Advertisement

This is Definitely Specific: Specificity and Definiteness in Article Systems

  • Tania IoninEmail author
Article

This paper argues for the reality of specificity as noteworthiness, a concept built upon Fodor and Sag’s (1982) view of referentiality. Support for this view of specificity comes from the behavior of indefinite this in spoken English, as well as from specificity markers in Samoan, Hebrew, and Sissala. It is shown that the conditions on the use of this-indefinites cannot be accounted for by previous analyses of specificity. The relationship between definiteness and specificity in article systems crosslinguistically is examined, and a distinction between presuppositions and felicity conditions is argued for. Additional evidence for the reality of specificity comes from a study of article choice in the English of adult second language learners (whose L1s, Russian and Korean, lack articles). It is shown that the learners’ errors are tied to specificity: they consist largely of overuse of the in specific indefinite contexts, and overuse of a in non-specific definite contexts. It is concluded that specificity is a universal semantic distinction, which receives morphological expression crosslinguistically and is available to second language learners.

Keywords

Choice Function Lexical Item Lexical Entry Narrow Scope Scope Reading 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abbott, B. 2003‘Definiteness and Indefiniteness’Horn, L.Ward, W. eds. Handbook of PragmaticsBlackwellOxford122149Google Scholar
  2. Abusch, D. 1994‘The Scope of Indefinites’Natural Language Semantics283135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abusch D. and M. Rooth (1997). ‘Epistemic NP Modifiers,’ in A. Lawson (ed.), Proceedings of SALT 7, CLC Publications, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, M. (1999). ‘The some Indefinites,’ in G. Storto (ed.), Syntax at Sunset 2(UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 3), pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  5. Blass, R. 1990Relevance Relations in Discourse: A Study with Special Reference to SissalaCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Borer, H. (2005). ‘Things that Count: Null D,’ in H. Borer, Structuring Sense: An Exo- Skeletal Trilogy. Book I: In Name Only, Chapter 5, pp. 136–159. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, R 1973A First LanguageHarvard University PressCambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  8. Chierchia, G. (2001). ‘A Puzzle about Indefinites’, in C. Cecchetto, G. Chierchia, and M.T. Guasti (eds.), Sematic Interface: Reference, Anaphora, and Aspect, CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  9. Chung, S., Ladusaw, W. 2003Restriction and SaturationMIT PressCambridge MassGoogle Scholar
  10. Diesing, M. 1992IndefinitesMIT PressCambridge MassGoogle Scholar
  11. Donnellan, K. (1966). ‘Reference and Definite Descriptions’, The Philosophical Review 75, 281–304. Reprinted in D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds.), (1971) Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology, pp. 100–114. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Enç, M. 1991‘The Semantics of Specificity’Linguistic Inquiry22125Google Scholar
  13. Evans, G. 1980‘Pronouns’Linguistic Inquiry11337362Google Scholar
  14. Farkas, D. 2002‘Varieties of Indefinites’Jackson, B. eds. Proceedings of SALT 12CLC PublicationsIthaca, N.Y.5983Google Scholar
  15. von Fintel, K. (1998). ‘Evidence for Presuppositional Indefinites’, ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  16. Fodor, J., Sag, I. 1982‘Referential and Quantificational Indefinites’Linguistics and Philosophy5355398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Givón, T. 1981‘On the Development of the Numeral ‘One’ as an Indefinite Marker’Folia Linguistica Historica23553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Givón, T. (2001). Syntax, vol. 1. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  19. Haspelmath, M. 1997Indefinite PronounsOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Hawkins, J.A. 1978Definiteness and IndefinitenessCroom HelmLondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  22. Heim, I. (1991). ‘Articles and Definiteness Definiteness’, pub1ished in German as ‘Artikel und Definitheit’, A. V. Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, pp. 487–535. De Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  23. Hintikka, J. 1986‘The Semantics of A CertainLinguistic Inquiry17331336Google Scholar
  24. Huebner, T. 1983A Longitudinal Analysis of the Acquisition of EnglishKaromaAnn ArborGoogle Scholar
  25. Huebner, T. 1985‘System and Variability in Interlanguage Syntax’Language Learning35141163Google Scholar
  26. Ionin, T. (2003). Article Semantics in Second Language Acquisition, PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MITWPL, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  27. Ionin, T., Ko, H., Wexler, K. 2004‘Article Semantics in L2-Acquisition: The Role of specificity’Language Acquisition12369Google Scholar
  28. Kadmon, N. 1990‘Uniqueness’Linguistics and Philosophy13273324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaplan, D. 1978‘Dthat’Cole, P. eds. Syntax and Semantics 9: PragmaticsAcademic PressNew York221243Google Scholar
