Abstract
This chapter examines the semantics and pragmatics of two markers of epistemic specificity: reduced indefinite this in English (Prince E, On the inferencing of indefinite-this NPs. In: Joshi A, Webber B, Sag I (eds) Elements of discourse understanding, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 231–250, 1981) and reduced odin “one” in Russian. It is shown that while the two markers have many properties in common, they are subject to subtly different pragmatic requirements. It is proposed that while indefinite this carries a felicity condition of noteworthy property (Ionin T, Nat Lang Semant 14:175–234, 2006), reduced odin carries a felicity condition of identifiability (cf. Farkas D, Varieties of indefinites. In: Jackson B (ed) Proceedings of SALT 12, Ithaca, Cornell University/CLC Publications, Ithaca, 2002b). Empirical consequences of this distinction are discussed, and crosslinguistic evidence from German and Hebrew is brought in to show that both types of felicity conditions are attested on specificity markers crosslinguistically.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The word odin “one” in Russian, when used in front of a noun, behaves like an attributive adjective in that it agrees with the head noun morphologically in gender, number, and case. Odin-NPs in the examples in this chapter are marked for gender (Fem = Feminine, Masc = Masculine, Neut = Neuter) and case (Nom = Nominative, Acc = Accusative, Gen = Genitive, Instr = Instrumental). All odin-NPs discussed in this chapter are singular. The plural form, odni, which is used with pluralia tantum nouns (e.g., odni sani, “one-Pl sled”) does not appear to have a corresponding reduced form.
- 2.
- 3.
In principle, both this R -indefinites and odin R -indefinites could also be analyzed as contextually determined choice functions (cf. Kratzer 1998). In order to decide between the referential and choice-function analyses, it is necessary to consider the availability of intermediate-scope readings (cf. Farkas 1981; Ruys 1992; Reinhart 1997; Winter 1997; Kratzer 1998; and much subsequent literature). Since the focus of this chapter is on the pragmatic conditions on specificity markers, rather than on their scope-taking possibilities, I will not consider this issue here (but see Ionin 2006 for evidence that this R -indefinites, unlike a-indefinites and a certain-indefinites, lack intermediate-scope readings). For differences in the availability of intermediate-scope readings to different types of indefinites, see Schwarz (2001) and Yanovich (this volume), among others.
- 4.
There is also inherent identifiability. Farkas (2002b, 2007) argues that a nontrivial identifying property is a sufficient condition for licensing a certain in English (according to Farkas 2002b, footnote 12, the concept of “nontrivial property,” from de Hoop 1995, “is meant to rule out the trivial property of being identical with oneself and any other properties that all entities have in all worlds”).
For example, consider (i): Farkas predicts that (ia), with a certain, should be equally compatible with the continuation in (ib) (which indicates that the speaker can identify the document) and with the continuation in (ic) (which indicates that no one can identify the document, even though it is inherently identifiable). An experimental study by Ionin (2008) found that native English speakers judged sentences of the type in (ib) as well as the type in (ic) as felicitous continuations of (ia), although the former was given slightly higher ratings (mean ratings of 3.5 vs. 3.2, on a scale from 1 to 4; in contrast, continuations establishing lack of identifiability received the much lower mean rating of 2.1).
In the case of odin R -indefinites, (iia) appears to be more compatible with the continuation in (iib) (which indicates identifiability by the speaker) than in (iic) (which indicates inherent identifiability); however, as with a certain in (i), the judgment is very subtle and requires experimental investigation.
(i)
a.
The answer to this ancient riddle is contained in a certain old document…
b.
You can find that document on exhibit at the university museum.
c.
The problem is that no one knows what document that is.
(ii)
a.
Otvet na ètu tajnu soderžitsja v odnomR
answer on this mystery contains in oneR-Instr
drevnem dokumente…
ancient-Instr document-Instr
“The answer to this mystery is contained in a specific ancient
document.”
b.
Ètot dokument možno uvidet’ na vystavke v
this document may see-Inf on exhibit in
universitetskom muzee.
university museum
“This document may be seen on exhibit at the university museum.”
c.
#Problema v tom, čto nikto ne
znaet, čto èto
problem in that what noone NEG
knows what this
za dokument.
for document
“The problem is that no one knows what document that is.”
- 5.
Lyons further notes that there are languages in which an optional article derived from “one” is possible with nonspecific indefinites (Cantonese: Matthews and Yip, 1994) or marks number (Yoruba: Rowlands, 1969); the latter is also proposed by Wespel (2006) for indefinite articles in Creole languages.
- 6.
