Cover not available
Part of
English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective: Current issues
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Evelien Keizer
[Studies in Language Companion Series 221] 2022
► pp. 79–106

The rivalry between definiteness and specificity

The grammaticalization of definiteness in DP emergence

 | Hosei University
This paper addresses the question of why Present-day English (hereafter PDE) grammaticalized definiteness, but not specificity, as a D head. Two semantic properties are involved in the use of nominals: [definite] and [specific]. Definiteness means that a nominal marked as [+definite] indicates that the speaker assumes that the hearer shares the speaker’s presupposition of the existence of an individual. The specific reading is characterized by the certainty of the speaker about the identity of the referent. Specificity is knowledge only held by the speaker. The PDE article system is based on definiteness, while specificity is not involved in article choice in English. This is puzzling because investigations of language acquisition have shown that article choice is cross-linguistically based on specificity rather than definiteness, irrespective of learners’ first language. Thus, specificity seems to be more suitable for a D head. I propose two reasons why the PDE article system is based on definiteness. Firstly, person properties were encoded into the D head since definiteness is to be assimilated to the category of person. Another reason, which I only hint at in this paper, might be intersubjectification: the shift of attention from the speaker to the hearer. Specificity involves the speaker only, while definiteness marking involves both the speaker and the hearer. These two are essential processes of grammaticalization, i.e. DP emergence.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Outline
    • 1.2The analysis of nominals in the minimalist approach: NP vs. DP
  • 2.Definiteness and specificity
  • 3.The use of articles in second language acquisition
    • 3.1Japanese learners
    • 3.2Russian and Korean learners
    • 3.3Dutch and Arabic learners
  • 4.Why has definiteness been grammaticalized in PDE?
    • 4.1Grammaticalization of definiteness as a D head
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Primary sources
Published online: 21 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.221.02osa
References (61)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 1992. Definiteness, existentials, and the ‘list’ interpretation. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory [Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 40], Chris Barker & David Dowty (eds), 1–16. Washington DC: Linguistic Society of America. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and Form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale, & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 1991. Child Language and Developmental Dysphasia: Linguistic Studies of the Acquisition of German [Studies in Speech Pathology and Clinical Linguistics 2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistics Inquiry 22: 1–25.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. 2002. Varieties of indefinites. In Proceedings of SALT 12, Brendan Jackson (ed.), 59–83. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Janet & Sag, Ivan. 1982. Referential and quantification indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukui, Naoki. 1995. Theory of Projection in Syntax. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 1993. The Rise of Functional Categories [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Person, Self, and Interpretability [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 39]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1978. Definiteness and referentiality. In Universals of Human Language, Vol. 4, Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles Ferguson & Edith Moravcsik (eds), 291–330. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Guella, Hakima, Déprez, Vivian, & Sleeman, Petra. 2008. Article choice parameters in L2. In Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2007), Roumyana Slabakova, Jason Rothman, Paula Kempchinsky & Elena Gavruseva (eds), 57–69. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Referential and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
. 1991. Articles and definiteness, published in German as Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantik (Semantics): An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wonderlich (eds), 487–535. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings, Paul H. Portner & Barbara Partee (eds), 223–248, Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hellan, Lars. 1981. On semantic scope. In Ambiguities in Intensional Contexts, Frank Heny (eds), 47–81. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ionin, Tania. 2003. Article Semantics in Second Language Acquisition. PhD dissertation, MIT.
. 2006. THIS is definitely specific: Specificity and definiteness in article systems, Natural Language Semantics 14: 175–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ionin, Tania & Wexler, Ken. 2003. The certain uses of the in L2-English. In Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002), Juana M. Liceras, Helmut Zobl, & Helen Goodluck (eds), 150–160. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Ionin, Tania, Ko, Heejeong & Wexler, Ken. 2004. Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition 12(1): 3–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ioup, Georgette. 1977. Specificity and the interpretation of quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 233–245.Google Scholar
Kazama, Shinjiro. 2018. A contrastive study of the “reflexive pronouns” among Altaic languages, Korean and Japanese. Northern Language Studies 8: 23–58.Google Scholar
Lightbown, Patsy. 1977. Consistency and Variation in the Acquisition of French. PhD dissertation, Columbia University.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. References and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike & Hovdhaugen, Even. 1992. Samoan Reference Grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax, Part I: Parts of Speech [Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 23). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Ogawa, Mutsumi. 2019. The count-mass distinction and English articles. Second Language 18: 47–69.Google Scholar
Osawa, Fuyo. 2003. Syntactic parallels between ontogeny and phylogeny. Lingua 113(1): 3–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The emergence of DP from a perspective of ontogeny and phylogeny: Correlation between DP, TP and aspect in Old English and first language acquisition. In Nominal Determination: Typology, Context Constraints, and Historical Emergence [Studies in Language Companion Series 89], Elisabeth Stark, Elisabeth Leiss & Werner Abraham (eds), 311–337. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The emergence of DP in the history of English: The role of the mysterious genitive. In Historical Linguistics 2007 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 308], Monique Dufresne, Fernande Dupuis & Etleva Vocaj (eds), 135–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Grammaticalization as space creation: A new view of grammaticalization. Bulletin of the Faculty of Letters (Hosei University) 45: 73–85.Google Scholar
Peterson, Carole. 1974. Communicative and Narrative Behavior of Preschool-Age Children. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Philippi, Julia. 1997. The rise of the article in the Germanic languages. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds), 62–93. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Pina, Hernández. 1984. Teorias psico-sociolinguisticos y su aplicacion a la adquisicion del Espanol como lengua materna [Siglo XXI]. Madrid.Google Scholar
Pierce, Amy. 1989. On the Emergence of Syntax: A Crosslinguistic Study. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Prince, Ellen F. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. In Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, Sandra Thompson & William Mann (eds), 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snape, Neal. 2005a. The uses of articles in L2 English by Japanese and Spanish learners. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics 7: 1–23.Google Scholar
. 2005b. The certain uses of articles in L2 English by Japanese and Spanish speakers. Durham and Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 155–168.Google Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte. 2018. Article Emergence in Old English: A Constructionalist Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria. 1990. The clause structure and word order of Modern Greek. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 226–255.Google Scholar
. 1996. The Prefunctional Stage of First Language Acquisition: A Crosslinguistic Study. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Motives for Language Change, Raymond Hickey (ed.), 124–140. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 29–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Primary sources
Skeat, Walter W. 1881–1900. Ælfric’s Lives of Saints, London: Trübner for the Early English Text Society.Google Scholar
Leipzig Glossing Rules <[URL]> (28 February 2021)
OED Second edition on CD-ROM. 1994. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar