Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:4 (2020) ► pp. 831–878

Dutch thetic and sentence-focus constructions on the semantics-pragmatics interface

A case study

| Ghent University
This article studies the various uses of a Dutch thetic and sentence-focus construction, viz. the Syntactic Inversion with Filler Insertion Construction (henceforth: SIFIC), e.g. Er loopt een man over straat (‘There is a man walking across the street’). The article investigates whether theticity and sentence-focus are semantically encoded meanings of the SIFIC or pragmatically inferred senses. SIFIC tokens (N = 750) were extracted from the Dutch SoNaR Corpus and annotated for five factors. The analysis shows that the SIFIC can have information-structural uses that are diametrically opposed to theticity and sentence-focus, i.e. topic-comment structure, predicate-focus articulation and categorical judgment. It is argued that theticity and sentence-focus can therefore not be regarded as the encoded semantics of the SIFIC, but should rather be analyzed as default senses of the construction. Based on similar cross-linguistic findings the article takes issue with the assumption that most languages have dedicated thetic and sentence-focus constructions.
Keywords: theticity, sentence-focus, semantics-pragmatics interface, Dutch, Construction Grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background and state of the art
    • 2.1What are thetic and sentence-focus constructions?
      • 2.1.1Theticity, sentence-focus, and Construction Grammar
      • 2.1.2Theticity
      • 2.1.3Sentence-focus
    • 2.2Dutch thetic and sentence-focus constructions
    • 2.3Semantics and pragmatics, encoded and inferred meaning
    • 2.4Clausal constructions on the semantics-pragmatics interface
    • 2.5Procedural meaning on the semantics-pragmatics interface
    • 2.6Thetic and sentence-focus constructions on the semantics-pragmatics interface
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Corpus design and data collection
    • 3.2Selection and operationalization of the parameters
      • 3.2.1The parameters
      • 3.2.2Thetic or categorical judgment
      • 3.2.3Topic comment or all-comment
      • 3.2.4Focus construal
      • 3.2.5The kind of er
      • 3.2.6Referential givenness of the syntactic subject
    • 3.3Determining the encoded or inferred status of theticity and sentence-focus
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Results
      • 4.1.1The ubiquity of theticity and sentence-focus
      • 4.1.2Theticity and sentence-focus with an added contrastive reading
      • 4.1.3The non-thetic uses of the Dutch SIFIC: Tokens with a topic-comment structure
      • 4.1.4The non-sentence-focus uses of the SIFIC: Tokens with predicate-focus construal
      • 4.1.5Overview of the various information-structural uses
      • 4.1.6The various kinds of sentence-initial er
      • 4.1.7Referential givenness of the subject constituent
    • 4.2Implications for the semantics and pragmatics of the Dutch SIFIC
    • 4.3Implications for the study of theticity and sentence-focus
      • 4.3.1Theticity
      • 4.3.2Sentence-focus
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 02 September 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19021.bel
References
Abraham, Werner
2018 Valenzdiversifikationen: Was ist Thetikvalenz? Studia Germanica Gedanensia 391. 69–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2020 Zur Architektur von Informationsautonomie: Thetik und Kategorik. Wie sind sie linguistisch zu verorten und zu unterscheiden? In Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss & Shin Tanaka (eds.), Zur Architektur von Thetik und Grammatik. Deutsch, Japanisch, Chinesisch und Norwegisch, 87–148. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner, Elisabeth Leiss & Shin Tanaka
(eds.) 2020a Zur Architektur von Thetik und Grammatik. Deutsch, Japanisch, Chinesisch und Norwegisch. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner, Elisabeth Leiss, and Yasuhiro Fujinawa
2020b Thetics and Categoricals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Apel, Viktoria
