Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:4 (2020) ► pp. 831878
References

References

Abraham, Werner
2018Valenzdiversifikationen: Was ist Thetikvalenz? Studia Germanica Gedanensia 39. 69–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2020Zur 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.) 2020aZur Architektur von Thetik und Grammatik. Deutsch, Japanisch, Chinesisch und Norwegisch. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner, Elisabeth Leiss, and Yasuhiro Fujinawa
2020bThetics and Categoricals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Apel, Viktoria
2013Theticity in Fulfulde. Paper presented at the Afrikalinguistisches Kolloquium, May 7, 2013, Berlin.
Ariel, Mira
1990Accessing NP antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, David
2005Logic, meaning, and conversation: Semantical underdeterminancy, implicature, and their interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent
1994Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language 9(2). 124–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barbier, Isabella
1996On 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
1952Über das niederländische Adverbialpronomen er. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 8. 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
2021What’s in a code? The code-inference distinction in Neo-Gricean Pragmatics, Relevance Theory, and Integral Linguistics. Language Sciences 83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belligh, Thomas
2018The role of referential givenness in Dutch alternating presentational constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 32. 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
1986Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: ICG Printing.Google Scholar
Berretta, Monica
1995Come inseriamo elementi nuovi nel discorso/1: ‘C’è il gatto che ha fame’. Italiano e Oltre 53. 79–105.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty & Gregory Ward
1998Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
2002Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carlin, Eithne
2011Theticity in Trio (Cariban). International Journal of American Linguistics 77(1). 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2002Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind & Language 17(1-2). 127–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Linguistic communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Synthese 165. 321–345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua 175. 154–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1976Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles Li, (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1994Discourse, 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
2006Konstruktionelle Bedeutungen: Kritische Anmerkungen zu Adele Goldbergs Konstruktionsgrammatischer Bedeutungstheorie. Sprachtheorie Und Germanistische Linguistik 16. 1–35.Google Scholar
Coene, Ann
2006Lexikalische Bedeutung, Valenz und Koerzion. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Cook, Philippa & Felix Bildhauer
2011Annotating 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
2013Identifying ‘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
1985Linguistic competence: What is it really? The Modern Language Review 80. xxv–xxxv. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987Formen und Funktionen. Studien zur Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1992Einführung 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
2001L’homme et son langage. Louvain/Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
2007Sprachkompetenz. Grundzüge der Theorie des Sprechens. Tübingen: Gunter Narr VerlagGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2007Construction grammar. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 463–508. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic
2013Debiasing semantic analysis: the English preposition to. Language Sciences 37. 122–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Vaere, Hilde, Julia Kolkmann, and Thomas Belligh
accepted. “Allostructions revisited.” Journal of Pragmatics.
Deguchi, Masanori
2012Revisiting the thetic/categorical distinction in Japanese. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 48(2). 223–237.Google Scholar
Dery, Jeruen E.
2007Pragmatic focus and word order variation in Tagalog. Language and Linguistics 8(1). 373–404.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon
1997The theory of functional grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dipper, Stefanie, Michael Götze & Stavros Skopeteas
2007Information structure in cross linguistic corpora: Annotation guidelines for phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and information structure. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
El Zarka, Dina
2011Prosodic encoding of the thetic/categorical distinction in Egyptian Arabic: A preliminary investigation. Grazer Linguistische Studien 76. 91–111Google Scholar
Elffers, Els
1977 Er-verkenningen. Spektator 6. 417–422.Google Scholar
Fiedler, Ines
2013Event-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.
1988The mechanisms of Construction Grammar. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 35–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Paul Kay
1993Construction grammar coursebook. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
1988Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fujinawa, Yasuhiro
2020Kategorik 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
1995Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2003Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7. 219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Constructions 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
2007Information 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
2012Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul
1989Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Dirk Speelman, Denis Drieghe, Marc Brysbaert & Dirk Geeraerts
2009Introducing a new entity into discourse: Comprehension and production evidence for the status of Dutch er ‘there’ as a higher-level expectancy monitor. Acta Psychologica 130. 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 9. 1–22.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan
2000De distributie van niet-anaforisch er buiten de eerste zinplaats. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
2009Woordvolgorde in presentatieve zinnen en de theoretische basis van multifactoriële grammatica. Nederlandse Taalkunde 14. 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
1999Topic, focus, and the grammar-pragmatics interface. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 6. 1–16.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. & Thorstein Fretheim
2004Topic 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
1993Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haberland, Hartmut
1994Thetic/categorical distinction. In Ronald Asher & James Simpson (eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Vol. 9, 4605–4606. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirstin Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten Cornelis van den Toorn
1997Algemene nederlandse spraakkunst. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers/Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian Matthiessen
2004An introduction to Functional Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert
1975The 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
2013The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R.
