Chapter published in:
Thetics and Categoricals
Edited by Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss and Yasuhiro Fujinawa
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262] 2020
► pp. 210
References

References

Abraham, Werner
2020From philosophical logic to linguistics. The architecture of information autonomy: Categoricals vs. thetics revisited. In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262], Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss & Yasuhiro Fujinawa (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Breul, Carsten
2004Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An Integrated Syntactic, Semantic and Intonational Approach. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 68]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brentano, Franz
1874Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl
1934[2011]Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language, 2nd rev. edn [Foundations of Semiotics 25], trans. Donald Fraser Goodwin, in collaboration with Achim Eschbach; with a preface by Werner Abraham. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N.
1977Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Brennan, Susan E.
1991Grounding in communication. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine & Stephanie D. Teasley (eds), 127–149. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
1987The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805–855. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K.
1998On the grammar of pain. Functions of Language 5(1): 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, Rebecca
2014Theticity in Tiriyó: An Empirical Investigation. BA thesis, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin
1912[1978]Frühe Schriften (1912–1916), Martin Heidegger, Gesamtausgabe, Vol. 1. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Irwin, Patricia
2012Unaccusativity at the Interfaces. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Kučanda, Dubravko
1990On the subject of existential there . In Working with Functional Grammar: Descriptive and Computational Applications, Mike Hannay & Elseline Vester (eds), 73–86. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1972The categorical and the thetic judgment. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William
1994Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In Proceedings from SALT 4, Mandy Harvey & Lynn Santelmann (eds), 220–229. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lotze, Rudolf Hermann
1843[1989]Logik. Erstes Buch: Vom Denken (Reihe Logik), with an introduction by Georg Misch; newly edited by G. Gabriel [Philosophische Bibliothek 421]. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Marty, Anton
1884–1897Über subjectlose Sätze and das Verhältnis der Grammatik and Psychologie [Sieben Aufsätze, 1884 and 1894/95 in der Vierteljahrschrift for wissenschaftliche Philosophie erschienen]; Über Scheidung von grammatischem, logischem und psychologischem Subject resp. Praedicat. (Zwei Aufsätze, appeared 1897 in Archiv for systematische Philosophie , Vol. 3, 174–190 and 294–333).Google Scholar
Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard
2010Über thetische and categoricale Äußerungen im Spanischen (Ha muerto Franco vs. Franco ha muerto). https://​www​.uni​-bielefeld​.de​/lili​/personen​/meyer​-hermann​/pdf​/thetischvskategorischimspanischen​.pdf (19 March 2020).
Moro, Andrea
1997The Raising of Predicates. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Onoe, Keisuke
1973Bunkaku to ketsubun no waku – ‘wa’ to ‘ga’ no yoohoo o megutte (Sentence kernel and sentence frame – especially about the use of “wa” and “ga”). Gengo Kenkyu (Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan) 63: 1–26.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craig
2012Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6): 1–69.Google Scholar
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph
1907Vom Ich als Prinzip der Philosophie oder über das Unbedingte im menschlichen Wissen. In Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling: Werke, Band 1. Leipzig: Cott.Google Scholar
Schmitz, Kenneth L.
1974Enriching the copula. The Review of Metaphysics 27(3): 495–512 ( A Commemorative Issue: Thomas Aquinas ).Google Scholar
Sigwart, Christoph
1888Die Impersonalien. Eine logische Untersuchung. Freiburg: Mohr.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
2002Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Shin
2020B-grade subjects” and theticity. In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262], Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss & Yasuhiro Fujinawa (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Daniel
2018Copular and Existential Sentences in Biblical Hebrew. PhD dissertation, University of the Free State Bloemfontein, South Africa.Google Scholar
2020Syntactic and Semantic Variation in Copular Sentences: Insights from Classical Hebrew [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 261]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wöllstein-Leisten, Angelika
2001Die Syntax der dritten Konstruktion: Eine repräsen-tationelle Analyse zur Monosententialität von “zu”-Infinitiven im Deutschen [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 63]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Albert
1986Einleitung zu Thomas von Aquin (1256–1259): Von der Wahrheit (De veritate (Quaestio I)). Lateinisch- Deutsch [Philosophische Bibliothek 384]. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar