sign in sign up
<<
Home , Definiteness

Definiteness Pablo Kirtchuk

To cite this version:

Pablo Kirtchuk. Definiteness. Encyclopedia of Language and , Routledge, NY, pp.1-3, 2004. ￿hal-00558204￿

HAL Id: hal-00558204 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00558204 Submitted on 21 Jan 2011

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Definiteness

Primarily a pragmatic, essentially deictic (‘pointing —indefinite nonreferential, nonspecific, nonshared at’) function, definiteness is expressed cross-linguisti- knowledge cf. ’m looking for a book [buk] # cally by different devices: phonological, morphologi- (≈ any book). cal, syntactic, and lexical. The most characteristic such device is the definite (the), i.e. a bound mor- The last two utterances clearly differ by content and pheme operating on a noun or . When . The first of the two may answer a question of operates on a nonnominal element, the latter is nomi- the type What are looking for [on the table/in the nalized—it is turned into a noun. Conversely, all deic- room/...]?, or: Have you lost anything?, etc. The per- tics and nominals that function deictically (i.e. all son answering has a specific book in mind. The second linguistic elements that ‘point out’ a ), includ- utterance, on the other hand, may represent the first ing proper nouns, are definite intrinsically. sentence of a client entering a store, who does not nec- Definiteness is a scalar opposition, i.e. definite- essarily have a specific book in mind. As far as form is ness/indefiniteness are two poles between which there concerned, both utterances are likely to differ as well, are multiple intermediate points. Nonreferential indef- by means of vowel length, intonation and prosody. In initeness and denominalization are iconically bound to the first , the accentuated vowel of the indefinite be marked by zero (indicated below by ø), intermedi- noun is likely to be slightly longer than in the second ate degrees are cross-linguistically marked by several utterance, where it is non-marked for length. The into- devices, e.g. indefinite articles (a), a clitic deictic nation contour of the first is less clear-cut and the (this-), etc. utterance does not end as abruptly as the second, Definiteness is a multidimensional notion that can whose intonation contour is the one characteristic of combine referentiality, specificity, identification, actu- the affirmative sentence, with a clear descent of tone alization, genericity, individuation, familiarity, and and ending in a clear-cut pause. shared knowledge. Some combinations are: In English, if an abstract noun is definite, it is actu- alized, cf. ø Truth is what should stand for, but the —definite referential, specific, identifying, cf. The truth is that we don’t. Other nouns whose too book I am reading is Tom Sawyer; are seen as nonindividuated, i.e. mass nouns, are —indefinite referential, specific, nonidentifying, incompatible with the indefinite article, cf. The / *a cf. Tom Sawyer is a book I am reading; sand. Compatibility is obtained through individuation —definite referential, specific, shared knowledge, by numeral classifiers, cf. a grain of sand. When a cf. I’m looking for the book [I was reading] # member of a set is definite but nonreferential, nonspe- —indefinite referential, specific, nonshared cific, nonindividuated, it is generic, i.e. stands for the knowledge cf. I’m looking for a book [bu:k]… whole set and is equivalent to the indefinite nonreferen- (≈ that was here a minute ago] # tial, nonspecific, nonindividuated , cf. The bear

