3 pp.Definiteness as a primarily pragmatic function, studied in a functional-cognitive-typological framework

Kirtchuk, Pablo

Archive Ouverte a LUniversite Lyon 2

Definiteness
Pablo Kirtchuk
To cite this version:
Pablo Kirtchuk. Definiteness. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 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
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destine´e au de´poˆt et a` la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publie´s ou non,
e´manant des e´tablissements d’enseignement et de
recherche franc¸ais ou e´trangers, des laboratoires
publics ou prive´s.
Primarily a pragmatic, essentially deictic (‘pointing
at’) function, definiteness is expressed cross-linguisti-
cally by different devices: phonological, morphologi-
cal, syntactic, and lexical. The most characteristic such
device is the definite article (the), i.e. a bound mor-
pheme operating on a noun or noun phrase. When it
operates on a nonnominal element, the latter is nomi-
nalized—it is turned into a noun. Conversely, all deic-
tics and nominals that function deictically (i.e. all
linguistic elements that ‘point out’ a referent), includ-
ing proper nouns, are definite intrinsically.
Definiteness is a scalar opposition, i.e. definite-
ness/indefiniteness are two poles between which there
are multiple intermediate points. Nonreferential indef-
initeness and denominalization are iconically bound to
be marked by zero (indicated below by ø), intermedi-
ate degrees are cross-linguistically marked by several
devices, e.g. indefinite articles (a), a clitic deictic
demonstrative (this-), etc.
Definiteness is a multidimensional notion that can
combine referentiality, specificity, identification, actu-
alization, genericity, individuation, familiarity, and
shared knowledge. Some combinations are:
—definite referential, specific, identifying, cf. The
book I am reading is Tom Sawyer;
—indefinite referential, specific, nonidentifying,
cf. Tom Sawyer is a book I am reading;
—definite referential, specific, shared knowledge,
cf. I’m looking for the book [I was reading] #
—indefinite referential, specific, nonshared
knowledge cf. I’m looking for a book [bu:k]…
(≈ that was here a minute ago] #
—indefinite nonreferential, nonspecific, nonshared
knowledge cf. I’m looking for a book [buk] #
(≈ any book).
The last two utterances clearly differ by content and
context. The first of the two may answer a question of
the type What are you looking for [on the table/in the
room/...]?, or: Have you lost anything?, etc. The per-
son answering has a specific book in mind. The second
utterance, on the other hand, may represent the first
sentence of a client entering a store, who does not nec-
essarily have a specific book in mind. As far as form is
concerned, both utterances are likely to differ as well,
by means of vowel length, intonation and prosody. In
the first one, the accentuated vowel of the indefinite
noun is likely to be slightly longer than in the second
utterance, where it is non-marked for length. The into-
nation contour of the first is less clear-cut and the
utterance does not end as abruptly as the second,
whose intonation contour is the one characteristic of
the affirmative sentence, with a clear descent of tone
and ending in a clear-cut pause.
In English, if an abstract noun is definite, it is actu-
alized, cf. ø Truth is what we should stand for, but the
truth is that we don’t. Other nouns whose referents too
are seen as nonindividuated, i.e. mass nouns, are
incompatible with the indefinite article, cf. The / *a
sand. Compatibility is obtained through individuation
by numeral classifiers, cf. a grain of sand. When a
member of a set is definite but nonreferential, nonspe-
cific, nonindividuated, it is generic, i.e. stands for the
whole set and is equivalent to the indefinite nonreferen-
tial, nonspecific, nonindividuated plural, cf. The bear
1
Definiteness
hibernates ≈ ø Bears hibernate. A bear hibernates, in
contrast, would be indefinite nonreferential, nonspecif-
ic, individuated. Unique elements are definite, e.g. the
sun, although they may not be, if they are seen as part
of a set, cf. love under another sun. There are lan-
guages that devote a special form or syntactic structure
to mark the indefinite partially referential, cf. French Je
cherche du pain ‘I’m looking for some bread’.
Negative constructions are hardly compatible with
definiteness since most of its dimensions are absent,
cf. Fr. Je veux de la soupe ‘I want some soup’ vs. Je
ne veux pas de ø soupe ‘I do not want ø soup’, Russian
Ivan kupil komputer ‘Ivan bought a computer’ (accu-
sative) vs. Ivan ne kupil komputera ‘Ivan did not buy
a(ny) computer’ (genitive).This is valid for ergative
languages too, cf. Basque Nik dut baratze bat ‘I have
a garden’ (absolutive) vs. nik ez dut baratzerik ‘I do
not have a garden’ (partitive). If negation is identified
contrastively, definiteness is possible, cf. Je ne veux