Heine (1997) proposes a diachronic model for the development of indefinite articles from the numeral “one.” As discussed in von Heusinger and Klein (this volume), Heine proposes a 5-stage model of diachronic evolution: stage 1 corresponds to a purely numeral use of “one”; stages 2 and 3 roughly correspond to specific indefinite uses of “one” (where the speaker but not the hearer is aware of the referent’s identity); in stage 4, the numeral-based article is extended to nonspecific indefinite contexts; and in stage 5, the indefinite article is used in various types of environments, including generics, as in the case of the English a. In this model, odin R in Russian might be at stage 2, where the indefinite “introduces a new participant presumed to be unknown to the hearer and this participant is taken up as definite in subsequent discourse” (pg. 72), or stage 3, where the indefinite “is extended typically to any participant in discourse known to the speaker but presumed to be unknown to the hearer, irrespective of whether or not the participant concerned is expected to be taken up in subsequent discourse” (pg. 72f). Note, however, that while Heine’s historical model can capture the use of numeral-derived articles as specificity markers, this model cannot, by itself, explain the differences in the felicity conditions on specificity markers derived from numerals vs. from demonstratives.
- 7.
The uncertainty and variability of judgments regarding use of odin R with NPs like grandmother of X supports the view that the explanation is pragmatic rather than semantic. Even more speaker variability is found on use of odin R with sister of X: the felicity of such phrases appears to depend on whether the speaker thinks somebody’s sister is always readily identifiable and hence whether use of odin R is superfluous. In contrast, speakers uniformly reject odin R use with mother of X, because it implies that one can have multiple mothers (since it is superfluous to identify the only mother in a singleton set).
- 8.
Farkas (2002b, footnote 14) makes a distinction between possessive constructions that make strong existential assertions (ia) and those that make weak existential assertions (ib). Farkas notes that a certain is compatible with the latter but not with the former, as shown in (i). She proposes that strong existential assertions affirm existence and require the indefinite to denote a property, while weak existential assertions introduce a discourse referent; a certain-indefinites have only the latter reading available to them.
(i)
a.
Mary has a (#certain) cousin.
b.
Mary has a (certain) cousin that everyone admires.
On my analysis, both this R -indefinites and odin R -indefinites are individual-denoting rather than property-denoting. The prediction then is that they should be compatible with weak existential assertions, but not with strong ones. This prediction is borne out. As shown by (32), both this R and odin R are fine in the presence of relative clause modification, which brings out the weak existential assertion reading. As shown in (ii) below, both specificity markers are bad in strong existential assertions. The sentences in (ii) become better if the speaker then goes on to say something further about the cousin (cf. (3)–(4)), but cannot be used to simply assert the existence of Mary’s cousin.
(ii)
a.
Mary has a/#thisR cousin.
b.
U Maši est’ (#odnaR) kuzina.
to Mary-Dat be-Pres oneR-Fem-Nom cousin-Fem-Nom
“Mary has a cousin.”
Throughout this section, I will therefore be concerned only with weak existential assertions.
- 9.
This analysis does not apply to cases where there is no adjective, as in U Maši est’ otec/brat “Mary has a father/brother.” In these cases, there is no presupposed set, and the copular construction is fine. This would be an example of a strong existential assertion (see footnote 8) and is not relevant to the present discussion.
- 10.
If “mother” is replaced with “grandmother” in examples such as (39b) and (40b), the sentences are still degraded compared to sentences with “cousin” ((39a) and (40a)). The same explanation applies as to (31) vs. (29a) vs. (29b): given the presupposition that a person has two grandmothers, use of odin R to identify one of them appears somewhat superfluous.
References
Abusch, D., and M. Rooth. 1997. Epistemic NP modifiers. In Proceedings of SALT 7. Ithaca: Cornell University/CLC Publications.
Aloni, M. 2001. Quantification under conceptual covers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Blass, R. 1990. Relevance relations in discourse: A study with special reference to Sissala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring sense: An exo-skeletal trilogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Hoop, H. 1995. On the characterization of the weak-strong distinction. In Quantification in natural languages, eds. E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, and B. Partee, 421–450. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Donnellan, K. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 75: 281–304.
Ebert, C., C. Ebert., and S. Hinterwimmer. this volume. The interpretation of the German specificity markers bestimmt and gewiss. In Different kinds of specificity across languages. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 92, eds. C. Ebert, and S. Hinterwimmer, 31–74. Dordrecht: Springer.
Farkas, D. 1981. Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In Proceedings of CLS 7, eds. R. Hendrik et al., 59–66. Ithaca: Cornell University/CLC Publications.
Farkas, D. 1994. Specificity and scope. In Langues et Grammaires 1, eds. L. Nash and G. Tsoulas, 119–137. Paris: University of Paris 8.
Farkas, D. 2002a. Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19: 213–243.
Farkas, D. 2002b. Varieties of indefinites. In Proceedings of SALT 12, Ithaca, ed. B. Jackson, 59–83. Ithaca: Cornell University/CLC Publications.
Farkas, D. 2007. Toward a semantic typology of indefinites. Paper presented at “Funny Indefinites: Workshop on Different Kinds of Specificity Across Languages”, 6–7 July 2007, Berlin.
Fodor, J., and I. Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5(3): 355–398.
Givón, T. 1981. On the development of the numeral ‘one’ as an indefinite marker. Folia Linguistica Historica 2: 35–53.