2013 Theticity in Fulfulde. Paper presented at the Afrikalinguistisches Kolloquium, May 7, 2013, Berlin.
Ariel, Mira
1990 Accessing NP antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008 Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, David
2005 Logic, meaning, and conversation: Semantical underdeterminancy, implicature, and their interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent
1994 Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language 9(2). 124–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barbier, Isabella
1996 On the Syntax of Dutch er . In Rosina Lippi-Green & Joseph Salmons (eds.), Germanic linguistics syntactic and diachronic, 65–84. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bech, Gunnar
1952 Über das niederländische Adverbialpronomen er. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 81. 5–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belligh, Thomas
2020 “Are theticity and sentence-focus encoded grammatical categories of Dutch?” in Thetics and Categoricals, ed. by Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss, and Yasuhiro Fujinawa, 34–68, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belligh, Thomas & Klaas Willems
2021 What’s in a code? The code-inference distinction in Neo-Gricean Pragmatics, Relevance Theory, and Integral Linguistics. Language Sciences 831. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belligh, Thomas
2018 The role of referential givenness in Dutch alternating presentational constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 321. 21–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, Hans
1980  Er-deletion in a Modular Grammar. In Saskia Daalder & Marinel Gerritsen (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 58–69. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
1986 Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: ICG Printing.Google Scholar
Berretta, Monica
1995 Come inseriamo elementi nuovi nel discorso/1: ‘C’è il gatto che ha fame’. Italiano e Oltre 531. 79–105.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty & Gregory Ward
1998 Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
2002 Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carlin, Eithne
2011 Theticity in Trio (Cariban). International Journal of American Linguistics 77(1). 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2002 Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind & Language 17(1-2). 127–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Linguistic communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Synthese 1651. 321–345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua 1751. 154–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles Li, (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1994 Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coene, Ann & Klaas Willems
2006 Konstruktionelle Bedeutungen: Kritische Anmerkungen zu Adele Goldbergs Konstruktionsgrammatischer Bedeutungstheorie. Sprachtheorie Und Germanistische Linguistik 161. 1–35.Google Scholar
Coene, Ann
2006 Lexikalische Bedeutung, Valenz und Koerzion. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Cook, Philippa & Felix Bildhauer
2011 Annotating information structure: The case of topic. In Stefanie Dipper & Heike Zinsmeister (eds.), Beyond semantics: Corpus-based investigations of pragmatic and discourse phenomena, 45–56. Bochum: Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte.Google Scholar
2013 Identifying ‘aboutness topics’: Two annotation experiments. Dialogue & Discourse 4(2). 118–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio
1974 [1958] Synchronie, Diachronie und Geschichte. Das Problem des Sprachwandels. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
1985 Linguistic competence: What is it really? The Modern Language Review 801. xxv–xxxv. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987 Formen und Funktionen. Studien zur Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1992 Einführung in die Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
2000 [1990] Structural semantics and ‘cognitive’ semantics. Logos and Language 1(1). 19–42.Google Scholar
2001 L’homme et son langage. Louvain/Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
2007 Sprachkompetenz. Grundzüge der Theorie des Sprechens. Tübingen: Gunter Narr VerlagGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2007 Construction grammar. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 463–508. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic
2013 Debiasing semantic analysis: the English preposition to. Language Sciences 371. 122–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Vaere, Hilde, Julia Kolkmann, and Thomas Belligh
accepted. “Allostructions revisited.” Journal of Pragmatics.
Deguchi, Masanori
2012 Revisiting the thetic/categorical distinction in Japanese. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 48(2). 223–237.Google Scholar
Dery, Jeruen E.
2007 Pragmatic focus and word order variation in Tagalog. Language and Linguistics 8(1). 373–404.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon
1997 The theory of functional grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dipper, Stefanie, Michael Götze & Stavros Skopeteas
2007 Information structure in cross linguistic corpora: Annotation guidelines for phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and information structure. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
El Zarka, Dina
2011 Prosodic encoding of the thetic/categorical distinction in Egyptian Arabic: A preliminary investigation. Grazer Linguistische Studien 761. 91–111Google Scholar
Elffers, Els
1977  Er-verkenningen. Spektator 61. 417–422.Google Scholar
Fiedler, Ines
2013 Event-central and entity-central subtypes of thetic utterances and their relation to focus constructions. Paper presented at LAGB, August 30, 2013, London.
Fillmore, Charles J.
