Search Results

This chapter is devoted to one particular functional domain: that of definite and indefinite reference. Specifically, it concerns the system of articles found in European languages. Obligatory markers for definite and indefinite reference are cross-linguistically not very common. In the languages of (western) Europe, however, they are a salient structural characteristic. This has not always been the case: two millennia ago there were essentially no real articles in the languages of Europe. The main goal of the chapter is to show how articles are spreading throughout Europe.

After the usual introduction to the terminology and early theory of the article among the parts of speech, this chapter gives a survey of the distribution of the definite article through non-Indo-European as well as Indo-European languages. It sketches the age and source (the demonstrative pronoun) of the emergence of the definite article in Greek,Latin, and Germanic, and then discusses its main functions and (Lecture 15) some special uses, including in combination with numerals and with pronouns, and when it is used to make a Noun Phrase from (e.g.) a noun in the genitive, a prepositional phrase, or an adverb. Lecture 16 is devoted to the omission of the article in (e.g.) forms of address, names, poetry, proverbs, idioms, and under foreign influence; the lecture concludes with brief remarks on the indefinite article.

This chapter discusses comparative syntax and the parameters underlying some very fine-grained differences (in the area of quantity words) between English and French. One type of parameter proposed involves the choice between pronouncing and leaving silent a particular functional element. Comparative syntax necessarily involves work on more than one language, but it is not that simple. On the one hand, it attempts to characterize and delineate the parameters that ultimately underlie cross-linguistic differences in syntax. On the other hand, it attempts to exploit those differences as a new and often exciting source of evidence bearing on the characterization and delineation of the principles of universal grammar, of the properties that, by virtue of holding of the (syntactic component of the) human language faculty, will be found to hold of every human language.

This chapter turns to the motivation for one more functional open value within the nominal domain: Classifier Phrase (CL^max), headed by the open value DIV (div. meaning ‘division’). It is argued that CL^max is responsible for the generation of mass vs. count structures and is assigned range, in English, both by plural inflection and by the indefinite article a. #P, on the other hand, is the merger location of all other determiners, including strong determiners, weak determiners, cardinals, and the definite article as well. The chapter looks at the mass-count distinction and the singular-plural distinction in a number of languages, particularly English and Chinese. It also discusses the affinity between bare mass nouns and bare plurals when contrasted with singulars, and provides for a typology of determiners across languages. As in the case of proper vs. common names, it is argued that no lexical listing is required to distinguish mass nouns from count nouns, and that, as in the case of proper/common names, the distinction is fundamentally structural, rather than lexico-semantic.

After the usual introduction to the terminology and early theory of the article among the parts of speech, this chapter gives a survey of the distribution of the definite article through non-Indo-European as well as Indo-European languages. It sketches the age and source (the demonstrative pronoun) of the emergence of the definite article in Greek, Latin, and Germanic, and then discusses its main functions and (Lecture 15) some special uses, including in combination with numerals and with pronouns, and when it is used to make a Noun Phrase from (e.g.) a noun in the genitive, a prepositional phrase, or an adverb. Lecture 16 is devoted to the omission of the article in (e.g.) forms of address, names, poetry, proverbs, idioms, and under foreign influence; the lecture concludes with brief remarks on the indefinite article.

This chapter accounts for two changes that distinguish Modern Greek from Ancient (Classical and New Testament) Greek: the requirement in Modern Greek that proper names occur with a definite article, and the rise of an indefinite article. It argues that these two changes are related. In Ancient Greek, nominal expressions could receive a singular count interpretation with a null expletive D head. The rise of overt indefinite articles indicates that the feature count had come to be grammaticalized (that is, required spellout). Once this requirement was in place, a null expletive in D became generally unavailable, requiring that the overt determiner in D select a proper name.