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: Volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof. 1980. A pragmatic analysis of specificity. In Ambiguity in intensional contexts, ed. F. Heny, 153–190. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
Gunlogson, C. 2001. True to form. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz.
Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heim, I. 1991. Articles and definiteness. Published in German as “Artikel und Definitheit”. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, eds. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Heine, B. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ionin, T. 2006. This is definitely specific: specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics 14: 175–234.
Ionin, T. 2008. An experimental investigation of the semantics and pragmatics of specificity. In Proceedings of the 27th West Coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. N. Abner and J. Bishop, 229–237. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
Ionin, T. 2009. Specificity. In Entry in the pragmatics encyclopedia, ed. L. Cummings, 449–452. New York: Routledge.
Ioup, G. 1975. Some universals for quantifier scope. In Syntax and semantics, vol. 4, ed. J.P. Kimball, 37–58. New York: Academic.
Jayez, J., and L. Tovena. 2002. Determiners and (un)certainty. In Proceedings of SALT XII, 164–183. Ithaca: Cornell University/CLC Publications.
Jayez, J., and L. Tovena. 2006. Epistemic determiners. Journal of Semantics 23: 217–250.
Kagan, O. 2006. Specificity as speaker identifiability. In Proceedings of LoLa 9, 82–89. Budapest.
Kagan, O. 2007. Specificity and the speaker’s worldview. Paper presented at “Funny Indefinites: Workshop on Different Kinds of Specificity Across Languages”, 6–7 July 2007, Berlin. Available as Ms., Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Kaplan, D. 1978. Dthat. In Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, ed. Peter Cole, 221–243. New York: Academic.
Kondrashova, N. 1996. The syntax of existential quantification. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin.
Kratzer, A. 1998. Scope or pseudo-scope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events in grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Li, C., and S. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology. In Subject and topic, ed. C. Li, 457–489. New York: Academic.
Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maclaran, R. 1982. The semantics and pragmatics of the English demonstratives. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Martin, F. this volume. Specificity markers and nominal exclamatives in French. In Different kinds of specificity across languages. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 92, eds. C. Ebert, and S. Hinterwimmer, 11–30. Dordrecht: Springer.
Mosel, U., and E. Hovdhaugen. 1992. Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Partee, B. 1999. Weak NP’s in HAVE sentences. In JFAK: A Liber Amicorum for Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th Birthday, CD-Rom, eds. J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Accessible at: http://www.illc.uva.nl/j5. Accessed 1 Feb 2011.
Prince, E. 1981. On the inferencing of indefinite-this NPs. In Elements of discourse understanding, eds. A. Joshi, B. Webber, and I. Sag, 231–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reinhart, T. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397.
Ruys, E.G. 1992. The scope of indefinites. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University.
Schlenker, P. 2003a. Indexicality, logophoricity, and plural pronouns. In Research in Afroasiatic grammar II (Selected papers from the fifth conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Paris, 2000), ed. J. Lecarme, 409–428. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schlenker, P. 2003b. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120.
Schwarz, B. 2001. Two kinds of long-distance indefinites. In Proceedings of the thirteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, eds. R. van Rooy and M. Stokhof, 192–197. Amsterdam: Institute for Language, Logic and Information, University of Amsterdam.
Stalnaker, R. 1972. Pragmatics. In Semantics of natural language, eds. D. Davidson and G. Harman, 380–397. Dordrecht: Reidel.
von Heusinger, K. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19: 245–274.
von Heusinger, K., and U. Klein. this volume. The distribution of two indefinite articles in Uzbek. In Different kinds of specificity across languages. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 92, eds. C. Ebert, and S. Hinterwimmer, 153–174. Dordrecht: Springer.
Wespel, J. 2006. Indefinite descriptions in Mauritian Creole. Paper presented at the workshop “Types of Specificity in a Crosslinguistic Perspective”. University of Stuttgart.
Winter, Y. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467.
Yanovich, I. this volume. Certain presuppositions and some intermediate readings, and vice versa. In Different kinds of specificity across languages. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 92, eds. C. Ebert, and S. Hinterwimmer, 105–122. Dordrecht: Springer.
Acknowledgments
Big thanks to Ora Matushansky and Eddy Ruys for very helpful comments and suggestions. I am grateful to Danny Fox, Barry Schein, and Philippe Schlenker for interesting discussion. Thanks to Vita Markman and Asya Pereltsvaig, as well as several nonlinguist informants, for Russian judgments; to Hagit Borer and Nora Boneh for information and judgments about Hebrew; and to Michael Wagner for information and judgments about German. I am grateful to the audiences of the “Funny Indefinites” workshop in Berlin (July 2007) and of the Indefinites Panel at AATSEEL 2007 (December 2007), where earlier versions of this chapter were presented. Thank you to an anonymous reviewer of this chapter and to the editors of this volume for helpful comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ionin, T. (2013). Pragmatic Variation Among Specificity Markers. In: Ebert, C., Hinterwimmer, S. (eds) Different Kinds of Specificity Across Languages. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 92. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5310-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5310-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5309-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5310-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)