1988 The mechanisms of Construction Grammar. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 141. 35–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Paul Kay
1993 Construction grammar coursebook. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fujinawa, Yasuhiro
2020 Kategorik und Thetik als Basis für Sprachvergleiche – dargestellt am Beispiel einer kontrastiven Linguistik des Deutschen und des Japanischen. In Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss & Shin Tanaka (eds.), Zur Architektur von Thetik und Grammatik. Deutsch, Japanisch, Chinesisch und Norwegisch, 169–242. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2003 Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 71. 219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Götze, Michael, Thomas Weskott, Cornelia Endriss, Ines Fiedler, Stefan Hinterwimmer, Svetlana Petrova, Anne Schwarz, Stavros Skopeteas & Ruben Stoel
2007 Information structure. In Stefanie Dipper, Michael Götze & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure, 147–187. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Gravetter, Frederick & Lori-Ann Forzano
2012 Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul
1989 Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Dirk Speelman, Denis Drieghe, Marc Brysbaert & Dirk Geeraerts
2009 Introducing a new entity into discourse: Comprehension and production evidence for the status of Dutch er ‘there’ as a higher-level expectancy monitor. Acta Psychologica 1301. 153–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Marc Brysbaert, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts
2002  Er als accessibility marker: on- en offline evidentie voor een procedurele duiding van presentatieve zinnen. Gramma/TTT 91. 1–22.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan
2000 De distributie van niet-anaforisch er buiten de eerste zinplaats. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
2009 Woordvolgorde in presentatieve zinnen en de theoretische basis van multifactoriële grammatica. Nederlandse Taalkunde 141. 282–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K.
1988 [1974] The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. New York: Garland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
1999 Topic, focus, and the grammar-pragmatics interface. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 61. 1–16.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. & Thorstein Fretheim
2004 Topic and focus. In Lawrence Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 175–196. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski
1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 691. 274–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haberland, Hartmut
1994 Thetic/categorical distinction. In Ronald Asher & James Simpson (eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Vol. 91, 4605–4606. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirstin Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten Cornelis van den Toorn
1997 Algemene nederlandse spraakkunst. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers/Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian Matthiessen
2004 An introduction to Functional Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert
1975 The presentative movement or why the ideal word order is VSOP. In Charles Li (ed.), Word order and word order change, 345–388. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale
2013 The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R.
1989 A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa
2011 Papers on typological linguistics. Turku: University of Turku Publications.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
2010 Meaning and the lexicon. The parallel architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena, Stefania Marzo, Karen Lahousse & Daniela Gugliemo
2018 There’s more to Italian c’è clefts than expressing all-focus. Italian Journal of Linguistics 29(2). 57–85.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena
2016 French il y a clefts, existential sentences and the focus-marking hypothesis. Journal of French Language Studies 271. 405–430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri
1974 Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 11. 3–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul
1996 Argument structure: Causative ABC constructions. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S.
1979 The problem of presentative sentences in Modern Dutch. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Kraak, Albert
1966 Negatieve zinnen. Amsterdam: W. de Haan.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2008 Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 551. 243–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1972 The categorical and the thetic judgment. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of language 91. 153–185.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud & Maria Polinsky
1997 Typological variation in sentence-focus constructions. Cls 331. 189–206.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1987 Sentence focus, information structure, and the thetic-categorical distinction. Berkeley Linguistics Society 131. 366–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 When subjects behave like objects. Studies in Language 241. 611–682. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leino, Jaakko
2013 Information structure. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 329–345. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2000 Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leys, Otto
1979 De bepaling van het voornamelijk bijwoord en de systematisering van Nederlands er. De Nieuwe Taalgids 721. 240–246.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marty, Anton
1918 Gesammelte Schriften. Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan
2003 Topics, presuppositions, and theticity: An empirical study of verb-subject clauses. Köln: Universität Köln PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
2015 Information structure in linguistics. In James D. Wright (ed.), The international encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences, Vol. 121, 2nd edn., 95–99, Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D.
1978 Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 91: Pragmatics, 245–59. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Meulleman, Machteld
2012 Les localisateurs dans les constructions existentielles: Approche comparée en espagnol, en français et en italien. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Molnár, Valéria
1993 Zur Pragmatik und Grammatik des TOPIK-Begriffes. In Marga Reis (ed.), Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, 155–202. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L.