pas la soupe, je veux la salade ‘I do not want the soup,
I want the salad’.
Nouns that are incorporated into a verb are incom-
patible with definiteness, cf. to go hunt a bear vs. to go
ø bearhunting, and so are other denominalized nouns,
e.g. adverbialized ones, cf. take ø fire.
A particular effect is obtained when definiteness
operates on nouns definite by nature, e.g. proper
names (of which the definite article is not a permanent
constituent)
—referential, specific, cf. I’m looking for ø (Mr.)
Jones
—referential, specific, identifying, cf. I’m looking
for the Mr. Jones who was here yesterday
—referential, specific, nonidentifying, cf. I’m
looking for a Mr. Jones who is supposed to live
here (when an explicit article is present,
prefixed civility classifiers (Mr...) or suffixed
human classifiers (...boy/girl), cf. a/the Mr.
Jones/Jones boy/guy/Beth girl, etc. block the
reifying effect of the article).
In English, the definite article allows also to plu-
ralize and actualize proper nouns, e.g. last names: The
Smiths. In Córdoba (Argentina) Spanish, in rural
French, etc., it is first names that are actualized by the
definite article in all functions to convey familiarity.
There are languages in which the article operates on
proper nouns that are the topic of the utterance.
Topicality (old information) and definiteness are nar-
rowly correlated, as are focality (new information)
and indefiniteness. In Nêlêmwâ (Melanesian), /-xe/
functions both as a definite article and a topicalizer.
Topics tend to be subjectal, agentive, human, deictic,
and first actants of transitive verbs; topical nouns with
any or some of these properties tend to be definite.
Focal (new information) ones tend to be predicative,
objectal, patientive, nonhuman, nondeictic, second
actants of transitive verbs and indefinite. If definite
and/or human, they are discursively marked, and
often formally as well, cf. Sp. Vi la casa ‘I saw the
house’ vs. Vi a la mujer ‘I saw the woman’
Contemporary Hebrew (CH) [ra?iti ø dira] vs. [ra?iti
?et ha-?i∫a], Guaraní [ahe∫a oga-ø] vs. [ahe∫a kuña-
me]. Hence, existential constructions (There is...) in
which the noun is the focus are cross-linguistically
incompatible with definiteness, cf. Spanish *Hay el
libro# * ‘There is the book#’ (the asterisk marks
ungrammaticality), CH *[ye∫ ha-sefer#], Fr. *Il y a le
livre# ‘id.’ One way to override this contraint, viz. to
actualize or topicalize an indefinite noun, is to use a
deictic demonstrative, cf. There was a guy# vs. There
was this guy, who… or to focalize the existential, cf.
CH [ye∫ ø-sefer#] vs. [ye∫no ha-sefer#]. Conversely, a
means to focalize a definite noun is the presentative
construction, cf. Here is the book, Fr. Voilà le livre,
CH [hine ha-sefer], Sp. He aquí el libro.
Accordingly, the definiteness gradient correlates with
(1) aspect: bounded action ~ definite agent vs.
unbounded action ~ indefinite agent; note that gener-
icity blocks the actualizing aspect, cf. ø The bear
hibernates /* is hibernating; (2) dynamicity: active
verb ~ definite agent vs. stative verb/adjective/nomi-
nal predicate ~ indefinite actant; (3) inherency: oper-
ating on a nominal predicate, the indefinite article
assigns the subject to a set established by that predi-
cate, cf. German Die Kirsche ist ø sauer ‘The cherry
is sour’ vs. Die Kirsche ist eine sauere ‘The cherry is
of the sour type’, Fr. Il est ø psychologue ‘He under-
stands people’ vs. C’est un psychologue ‘He is a psy-
chologist’. The link between (1), (2), and (3) is
apparent in Spanish, where estar (‘be’, punctual-
dynamic-accidental) is incompatible with the indefi-
nite article, while ser (‘be’, durative-stative-inherent)
is compatible with it, cf. respectively *Está / Es una
cereza amarga/(un) sicólogo; (4) noun class, includ-
ing sex gender. In languages displaying this category,
its marks coalesce with those of deixis and often def-
initeness so that the class prefixes in Bantu; Guaykuru
(Amerind); etc., function as definite articles.
Diachronically, a definite article is descended from a
deictic demonstrative. Discursively, the definite article
is an anaphoric i.e. an intradiscursive deictic device par
excellence, i.e. it always points to something men-
tioned, either previously or afterwards, or given/infer-
able from context (including general truths). This is
accomplished either explicitly, cf. We reached a river
nearby. The river was majestic, or implicitly, cf. We
reached a river nearby. The other bank was too distant
to be seen. Deixis is also the first function cast upon the
DEFINITENESS
2
definite article by the child acquiring language. These
facts illustrate that definiteness is essentially deictic,
and hence of a communicative-pragmatic nature, which
is why it is conveyed in all tongues, albeit not neces-
sarily by a specific morpheme. Quintilian’s (born AD
35) words: Noster sermo articulos non desiderat, ideo
