The role of nominalization in theticity
A Sikuani contribution
When speakers need to communicate a piece of information in which they allocate all the components the same degree of informational density – especially the components expressing the state of the world described and the entities associated with it – they rely on linguistic mechanisms that may differ radically from those employed in speech-acts that involve a rhematic element (rather dense informationally) linked to a thematic element (rather thin informationally). In languages where existential predication does not require a verb of existence with the subject as the thematic element, this type of construction is well adapted to the thetic communicative intention, since it is organized around a noun phrase conveying rhematic information that is not connected to any thematic element apart from the world, or the situation. Since this element is not instantiated linguistically, or at least not by expressions capable of referring, the structure of this kind of existential predication is monadic. This is the most striking difference between the formal correlates of thetic constructions and those of the dyadic construction with rheme and theme. The Sikuani language makes a great deal of use of verb nominalization machinery (which provides a way to combine in the most parsimonious way the state of affairs described and the entities associated with it) in order to fulfill the goal of thetic communication. In particular, by playing with these mechanisms this language manages to modulate the degree of semantic reification of the state of the world described by the nominalized verb. Consequently a nominalized form with a thetic function becomes able to express semantic configurations (events, states, etc.) similar to those normally expressed by finite verbs.
References (42)
References
Baker, Mark. 1995. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carlin, Eithne. 2011. Theticity in Trio (Cariban). International Journal of American Linguistics 77: 1-31. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Casielles, Eugenia & Progovac, Ljiljana. 2009. Protosyntax: A thetic (unaccusative) stage. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum 9: 29-48. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chacon, Thiago. 2012. The Phonology and Morphology of Kubeo: The Documentation, Theory and Description of an Amazonian Language. PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii.
Chafe, Wallace. 1974. Language and consciousness. Language 50: 111-33. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects and topics. In Subject and Topic, Charles Li (ed.), 27-55. New York NY: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62(4): 808-845. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
DuBois, John. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805-855. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure. The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fox, Barbara. 1987. The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy reinterpreted: Subject primacy or the absolutive hypothesis. Language 63(4): 856-70. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Givón, T. 1997. Introduction. In Grammatical Relations: A Functionalist Perspective [Typological Studies in Language 35], T. Givón (ed.), 1-84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Givón, T. 2011. Finiteness and nominalization. Workshop on Finitude et nominalisation, PICS CNRS Complexité syntaxique et diversité typologique. Paris, October 12-14.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 39-76. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kaufman, Daniel. 2011. Exclamatives and temporal nominalizations in Austronesian. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 96], Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds), 721-754. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153-185.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrecht, Knud. 1987. Aboutness as a cognitive category: The thetic-categorical distinction revisited. In
Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society
, 366-381.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1988. There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. In
Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society
, 319-339.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Launey, Michel. 1994. Une grammaire omniprédicative. Essai sur la morphosyntaxe du nahuatl classique. Paris: CNRS Editions.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewis, Sean Michael. 2001. Rethinking the existence of the thetic judgment. <[URL]>
Potsdam, Eric. 2011. Expressing exclamatives in Malagasy. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 96], Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds), 659-684. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Progovac, Ljiljana. 2008. What use is half a clause? In
Evolution of Language: Proceedings of EVOLANG 7, Andrew D.M. Smith, Kenny Smith & Ramon Ferrer i Cancho (eds), 259-266. Singapore: World Scientific. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Queixalós, Francesc. 1998. Nom, verbe et prédicat en sikuani. Louvain: Peeters.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Queixalós, Francesc. 2000. Syntaxe sikuani. Louvain: Peeters.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Queixalós, Francesc. 2003. Relations grammaticales et hiérarchie des objets en sikuani. In Faits de Langues: Méso-Amérique, Caraïbes, Amazonie 2, Jon Landaburu & Francesc Queixalós (eds). 77-92.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Queixalós, Francesc. 2005. Posse em Katukína e valência dos nomes. In Novos estudos sobre línguas indígenas brasileiras, Ayron Rodrigues & Ana Cabral (eds), 177-202. Brasilia: University of Brasília.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Queixalós, Francesc. 2012a. Notes sur la nominalization. In La structure des langues amazoniennes II, Amerindia 35, Ana Carla Bruno, Frantomé Pacheco, Francesc Queixalós, Stella Telles & Leo Wetzels (eds), 105-110.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Queixalós, F. 2012b. Nominalization in Sikuani. In La structure des langues amazoniennes II, Amerindia 35, Ana Carla Bruno, Frantomé Pacheco, Francesc Queixalós, Stella Telles & Leo Wetzels (eds), 153-86.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Queixalós, Francesc & Jimenez Rosalba. 1994. Wajaliwaisianü. Sikuani Piatiriwi Pexi Tsipaeba. Bogota: Etnollano.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosengren Inger. 1997. The thetic / categorical distinction revisited once more. Linguistics 35(3): 439-479.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic / categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511-580. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schwartz, Anne. 2010. Discourse principles in grammar: The thetic/categorical dichotomy. In
Proceedings of the Tropics of the Imagination Conference
, 2 November 2009, Cairns, James Cook University. <[URL]>
Seki, Lucy. 2000. Gramática do Kamaiurá. São Paulo: Editora de Unicamp.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shibatani, Masayoshi 1991. Grammaticization of topic into subject. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2 [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Traugott & Bernard Heine (eds), 93-133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Steele, Susan. 1989. Subject values. Language 65(3): 537-578. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wehr, Barbara. 2000. Zur Beschreibung der Syntax des français parlé (mit einem Exkurs zu “thetisch” und “kategorisch”). In Diskursanalyse: Untersuchungen zum gesprochenen Französisch, Barbara Wehr & Helga Thomassen (eds), 239-289. Berlin: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Magalhães, Marina, Walkíria Praça & Aline Da Cruz
2019.
Gradação da omnipredicatividade na família Tupi-Guarani.
Forma y Función 32:2
► pp. 151 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.