1989A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa
2011Papers on typological linguistics. Turku: University of Turku Publications.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
2010Meaning and the lexicon. The parallel architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena, Stefania Marzo, Karen Lahousse & Daniela Gugliemo
2018There’s more to Italian c’è clefts than expressing all-focus. Italian Journal of Linguistics 29(2). 57–85.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena
2016French il y a clefts, existential sentences and the focus-marking hypothesis. Journal of French Language Studies 27. 405–430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri
1974Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1. 3–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul
1996Argument structure: Causative ABC constructions. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S.
1979The problem of presentative sentences in Modern Dutch. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Kraak, Albert
1966Negatieve zinnen. Amsterdam: W. de Haan.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2008Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 243–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1972The categorical and the thetic judgment. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of language 9. 153–185.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud & Maria Polinsky
1997Typological variation in sentence-focus constructions. Cls 33. 189–206.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1987Sentence focus, information structure, and the thetic-categorical distinction. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 366–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000When subjects behave like objects. Studies in Language 24. 611–682. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leino, Jaakko
2013Information structure. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 329–345. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2000Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leys, Otto
1979De bepaling van het voornamelijk bijwoord en de systematisering van Nederlands er. De Nieuwe Taalgids 72. 240–246.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1977Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marty, Anton
1918Gesammelte Schriften. Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan
2003Topics, presuppositions, and theticity: An empirical study of verb-subject clauses. Köln: Universität Köln PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
2015Information structure in linguistics. In James D. Wright (ed.), The international encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences, Vol. 12, 2nd edn., 95–99, Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D.
1978Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, 245–59. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Meulleman, Machteld
2012Les localisateurs dans les constructions existentielles: Approche comparée en espagnol, en français et en italien. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Molnár, Valéria
1993Zur Pragmatik und Grammatik des TOPIK-Begriffes. In Marga Reis (ed.), Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, 155–202. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L.
1978Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, 261–280. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke, Martin Reynaert, Véronique Hoste & Ineke Schuurman
2013The 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
1963Beknopte ABN-syntaksis. Den Bosch: Malmberg.Google Scholar
Pardoen, Justine
1998Interpretatiestructuur: Een onderzoek naar de relatie tussen woordvolgorde en zinsbetekenis in het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen
1992The 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
2016The 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
2008Annotation 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
1992A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosengren, Inger
1997The thetic / categorical distinction revisited once more. Linguistics 35. 439–479. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1987The thetic / categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25. 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
2006Theticity 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
1985De onthullende status van er in de generatieve grammatica. Spektator 15: 65–84.Google Scholar
1987 Er in de ANS. Forum der Letteren 28. 120–125.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva
2008Discontinuous 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
2016All-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
2018Constructional schemas in variation. Constructions and Frames 10(1). 1–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deidre Wilson
1986Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
1973Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2. 447–457. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Context and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 701–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter
1950On referring. Mind 59. 320–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swiggers, Pierre & Karel Van den Eynde
1985Distributie- en combinatiemogelijkheden van Nederlands er: Een studie in syntactische classificatie. Linguistics in Belgium 7. 67–86.Google Scholar
1987Over er. Forum der Letteren 28. 129–132.Google Scholar
Ulrich, Miorita
1985Thetisch 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
2007The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences 29(6). 733–754. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke
2016Diagnosing focus. Studies in Language 40(2). 259–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert
1993A 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
2004Presentatief 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
2002La presentatività. Sulle tracce di una nozione. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Willems, Klaas & Ann Coene
2006Satzmuster und die Konstruktionalität der Verbbedeutung. Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Konstruktionsgrammatik und Valenztheorie. Sprachwissenschaft 31. 237–272.Google Scholar
Willems, Klaas
1997Kasus, grammatische Bedeutung und kognitive Linguistik: Ein Beitrag zur allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
2011Meaning 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
2007A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics. In Noel Burton Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Edgar Onea
2011Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121(11). 1651–1670. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan
2007Spatial semantics. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 318–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2011From cognitive to integral linguistics and back again. Intellectica 56: 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 06 december 2020. 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.