  30. Kelepir, M. (2001). Topics in Turkish Syntax: Clausal Structure and Scope, PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MITWPL, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  31. Ko, H., T. Ionin and K. Wexler (2005). ‘Adult L2-Learners Lack The Maximality Presupposition, Too’, to appear in Proceedings of GALANA 1.Google Scholar
  32. Kratzer, A. 1998‘Scope or Pseudo-Scope? Are There Wide-Scope Indefinites?’Rothstein, S. eds. Events in GrammarKluwerDordrecht163196Google Scholar
  33. Ludlow, P., Neale, S. 1991‘Indefinite Descriptions: In Defense of Russell’Linguistics and Philosophy14171202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lyons, C. 1999DefinitenessCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Maclaran, R. (1982). The Semantics and Pragmatics of the English Demonstratives, PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  36. Maratsos, M.P. 1976The Use of Definite and Indefinite Reference in Young ChildrenCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Master, P. (1987). A Cross-Linguistic Interlanguage Analysis of the Acquisition of the English Article System, PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  38. Matthewson, L. 1999‘On the Interpretation of Wide-Scope Indefinites’Natural Language Semantics779134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matthewson, L., Schaeffer, J. 2000‘Grammar and Pragmatics in the Acquisition of Article Systems’Gilkerson, J.Becker, M.Hyams, N. eds. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Language Development and Breakdown 1University of CaliforniaLos Angeles139Google Scholar
  40. Milsark G. (1974). Existential Sentences in English. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  41. Mitchell, J. (1986). The Formal Semantics of Point of View, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  42. Mosel, U., Hovdhaugen, E. 1992Samoan Reference GrammarScandinavian University PressOsloGoogle Scholar
  43. Partee, B. (1989). ‘Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Context’. In: C. Wilshire, R. Graczyk, and B. Music (eds.), Papers from the 25th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part One: The General Session. pp. 243–365. CLS, Chicago.Google Scholar
  44. Perovic, A., H. Ko, T. Ionin and K. Wexler (2005). ‘L2-Acquisition of the English Indefinite Article by Speakers of Serbo-Croatian’, ms., MIT/Stonybrook University/USC.Google Scholar
  45. Peterson, C.L. (1974). Communicative and Narrative Behavior of Preschool-Age Children, PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  46. Prince, E. (1981). ‘On the Interfacing of Indefinite-This NPs’, A.K. Joshi, B.L. Webber, and I.A. Sag (eds.), Elements Of Discourse Understanding. pp. 231–250. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  47. Reinhart, T. (1995). ‘Interface Strategies’, in OTS Working Papers in Linguistics, OTS, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  48. Reinhart, T. 1997‘Quantifier Scope: How Labor Is Divided between QR and Choice Functions’Linguistics and Philosophy20335397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roberts, C. 2003‘Uniqueness in Definite Noun Phrases’Linguistics and Philosophy26287350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ruys, E.G. (1992). The Scope of Indefinites, PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  51. Schafer, R., Villiers, J.,  et al. 2000‘Imagining Articles: What A and The Can Tell Us about the Emergence of DP’Howell, S.C. eds. BUCLD 24 ProceedingsCascadilla PressSomerville Mass609620Google Scholar
  52. Schlenker, P.: 2003a, ‘Indexicality, Logophoricity, and Plural Pronouns’, in J. Lecarme (ed.), Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II(Selected Papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Paris, 2000), pp. 409–428. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  53. Schlenker, P. 2003b‘A Plea for Monsters’Linguistics and Philosophy2629120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stalnaker, R. 1972‘Pragmatics’Harman, G.Davidson, G. eds. Semantics of Natural LanguageReidelDordrecht380397Google Scholar
  55. Schwarz, B. (2001). ‘Two Kinds of Long-Distance Indefinites’, in R. van Rooy and M. Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, Institute for Language, Logic and Information, University of Amsterdam. pp. 192–197.Google Scholar
  56. Schwarzschild, R. 2002‘Singleton Indefinites’Journal of Semantics19289314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Terkel, S. 1974WorkingAvonNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Thomas, M. 1989‘The Acquisition of English Articles by First- and Second-Language Learners’Applied Psycholinguistics10335355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wexler, K. (2003). ‘Maximal Trouble’, paper presented at the 16th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, MIT, Cambridge, MA. [In press as ‘Maximal Trouble: Cues Don’t Explain Learning’, in E. Gibson and N. Pearlmutter (eds.), The Processing and Acquisition of Reference, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.].Google Scholar
  60. Winter, Y. 1997‘Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites’Linguistics and Philosophy20399467CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linguistics DepartmentUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations