A Semantic Map Approach to English Articles (A, the , and Ø)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A SEMANTIC MAP APPROACH TO ENGLISH ARTICLES (A, THE , AND Ø) by BRIAN C. BUTLER A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Linguistics and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2012 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Brian C. Butler Title: A Semantic Map Approach to English Articles ( a, the , and Ø) This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Linguistics by: Eric Pederson Chairperson Doris Payne Member Vsevolod Kapatsinski Member Lucien Brown Outside Member and Kimberly Andrews Espy Vice President for Research and Innovation Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded December 2012. ii © 2012 Brian Butler iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Brian C. Butler Doctor of Philosophy Department of Linguistics December 2012 Title: A Semantic Map Approach to English Articles ( a, the , and Ø) The three structural possibilities marking a noun with an English article are a, the , and Ø (the absence of an article). Although these structural possibilities are simple, they encode a multitude of semantic and pragmatic functions, and it is these complex form- function interactions that this study explores and explains using a semantic map model. The semantic map that is proposed contains three dimensions, which I refer to as Grammatical Number, Referentiality, and Discourse Mode. Each of these dimensions contains a number of further semantic values or pragmatic functions – which I will label “attributes” – that are implicated in English article choice. Various semantic map versions are tested and compared with a methodological approach that uses data collected in a controlled protocol from an elicited conversational discourse. The version that performed best is used as a basis for proposing a comprehensive semantic map that includes the following dimensions and dimensional attributes: a Number dimension with 3 attributes (singular, plural, and uncountable); a Referentiality dimension with 11 attributes, including 7 referential attributes that describe kinds of identifiability (proper names, shared lexis, shared speech situation, frame, current discourse, identifiable to speaker only [“new reference”], and identifiable to neither speaker nor listener [non- specific]) as well as 4 non-referential attributes (categorization, general non-referential iv expressions, finite verb [verb-object] "noun incorporation", and idioms); and a Discourse Mode dimension with 4 attributes (headline, immediacy, normal, and reintroducing). This model of English articles contributes to the field of research on articles as well as to the field of English language instruction and learning. In addition, it is suggested that the methodological paradigm used to test the semantic map model may be useful as an experimental paradigm for testing semantic maps of other constructions and languages. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Brian C. Butler GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene Emmanuel School of Religion, Johnson City, TN Pacific Christian College, Fullerton, CA DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, Linguistics, 2012, University of Oregon Master of Arts in Religion, 1998, Emmanuel School of Religion Bachelor of Arts, 1992, Pacific Christian College PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Instructor (Graduate Teaching Fellow), American English Institute, University of Oregon, 2005-2012 Adjunct Faculty, World Languages Department, Brookhaven College, 2004-2005 Associate Faculty, Collin County Community College, 2005 English as a Foreign Language Instructor, English L-School, Ueda, Japan, 1998- 2001 PUBLICATIONS: Butler, B. Acoustic correlates of obstruent voicing distinctions in Yangon Burmese (Yangon Myanmar). Journal of the International Phonetic Association . (Provisionally accepted, pending revisions.) vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the faculty of the Linguistics Department at the University of Oregon for guiding me through the many years and projects of this doctoral program. I thank them also for providing me financial support in the form of a graduate teaching fellowship each term. That is something I will forever be grateful for. My assignment most terms was to teach at the University of Oregon’s American English Institute, and I’d like to thank the AEI’s faculty and staff at for their professionalism, good nature, and daily inspiration. Working there has always been fun. I’d like to thank Doris Payne for her early guidance on the class projects that eventually turned into this dissertation as well as for serving on my dissertation committee; her numerous and extremely insightful comments and suggestions helped me immensely as I tried to improve the dissertation in its final stages. I’d also like to thank my other committee members, Vsevolod Kapatsinski and Lucien Brown, for their careful reading and helpful comments. And I’d like to thank my advisor and committee chairman, Eric Pederson, for guiding me along the way. Our weekly meetings provided a framework for the fruitful conversations and a structure for the piecemeal progress that eventually produced this final product. I couldn’t have hoped for a better, more positive, more perspicacious, or more supportive advisor. I’d also like to thank the members of the Cognitive Linguistics Workgroup, which met weekly throughout my years in this program. In recent years, they heard many iterations of the various parts of this project and offered me much valuable feedback that shaped the eventual outcome. vii All of these people have contributed to and improved the form of the dissertation as it appears here; however, I must take credit for any and all of its weaknesses. Finally, I’d like to thank my family and friends for supporting me and keeping me sane in myriad ways, large and small. I feel fortunate to have you all in my life. viii I dedicate this to the great eastern sun, to being hit with a shoe, to the clinking of a dish. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Key Contributions of This Study ..................................................................... 2 1.2. Structure of the Dissertation ............................................................................ 6 II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 8 2.1. Definiteness...................................................................................................... 8 2.1.1. Various Uses of the Term “Definiteness” ............................................... 8 2.1.2. Use of the Term “Definiteness” Here ................................................... 12 2.2. Referentiality: Referential vs. Non-referential ............................................. 13 2.2.1. Referential Mentions and Identifiability ............................................... 16 2.2.2. Non-referential Mentions ...................................................................... 38 2.3. Grammatical Number ..................................................................................... 49 2.4. Discourse Modes ............................................................................................ 53 2.4.1. Normal Narrative Mode ........................................................................ 54 2.4.2. Normal Descriptive Mode..................................................................... 55 2.4.3. Immediacy Narrative Mode .................................................................. 57 2.4.4. Defining Descriptive Mode................................................................... 58 2.4.5. Deferred Descriptive Mode................................................................... 59 2.4.6. Headline Mode ...................................................................................... 61 2.5. Semantic Maps ............................................................................................... 62 2.5.1. Conceptual Space .................................................................................. 63 2.5.2. Semantic Maps ...................................................................................... 64 2.5.3. Implicational Hierarchies ...................................................................... 68 2.5.4. Functional Dimensions and Attributes.................................................. 69 III. PROPOSING AND COMPARING VARIOUS SEMANTIC MAP MODELS ...... 71 3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 71 3.1.1. Overview ............................................................................................... 71 3.1.2. Extracting Testable Models from the Literature on English Articles ... 72 3.2. Methodology for Testing Competing Models................................................ 87 3.2.1. Experimental Design ............................................................................. 87 x Chapter Page 3.2.2. Participants ............................................................................................ 88 3.2.3. Data Collection ..................................................................................... 88 3.2.4. Exclusion of Data from Analysis .........................................................