1 DEFINITENESS hibernates ≈ ø Bears hibernate. A bear hibernates, in any or some of these properties tend to be definite. , would be indefinite nonreferential, nonspecif- Focal (new information) ones tend to be predicative, ic, individuated. Unique elements are definite, e.g. the objectal, patientive, nonhuman, nondeictic, second sun, although they may not be, if they are seen as part actants of transitive and indefinite. If definite of a set, cf. love under another sun. There are lan- and/or human, they are discursively marked, and guages that devote a special form or syntactic structure often formally as well, cf. Sp. Vi la casa ‘I saw the to mark the indefinite partially referential, cf. French Je house’ vs. Vi a la mujer ‘I saw the woman’ cherche du pain ‘I’m looking for some bread’. Contemporary Hebrew (CH) [ra?iti ø dira] vs. [ra?iti Negative constructions are hardly compatible with ?et ha-?i∫a], Guaraní [ahe∫a oga-ø] vs. [ahe∫a kuña- definiteness since most of its dimensions are absent, me]. Hence, existential constructions (There is...) in cf. Fr. Je veux de la soupe ‘I want some soup’ vs. Je which the noun is the are cross-linguistically ne veux pas de ø soupe ‘I do not want ø soup’, Russian incompatible with definiteness, cf. Spanish *Hay el Ivan kupil komputer ‘Ivan bought a computer’ (accu- libro# * ‘There is the book#’ (the asterisk marks sative) vs. Ivan ne kupil komputera ‘Ivan did not buy ungrammaticality), CH *[ye∫ ha-sefer#], Fr. *Il y a le a(ny) computer’ (genitive).This is valid for ergative livre# ‘id.’ One way to override this contraint, viz. to languages too, cf. Basque Nik dut baratze bat ‘I have actualize or topicalize an indefinite noun, is to use a a garden’ (absolutive) vs. nik ez dut baratzerik ‘I do deictic demonstrative, cf. There was a guy# vs. There not have a garden’ (). If is identified was this guy, who… or to focalize the existential, cf. contrastively, definiteness is possible, cf. Je ne veux CH [ye∫ ø-sefer#] vs. [ye∫no ha-sefer#]. Conversely, a pas la soupe, je veux la salade ‘I do not want the soup, means to focalize a definite noun is the presentative I want the salad’. construction, cf. Here is the book, Fr. Voilà le livre, Nouns that are incorporated into a are incom- CH [hine ha-sefer], Sp. aquí el libro. patible with definiteness, cf. to go hunt a bear vs. to go Accordingly, the definiteness gradient correlates with ø bearhunting, and so are other denominalized nouns, (1) aspect: bounded action ~ definite vs. e.g. adverbialized ones, cf. take ø fire. unbounded action ~ indefinite agent; note that gener- A particular effect is obtained when definiteness icity blocks the actualizing aspect, cf. ø The bear operates on nouns definite by nature, e.g. proper hibernates /* is hibernating; (2) dynamicity: active names (of which the definite article is not a permanent verb ~ definite agent vs. stative verb//nomi- constituent) nal ~ indefinite actant; (3) inherency: oper- ating on a nominal predicate, the indefinite article —referential, specific, cf. I’m looking for ø (Mr.) assigns the to a set established by that predi- Jones cate, cf. German Die Kirsche ist ø sauer ‘The cherry —referential, specific, identifying, cf. I’m looking is sour’ vs. Die Kirsche ist eine sauere ‘The cherry is for the Mr. Jones who was here yesterday of the sour type’, Fr. Il est ø psychologue ‘He under- —referential, specific, nonidentifying, cf. I’m stands people’ vs. C’est un psychologue ‘He is a psy- looking for a Mr. Jones who is supposed to live chologist’. The link between (1), (2), and (3) is here (when an explicit article is present, apparent in Spanish, where estar (‘be’, punctual- prefixed civility classifiers (Mr...) or suffixed dynamic-accidental) is incompatible with the indefi- human classifiers (...boy/girl), cf. a/the Mr. nite article, while ser (‘be’, durative-stative-inherent) Jones/Jones boy/guy/Beth girl, etc. block the is compatible with it, cf. respectively *Está / Es una reifying effect of the article). cereza amarga/(un) sicólogo; (4) , includ- ing sex gender. In languages displaying this category, In English, the definite article allows also to plu- its marks coalesce with those of deixis and often def- ralize and actualize proper nouns, e.g. last names: The initeness so that the class prefixes in Bantu; Guaykuru Smiths. In Córdoba (Argentina) Spanish, in rural (Amerind); etc., function as definite articles. French, etc., it is first names that are actualized by the Diachronically, a definite article is descended from a definite article in all functions to convey familiarity. deictic demonstrative. Discursively, the definite article There are languages in which the article operates on is an anaphoric i.e. an intradiscursive deictic device par proper nouns that are the topic of the utterance. excellence, i.e. it always points to something men- Topicality (old information) and definiteness are nar- tioned, either previously or afterwards, or given/infer- rowly correlated, as are focality (new information) able from context (including general truths). This is and indefiniteness. In Nêlêmwâ (Melanesian), /-xe/ accomplished either explicitly, cf. We reached a river functions both as a definite article and a topicalizer. nearby. The river was majestic, or implicitly, cf.We Topics tend to be subjectal, agentive, human, deictic, reached a river nearby. The other bank was too distant and first actants of transitive verbs; topical nouns with to be seen. Deixis is also the first function cast upon the