After the usual introduction to the terminology and early theory of the article among the parts of speech,this chapter gives a survey of the distribution of the definite article through non-Indo-European as well as Indo-European languages. It sketches the age and source (the demonstrative pronoun) of the emergence of the definite article in Greek, Latin, and Germanic, and then discusses its main functions and (Lecture 15) some special uses, including in combination with numerals and with pronouns, and when it is used to make a Noun Phrase from (e.g.) a noun in the genitive, a prepositional phrase, or an adverb. Lecture 16 is devoted to the omission of the article in (e.g.) forms of address, names, poetry, proverbs, idioms, and under foreign influence; the lecture concludes with brief remarks on the indefinite article.

There are no social class differences in the use of the definite and indefinite articles, but they are used significantly more frequently by males. The articles are used much less frequently by the adolescents. The adolescents, however, use personal pronouns significantly more often than the adults. Females use pronouns much more frequently than males, particularly the pronoun she. The middle-class speakers use WH-relative pronouns much more frequently than the working-class speakers. Females also have a much higher frequency of reference to named persons, while males are more likely to name places.

This chapter argues on the basis of French data that a binary distinction such as the commonly accepted stage-level/individual-level distinction is not sufficient to account for the interpretation of adjectives and nominals in direct predicative uses in post-copular position. It argues instead in favor of a three-way contrast between defining/characterizing and situation-descriptive predications. Set in a neo-Davidsonian framework where predicates (including statives) are predicates of eventualities, the distinction is based on two independent semantic criteria: maximality (i.e. whether a state is described as having atomic subparts or not) and density (i.e. whether the subparts are atomic or not). The distinction is shown to be relevant to account for the distribution of adjectives and the indefinite article in French copular constructions.

This chapter presents the different types of article occurring in English and introduces the concept of definiteness to understand which article should be used for which situation. The chapter reveals the most common mistakes and how they can be rectified. It also explores the relationship between articles and generic reference and explains what fixed phrases are.

Chapter 5 addresses determiners containing ein (in German, which subsumes so-called ein-words). Based on co-occurrence restrictions between (properties of) elements to the right of ein and elements to the left of it, it is proposed that ein always has a (possibly unpronounced) element, an operator (OP), to the left of it, and that that OP is movement-related to a position to the right of ein, akin to so-called “degree fronting” in English. The author refers to the fronting-movement as INV (evoking inversion). Whether a certain element undergoes INV or not seems to be ”parameterized.” The fronted constituent may seem small, e.g., m-ein ‘my’ and k-ein ‘no’. But it is a complex phrase. The chapter discusses the derivational complexity and options involved in possessive determiners; and it concludes, drawing in part on evidence from Hungarian, that the contrast between nonfeminine sein ‘his’ and feminine ihr ‘her’ involves two distinct possessor positions.

Chapter 4 considers what is actually meant by the term ‘relative clause’, and lays out a tripartite classification into restrictive relative clauses (the cat whom I love), non-restrictive relative clauses (the cat, whom I love), and inherently maximalizing relative clauses (This was what he wanted). In a language that uses definite articles, a noun modified by a restrictive or non-restrictive relative clause can take a definite or indefinite article (compare the cat whom I love with a cat whom I love, and the cat, whom I love with a cat, whom I love). By contrast, an inherently maximalizing relative clause has something like the meaning of the definite article built into it: what he wanted means something like the thing which he wanted, not a thing which he wanted. This tripartite classification is current in linguistic work, and crucial to the synchronic and diachronic analysis offered in this book.

Assuming no homophony leads to analyses that are surprising from a traditional perspective. For instance, this chapter shows that German would have a morphosyntactically single same d- in dass ‘that’, der ‘the’, jeder ’every’, etc. and a single same ein in ein ‘one’, mein ‘my’, kein ‘no', nein ‘no!’ etc. Based on the syntactic behaviour of d- and ein, respectively, and on a comparison with English and French counterparts, decomposing not into n-o-t and identifying -on in non ‘no!’ and mangeons ‘eat.1pl’ as the same morpheme, it argues that the surprising analysis may actually be correct. While linguists have recourse to comparative evidence, children do not. The chapter suggests that children would be helped in determining the identity of morphemes if they could rely on the absence of homophony, and proposes the homomorphemicity thesis as a property of UG, hence categorically disallowing homophony within certain syntactically defined lexical domains.