Chapter published in:
Thetics and Categoricals
Edited by Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss and Yasuhiro Fujinawa
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262] 2020
► pp. 312–333

The thetic/categorical distinction as difference in common ground update

With application to Biblical Hebrew

| University of the Free State
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).
Keywords: thetic, categorical, Ancient Hebrew, update, common ground, at-issue, not-at-issue, alternative semantics
Published online: 22 July 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.262.11wil
References

References

Bailey, Nicholas Andrew
2009 Thetic Constructions in Koine Greek: With Special Attention to Clauses with εἰµί be, γίνοµαι occur, ἔρχοµαι come, ἰδού/ἴδε behold, and Complement Clauses of ὁράω see’. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia, Ciconte, Francesco Maria & Cruschina, Silvio
2013 Existential constructions in cross-linguistic perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics 25(1): 15–43.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia & Cruschina, Silvio
2018 The silent argument of broad focus: Typology and predictions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 1–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brentano, F.
1870–1877[1956] Die Lehre vom Richtigen Urteil, published posthumously in an edition edited by Franziska Mayer-Hillebrand. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Khalilov, Madzhid & Khalilova, Zaira
2015 Valency and valency classes in Bezhta. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages: Introducing the Framework and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia, Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 541–570. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark
2015 Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), Harvard Dataverse, Version 2. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
2007 Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Macías, Jose Hugo Garcia
2016 From the Unexpected to the Unbelievable: Thetics, Miratives and Exclamatives in Conceptual Space. PhD dissertation, University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
Marty, Anton
1908 Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung der allgemeinen Grammatik und Sprachphilosophie. Halle an der Saale: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hatav, Galia
1997 The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series 34]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 The Semantics-pragmatics Interface of the Biblical Hebrew Verb Forms. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1972 Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1972 The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of language 9(2): 153–185.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud & Polinsky, Maria
1997 Typological variation in sentence-focus constructions. In Proceedings of the Thirty-third Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the Panels, Kora Singer, Eggert Randall & Gregory Anderson (eds), 189–206. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Martin, Wayne Michael
2010 Fichte’s logical legacy: Thetic judgment from the Wissenschaftslehre to Brentano. In Fichte and the Phenomenological Tradition, Violetta L. Waibel, J. Daniel Breazeale & Tom Rockmore (eds), 379–406. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan
2003 Topics, Presuppositions, and Theticity: An Empirical Study of Verb-Subject Clauses in Albanian, Greek, and Serbo-Croat. PhD dissertation, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Murray, Sarah E.
2009 A Hamblin semantics for evidentials. In Proceedings of SALT 19, Ed Cormany, Satoshi Ito, and David Lutz (eds), 324–341. Washington DC: LSA. http://​www​.semanticsarchive​.net​/Archive​/2I5ZjdmY/ (28 March 2020).
2010 Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University. http://​www​.semanticsarchive​.net​/Archive​/WViOGQxY/ (28 March 2020).
2014 Varieties of update. Semantics and Pragmatics 7: 1–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige
2012 Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5: 6–1. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans Jürgen
1987 The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25(3): 511–580. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 Theticity [Arbeitspapiere 27]. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Anne
2016 Discourse principles in grammar: The thetic/categorical dichotomy. eTropic: Electronic Journal of Studies in the Tropics 9. https://​journals​.jcu​.edu​.au​/etropic​/article​/view​/3425​/3363 (18 May 2016). Crossref
Seidel, George Joseph
1993 Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre of 1794: A Commentary on. West Lafayette IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
Shkapa, Maria
2012 Cleft as a marker of a thetic sentence: Evidence from Irish and Russian. In Transforming Traditions: Studies in Archaeology, Comparative Linguistics and Narrative: Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium of Societas Celtas-Slavica, Held at Příbram 26–29 July 2010 [Studia Celto-Slavica 6], Maxim Fomin, Václav Blažek & Piotr Stalmaszczyk (eds), 51–63. Łódź: Łódź University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre
1986 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C.
1978 Assertion. In P. Cole (ed.), Pragmatics, 315–332. New York: New YorkAcademia Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina
2011 Complementation and Finiteness in Dargwa. Доклад на рабочем сове-‐щании про проблемам сложного предложения. Майнц, Университет г. Майнца, но-‐ябрь 2011.Google Scholar
Van der Merwe, Christiaan Hendrik Jacobus
1999 The elusive Biblical Hebrew term וַיְהִי : A perspective in terms of its syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in 1 Samuel. Hebrew Studies 40(1): 83–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Daniel J.
2017 Copular and Existential Sentences in Biblical Hebrew. PhD dissertation, University of the Free State.Google Scholar
2019  Wayhi- and theticity in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 45(1): 89–118.Google Scholar
Zólyomi, Gábor
2014 Copular Clauses and Focus Marking in Sumerian. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar