Cover not available
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: 2 September 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19021.bel
References (132)
References
Abraham, Werner. 2018. Valenzdiversifikationen: Was ist Thetikvalenz? Studia Germanica Gedanensia 391. 69–90. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atlas, David. 2005. Logic, meaning, and conversation: Semantical underdeterminancy, implicature, and their interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1994. Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language 9(2). 124–162. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bech, Gunnar. 1952. Über das niederländische Adverbialpronomen er. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 81. 5–32. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belligh, Thomas. 2018. The role of referential givenness in Dutch alternating presentational constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 321. 21–52. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlin, Eithne. 2011. Theticity in Trio (Cariban). International Journal of American Linguistics 77(1). 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind & Language 17(1-2). 127–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Linguistic communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Synthese 1651. 321–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua 1751. 154–166. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1974. Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 11. 3–44. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. When subjects behave like objects. Studies in Language 241. 611–682. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molnár, Valéria. 1993. Zur Pragmatik und Grammatik des TOPIK-Begriffes. In Marga Reis (ed.), Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, 155–202. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosengren, Inger. 1997. The thetic / categorical distinction revisited once more. Linguistics 351. 439–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic / categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 251. 511–580. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Context and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 251. 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter. 1950. On referring. Mind 591. 320–344. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2016. Diagnosing focus. Studies in Language 40(2). 259–301. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deidre & Robyn Carston. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics. In Noel Burton Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Edgar Onea. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121(11). 1651–1670. DOI logoGoogle 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 (5)

Cited by five other publications

Belligh, Thomas, Ludovic De Cuypere & Claudia Crocco
2023. Alternating Italian thetic and sentence-focus constructions. Revue Romane. Langue et littérature. International Journal of Romance Languages and Literatures 58:2 ► pp. 246 ff. DOI logo
Belligh, Thomas & Claudia Crocco
2022. Theticity and sentence-focus in Italian: grammatically encoded categories or categories of language use?. Linguistics 60:4 ► pp. 1241 ff. DOI logo
Belligh, Thomas & Klaas Willems
2022. Epistemological challenges in the study of alternating constructions. Lingua 280 ► pp. 103425 ff. DOI logo
Lahousse, Karen
2022. Is focus a root phenomenon?. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Belligh, Thomas
2020. Are theticity and sentence-focus encoded grammatical categories of Dutch?. In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 262], ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.