RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN ‘A relieved Beatrix and a depressed Wilders’ The use of an indefinite article in an unexpected setting Erica Kemperman s3013359 January, 2015 Supervisors: - Helen de Hoop - Lotte Hogeweg Voorwoord: Hier aan het begin van mijn scriptie wil ik graag alle mensen bedanken die me geholpen of gesteund hebben tijdens het schrijven, waardoor deze uiteindelijke versie tot stand heeft kunnen komen. In de eerste plaats wil ik Helen de Hoop heel erg bedanken, voor alle goede ideeën, al haar opbouwende feedback en ondersteuning en alle tijd die ze voor me genomen heeft. Daarnaast wil ik de volgende mensen bedanken: Lotte Hogeweg, voor haar nuttige opmerkingen en de bereidheid om op het laatste moment mijn tweede lezer te worden. Kees de Schepper, voor het meedenken over het experiment. Frans van der Slik, voor het controleren van de statistiek. Nelleke Oostdijk, voor het mogen gebruiken van het SoNaR-500 corpus. Wessel Stoop, voor het schrijven van een programma om het experiment mee af te nemen. Ellen Nieboer, van het Academisch Schrijfcentrum Nijmegen, voor haar nuttige tips. Randi Gebert, voor het controleren van het Engels. Als laatste wil ik ook mijn mede-Ichthianen, studiegenoten en familie bedanken voor alle steun en voor de tips die ik van enkelen van hen gekregen heb. Ik wens jullie heel veel leesplezier toe! Abstract Sometimes articles are used in a different way than expected. A definite article can be used in cases where the referent of the noun is non-familiar and non-unique. On the other hand, an indefinite article is sometimes used when the referent of the noun is unique. In this thesis I will focus on the latter type of article use in Dutch. Constructions are studied with an indefinite article and a uniquely referring noun modified by an adjective as well as at the same type of construction with the indefinite article replaced by a definite article. This study demonstrates that the choice for either an indefinite article or a definite article in the target constructions is influenced by the duration of the state described by the adjective. A corpus research and an experiment were conducted to find out when people are more inclined to use an indefinite article. The results show that people are more inclined to use or accept an indefinite article when the adjective describes a state with a shorter duration. This will be analysed in terms of a division between stage level and individual level adjectives, and a further distinction within the group of stage level adjectives between stage level short and stage level long adjectives. The analysis is supported by the assumption derived from type theory that indefinite noun phrases are of the quantificational type <<e,t>,t>, whereas definite noun phrases are of type e. The influence of other factors, like gender or negative or positive connotation of the adjective, are considered as well. Table of contents: Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: The corpus study ................................................................................................................... 3 2.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2. Corpus Research ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.3. Hypothesis .................................................................................................................................... 5 2.4. Further analysis ............................................................................................................................ 5 Chapter 3: The experiment ..................................................................................................................... 9 3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9 3.2. The pre-test .................................................................................................................................. 9 3.3 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 10 3.4. Statistical analysis ....................................................................................................................... 13 3.5. Results ........................................................................................................................................ 13 3.5. Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 16 3.6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 17 Chapter 4: Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 18 4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 18 4.2. The choice of an article .............................................................................................................. 18 4.3. Stage level versus individual level .............................................................................................. 22 4.4. Analysis: Three groups ............................................................................................................... 27 4.5. Support of the analysis with type-theory ................................................................................... 31 4.6. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 36 Chapter 5: Remaining issues ................................................................................................................. 37 5.1. Other observations in the corpus research ................................................................................ 37 5.2. Remaining issues with regard to the experiment ...................................................................... 41 5.3 Other remaining Issues ................................................................................................................ 51 5.4. Suggestions for further research ................................................................................................ 52 Chapter 6: Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 55 References ............................................................................................................................................. 56 Other sources: ................................................................................................................................... 58 Appendices: ........................................................................................................................................... 59 1. The corpus sentences .................................................................................................................... 59 2. The pre-test ................................................................................................................................... 98 3. The experimental sentences ......................................................................................................... 99 Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 1: Introduction Articles in language can behave in unexpected ways. Usually, a definite article is used when the referent is familiar or unique, whereas an indefinite article is used for referents that are non-familiar and non-unique. However, there are exceptions to this rule. Many counterexamples of definite articles for non-unique, non-familiar referents can be found, for instance definites with a covarying interpretation and weak definites. In ‘Every soldier hit the target’, where all soldiers were assigned a different target to shoot at, ‘the target’ has a covarying interpretation. An example of a weak definite is ‘the supermarket’ in ‘John went to the supermarket’ (Aguilar Guevera, 2014). Likewise, indefinite articles are sometimes used for unique referents, too. An example is given in (1). (1) Davenport had weinig moeite met een geblesseerde Venus Williams. ‘Davenport had little difficulty with an injured Venus Williams.’ It is noteworthy that an article is used at all, because proper nouns are usually not preceded by an article. Even more unusual is the fact that an indefinite article is used, since the proper noun denotes a uniquely identifiable person. Of course, it is possible that there are several Venus Williams’s in the world, but it is obvious which Venus Williams is referred to. Although this construction has been noted by somebody at the internet forum Wordreference1, it has not yet been discussed systematically in the formal semantic literature, to the best of my knowledge. The presence of an article, although the following noun is a proper noun, is due to the adjective preceding the noun. When a proper noun is preceded by an adjective, an article is even obligatory most of the times (Taalunieversum, n.d.). However, given the uniqueness of the proper noun,