1978 Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 91: Pragmatics, 261–280. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke, Martin Reynaert, Véronique Hoste & Ineke Schuurman
2013 The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. In Peter Spyns, and Jan Odijk (eds.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch: Results by the STEVIN programme, 219–247. Heidelberg: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paardekooper, Petrus
1963 Beknopte ABN-syntaksis. Den Bosch: Malmberg.Google Scholar
Pardoen, Justine
1998 Interpretatiestructuur: Een onderzoek naar de relatie tussen woordvolgorde en zinsbetekenis in het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen
1992 The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In William Mann, and Sandra Thompson (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund raising text, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Queixalós, Francesc
2016 The role of nominalisation in theticity: A Sikuani contribution. In Claudine Chamoreau, and Zarina Estrada-Fernandez (eds.), Finiteness and nominalization, 205–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ritz, Julia, Stefanie Dipper & Michael Götze
2008 Annotation of information structure: An evaluation across different types of texts. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 2137–2142.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosengren, Inger
1997 The thetic / categorical distinction revisited once more. Linguistics 351. 439–479. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1987 The thetic / categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 251. 511–580. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 ‘Theticity’ and VS order: A case study. In Yaron Matras & Hans-Jürgen Sasse (eds.), Verb-subject order and theticity in European languages, 3–31. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
2006 Theticity In Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwartz (eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe, 255–308. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schermer-Vermeer, Ina
1985 De onthullende status van er in de generatieve grammatica. Spektator 151: 65–84.Google Scholar
1987  Er in de ANS. Forum der Letteren 281. 120–125.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva
2008 Discontinuous noun phrases as an iconic strategy of marking thetic clauses. Paper presented at Syntax of the World’s Languages, September 28, 2008, Berlin.
Schwarz, Anne
2016 All-in-one and one-for-all: Thetic structures in Buli grammar and discourse. In Doris L. Payne, Sara Pacchiarotti & Mokaya Bosire (eds.), Diversity in African languages, 81–100. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Silvennoinen, Olli
2018 Constructional schemas in variation. Constructions and Frames 10(1). 1–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deidre Wilson
1986 Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
1973 Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 21. 447–457. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 Context and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 251. 701–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter
1950 On referring. Mind 591. 320–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swiggers, Pierre & Karel Van den Eynde
1985 Distributie- en combinatiemogelijkheden van Nederlands er: Een studie in syntactische classificatie. Linguistics in Belgium 71. 67–86.Google Scholar
1987 Over er. Forum der Letteren 281. 129–132.Google Scholar
Ulrich, Miorita
1985 Thetisch und Kategorisch: Funktionen der Anordnung von Satzkonstituenten: Am Beispiel des Rumänischen und anderer Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Van der Gucht, Fieke, Klaas Willems, and Ludovic De Cuypere
2007 The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences 29(6). 733–754. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke
2016 Diagnosing focus. Studies in Language 40(2). 259–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert
1993 A synopsis of role and reference grammar. In Robert Van Valin (ed.), Advances in role and reference grammar, 1–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vandeweghe, Willy
2004 Presentatief ER en de definitie van ‘Subject’. In Johan De Caluwe, Georges De Schutter, Magdalena Devos & Jacques Van Keymeulen (eds.), Taeldeman, man van taal, schatbewaarder van de taal, 1019–1027. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Venier, Federica
2002 La presentatività. Sulle tracce di una nozione. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Willems, Klaas & Ann Coene
2006 Satzmuster und die Konstruktionalität der Verbbedeutung. Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Konstruktionsgrammatik und Valenztheorie. Sprachwissenschaft 311. 237–272.Google Scholar
Willems, Klaas
1997 Kasus, grammatische Bedeutung und kognitive Linguistik: Ein Beitrag zur allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
2011 Meaning and interpretation: the semiotic similarities and differences between cognitive grammar and European structural linguistics. Semiotica 185(1–4). 1–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deidre & Robyn Carston
2007 A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics. In Noel Burton Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Edgar Onea
2011 Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121(11). 1651–1670. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan
2007 Spatial semantics. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 318–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2011 From cognitive to integral linguistics and back again. Intellectica 561: 125–147.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Belligh, Thomas
2020.  In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 262], ► pp. 34 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2021. 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.