2 DEFINITENESS definite article by the child acquiring language. These facts illustrate that definiteness is essentially deictic, Bello, A. [1847] 1984. Gramática de la Lengua Castellana. and hence of a communicative-pragmatic nature, which Madrid: Edaf. is why it is conveyed in all tongues, albeit not neces- Bril, I. 1994. Indéfini et degrés de définitude en nêlêmwâ. Faits sarily by a specific morpheme. Quintilian’s (born AD de Langues 4.211–20. 35) words: Noster sermo articulos non desiderat, ideo Corblin, F. 1987. Indéfini, défini, démonstratif. Genève-Paris: Droz. in alias partes orationis sparguntur ‘Our language does Givón, T. 1981. On the development of the numeral ‘one’ as an not want articles; hence, thei(r functions) are cast upon indefinite marker. Folia Linguistica Historica—Acta other parts of the sentence’ apply cross-linguistically; Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae I(2). 295–304. languages not having developed a specific form of a Goldenberg, G. [1991] 1998. On predicative and deictic demonstrative to work as a definite article apply syriac syntax. Studies in Semitic Linguistics, 579–90. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. to other mechanisms to perform this task. Classical Grasserie, R. de la. 1896. De l’article. Mémoires de la Société Latin is an example, cross-linguistically current, of def- de Linguistique de Paris 9.285–322, 381–94. initeness marking in a tongue with no articles: a definite Greenberg, J. 1978. How does a language acquire gender mark- noun is placed in sentence initial position (which often ers?. Universals of human language, Vol. 4, 447–82. coincides with subject position). There are languages Gregersen, E.1967. Prefix and pronoun in Bantu. IJAL, Memoir 21. Baltimore: LSA. that developed a definite article, then lost it as such Guillaume, G. [1919] 1975. Le problème de l’article et sa solu- either by phonological or by semantic attrition, and tion dans la langue française. Paris: Librairie A.-G. Nizet then developed a new one. This includes, among others, and Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval. African languages of various stocks. In Nahuatl, the Harris, M. 1979. The marking of definiteness: a diachronic per- deictic-nominalizer /in/ functions as definite article spective. Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by E. Closs Traugott, 75–86. when prefixed to the noun; this is corroborated by the Amsterdam: John Benjamins. fact that when a noun does not bear such a prefix, it is Karmiloff-Smith, A. 1979. A functional approach to child lan- predicative. The suffix /-tl/ marks a vast majority of guage: a study of and . Cambridge: nouns (except in incorporation, in the plural, when the Cambridge University Press. noun is possessed and in quantifiers, indefinites, and Kirtchuk(-Halevi), P. I. 1993. Deixis, anaphore, accords, classi- fication: morphogenèse et fonctionnement. Lille: ANRT. interrogatives); Neo-Aramaic /-a/ behaves similarly. Kirtchuk(-Halevi), P. I. 2000. Deixis, Noun Classification in Those are erstwhile deictics that cliticized into definite Pilagá and Beyond Between Grammar and Lexicon, E. articles, and then spread to all nouns in all positions and Contini Morava and Y. Tobin (eds.), 31–55. Amsterdam- became mere nominalizers. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. The numeral ‘one’ often develops a clitic form to Kolde, G. 1996. Nominaldetermination. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Krámsky, J. 1972. The article and the concept of definiteness in mark an indefinite noun as referential, and the process language. The Hague–Paris: Mouton. starts by marking it as specific: CH [?exad/?axat] Launey, M. 1996. Retour au /-tl/ aztèque. Amerindia 21.77–92. ‘one’, respectively, m. and f., evolved a clitic form [- Leiss, E. 2000. Artikel und Aspekt - die grammatischen Muster (?e)xad/-(?a)xat], cf. [cipor(?a)xat ?amr-a li] ‘a (cer- von Definitheit. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter. tain) bird told me’ vs.[ha-xasida hi cipor-nod ø] ‘the Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. stork is a migrating bird’. At present, an anteposed, Rosén, H. 1991. The definite article in the making, nominal concording and often stressed form of /?ejze/ ‘which’, constituent order and related phenomena. Linguistic studies followed by the relative particle /∫e/ and a third person on Latin; selected papers from the 6th International deictic is spreading to focalize not the noun itself but Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, ed. by J. Herman, 129–50. its being indefinite referential, specific-, cf. [je∫ Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ∫ Wackernagel, J. 1928. Vorlesungen über Syntax. Basel: ?ejzo ehi hitkadmut] ‘there is some [undoubted] Birkhäuser. progress]’. Both recent marks are incompatible with PABLO I. KIRTCHUK-HALEVI each other as well as with the definite article /ha-/ and with a free deictic, which confirms that (in)definite- See also Deixis; ; Reference ness is a scalar opposition.

3