1669–1682.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter
1987a “Backwards anaphora and discourse structure: some considerations.” Report no. CSLI-87–114. Stanford University: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
1987b “Aspects of logophoricity.” Linguistic Inquiry 181: 445–479.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1981 “Case marking and the nature of language.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 11: 227–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Diedre
1986 Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
1987 “ That-deletion from a discourse perspective.” Presented at BLS 13.
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr.
1985 “Case marking and the structure of the Lakhota clause.” In: Nichols and Woodbury (eds) 1985:363–413. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1986 “Pragmatics, island phenomena, and linguistic competence.” CLS 22(2):223–233.Google Scholar
1987 “The role of government in the grammar of head-marking languages.” UAL 531: 371–397.Google Scholar
1990a “Another look at Icelandic case marking and grammatical relations.” Unpublished ms., UC Davis.Google Scholar
1990b “Semantic parameters of split intransitivity.” Language 66(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. and Wilkins, David P.
1989 “Predicting syntactic structure from semantic representations: remember in English and Mparntwe Arrernte.” In: Van Valin (ed.) 1989.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr.
ed. Forthcoming Advances in Role and Reference Grammar Amsterdam John Benjamins DOI logo
Wierzbicka, Anna
1988 The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Janice
1984 Studies in Lakhota grammar. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Andersen, Paul Kent
1992. Review of Tobin (): Semiotics and linguistics. Studies in Language 16:1 ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo
Haberland, H.
2006. Thetic–Categorical Distinction. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, ► pp. 676 ff. DOI logo
JangYoungJun
2008. On the Thetic Expressions in Korea. Studies in Generative Grammar 18:3 ► pp. 549 ff. DOI logo
Kolyaseva, Alena F.
2017. Text from a functional communicative perspective: a linguistic analysis of Chekhov’s humoresque “My ‘her’”. Text & Talk 37:5 DOI logo
LaPolla, Randy J.
1992. On the dating and nature of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55:2 ► pp. 298 ff. DOI logo
Levinson, Stephen C.
1991. Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27:1 ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 may 2023. 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.