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 (53)
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 Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas.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 (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Strobel, Thomas
2024. Combining formal and functional approaches to variation in (morpho)syntax: Introduction to the special issue. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 43:1 ► pp. 1 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
JangYoungJun
2008. On the Thetic Expressions in Korea. Studies in Generative Grammar 18:3 ► pp. 549 ff. DOI logo
Haberland, H.
2006. Thetic–Categorical Distinction. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, ► pp. 676 ff. DOI logo
Andersen, Paul Kent
1992. Review of Tobin (): Semiotics and linguistics. Studies in Language 16:1 ► pp. 249 ff. 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 18 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.