Are theticity and sentence-focus encoded grammatical categories of Dutch?

This article examines whether theticity and sentence-focus can be considered to be encoded grammatical categories of Dutch. After providing some background about theticity and sentence-focus, the concept ‘encoded grammatical category’ is operationalized along the lines of Integral Linguistics or Coserian Structural Functionalism. In order for a functional category to qualify as an encoded grammatical category of a language, the language should have at least one construction that encodes the category as a non-defeasible semantic property. The article provides a qualitative investigation of both corpus-based and constructed examples of five Dutch constructions that have hitherto been recognized in the literature as thetic or sentence-focus constructions. It is shown that none of the previously identified Dutch thetic and sentence-focus constructions grammatically encode theticity and sentence-focus as their non-defeasible semantics. All Dutch constructions have uses that are categorically opposed to the categories theticity and sentence-focus. Theticity and sentence-focus are therefore no independently encoded grammatical categories of Dutch, but rather categories of discourse and (normal) language use

Information structure: linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches

Language form varies as a result of the information being communicated. Some of the ways in which it varies include word order, referential form, morphological marking, and prosody. The relevant categories of information include the way a word or its referent have been used in context, for example whether a particular referent has been previously mentioned or not, and whether it plays a topical role in the current utterance or discourse. We first provide a broad review of linguistic phenomena that are sensitive to information structure. We then discuss several theoretical approaches to explaining information structure: information status as a part of the grammar; information status as a representation of the speaker’s and listener’s knowledge of common ground and/or the knowledge state of other discourse participants; and the optimal systems approach. These disparate approaches reflect the fact that there is little consensus in the field about precisely which information status categories are relevant, or how they should be represented. We consider possibilities for future work to bring these lines of work together in explicit psycholinguistic models of how people encode information status and use it for language production and comprehension

Syntactic conditions on special inflection: evidence from Hausa and Coptic Egyptian

This comparative study examines the morphosyntactic parameters governing the distribution of ‘special inflection’ in constituent interrogatives and focus constructions in Hausa and Coptic Egyptian. In these languages, ‘relative’ tense-aspect-mood (TAM) markers occur in relative clauses, constituent interrogatives and declarative focus constructions. However, special inflection is not a clause-typing device but is governed by syntactic conditions, since both languages also have focus/wh-constructions lacking relative TAMs: both languages allow in situ and ex situ focus/wh-constructions, but while Hausa special inflection occurs in ex situ constructions, Coptic special inflection occurs in in situ constructions. A transformational copy theory analysis reduces the parametric differences between Hausa and Coptic to different pronunciation sites of the displaced focus/wh-phrase: either the ‘top copy’ in its displaced position in the specifier of Focus Phrase (FP), or the ‘lower copy’ in its thematic position. An additional parameter reminiscent of the Doubly-filled Comp Filter is set for Hausa to allow both specifier and head of FP to be spelt out (pronounced) at once, resulting in the coincidence of fronting and special inflection, while the same parameter in Coptic is set to prohibit both the head and the specifier of FP spelling out at once, ruling out the coincidence of special inflection and fronting

Signal transduction therapy in haematological malignancies: identification and targeting of tyrosine kinases

Tyrosine kinases play key roles in cell proliferation, survival and differentiation. Their aberrant activation, caused either by the formation of fusion genes by chromosome translocation or by intragenic changes, such as point mutations or internal duplications, is of major importance in the development of many haematological malignancies. An understanding of the mechanisms by which BCR-ABL contributes to the pathogenesis of chronic myeloid leukaemia led to the development of imatinib, the first of several tyrosine kinase inhibitors to enter clinical trials. Although the development of resistance has been problematic, particularly in aggressive disease, the development of novel inhibitors and combination with other forms of therapy shows promise.Abbreviations: ALK, anaplastic lymphoma kinase; ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia; AML, acute myeloid leukaemia; CEL, chronic eosinophilic leukaemia; CML, chronic myeloid leukaemia; CMML, chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; EMS, Eight p11 myeloproliferative syndrome; EPO, erythropoietin; FGFR, fibroblast growth factor receptor; FIP1L1, Fip1-like 1; FLT3, Fms-like tyrosine kinase 3; FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization; HES, hypereosinophilic syndrome; IFNa, interferon a; IL3, interleukin 3; IRIS, International Randomized study of Interferon and STI571; ITD, internal tandem duplication; JAK, Janus kinase; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; MPD, myeloproliferative disorder; NTRK, neurotrophin receptor kinase; PDGFR, platelet-derived growth factor receptor; Ph, Philadelphia chromosome; PV, polycythaemia vera; RT, reverse transcription; SCT, stem cell transplantation; TK, tyrosine kinase