in alias partes orationis sparguntur ‘Our language does
not want articles; hence, thei(r functions) are cast upon
other parts of the sentence’ apply cross-linguistically;
languages not having developed a specific form of a
deictic demonstrative to work as a definite article apply
to other mechanisms to perform this task. Classical
Latin is an example, cross-linguistically current, of def-
initeness marking in a tongue with no articles: a definite
noun is placed in sentence initial position (which often
coincides with subject position). There are languages
that developed a definite article, then lost it as such
either by phonological or by semantic attrition, and
then developed a new one. This includes, among others,
African languages of various stocks. In Nahuatl, the
deictic-nominalizer /in/ functions as definite article
when prefixed to the noun; this is corroborated by the
fact that when a noun does not bear such a prefix, it is
predicative. The suffix /-tl/ marks a vast majority of
nouns (except in incorporation, in the plural, when the
noun is possessed and in quantifiers, indefinites, and
interrogatives); Neo-Aramaic /-a/ behaves similarly.
Those are erstwhile deictics that cliticized into definite
articles, and then spread to all nouns in all positions and
became mere nominalizers.
The numeral ‘one’ often develops a clitic form to
mark an indefinite noun as referential, and the process
starts by marking it as specific: CH [?exad/?axat]
‘one’, respectively, m. and f., evolved a clitic form [-
(?e)xad/-(?a)xat], cf. [cipor(?a)xat ?amr-a li] ‘a (cer-
tain) bird told me’ vs.[ha-xasida hi cipor-nod ø] ‘the
stork is a migrating bird’. At present, an anteposed,
concording and often stressed form of /?ejze/ ‘which’,
followed by the relative particle /∫e/ and a third person
deictic is spreading to focalize not the noun itself but
its being indefinite referential, specific-, cf. [je∫
?ejzo∫ehi hitkadmut] ‘there is some [undoubted]
progress]’. Both recent marks are incompatible with
each other as well as with the definite article /ha-/ and
with a free deictic, which confirms that (in)definite-
ness is a scalar opposition.
References
Bello, A. [1847] 1984. Gramática de la Lengua Castellana.
Madrid: Edaf.
Bril, I. 1994. Indéfini et degrés de définitude en nêlêmwâ. Faits
de Langues 4.211–20.
Corblin, F. 1987. Indéfini, défini, démonstratif. Genève-Paris:
Droz.
Givón, T. 1981. On the development of the numeral ‘one’ as an
indefinite marker. Folia Linguistica Historica—Acta
Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae I(2). 295–304.
Goldenberg, G. [1991] 1998. On predicative adjectives and 
syriac syntax. Studies in Semitic Linguistics, 579–90.
Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Grasserie, R. de la. 1896. De l’article. Mémoires de la Société
de Linguistique de Paris 9.285–322, 381–94.
Greenberg, J. 1978. How does a language acquire gender mark-
ers?. Universals of human language, Vol. 4, 447–82.
Gregersen, E.1967. Prefix and pronoun in Bantu. IJAL, Memoir
21. Baltimore: LSA.
Guillaume, G. [1919] 1975. Le problème de l’article et sa solu-
tion dans la langue française. Paris: Librairie A.-G. Nizet
and Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval.
Harris, M. 1979. The marking of definiteness: a diachronic per-
spective. Papers from the 4th International Conference on
Historical Linguistics, ed. by E. Closs Traugott, 75–86.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. 1979. A functional approach to child lan-
guage: a study of determiners and reference. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kirtchuk(-Halevi), P. I. 1993. Deixis, anaphore, accords, classi-
fication: morphogenèse et fonctionnement. Lille: ANRT.
Kirtchuk(-Halevi), P. I. 2000. Deixis, Noun Classification in
Pilagá and Beyond Between Grammar and Lexicon, E.
Contini Morava and Y. Tobin (eds.), 31–55. Amsterdam-
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kolde, G. 1996. Nominaldetermination. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Krámsky, J. 1972. The article and the concept of definiteness in
language. The Hague–Paris: Mouton.
Launey, M. 1996. Retour au /-tl/ aztèque. Amerindia 21.77–92.
Leiss, E. 2000. Artikel und Aspekt - die grammatischen Muster
von Definitheit. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rosén, H. 1991. The definite article in the making, nominal
constituent order and related phenomena. Linguistic studies
on Latin; selected papers from the 6th International
Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, ed. by J. Herman, 129–50.
Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wackernagel, J. 1928. Vorlesungen über Syntax. Basel:
Birkhäuser.
PABLO I. KIRTCHUK-HALEVI
See also Deixis; Determiner; Reference
DEFINITENESS
3


Definiteness

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00558204/document

Definiteness

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archive Ouverte a LUniversite Lyon 2