Nominal anchoring

NominalanchoringSpecificity definiteness and articlesystems across languages

Edited by

Kata BaloghAnja LatrouiteRobert D Van Valinsbquo Jr

language

science

press

Topics at the GrammarshyDiscourseInterface 5

Topics at the GrammarshyDiscourse Interface

Editors Philippa Cook (University of Goumlttingen) Anke Holler (University of Goumlttingen) Cathrine

FabriciusshyHansen (University of Oslo)

In this series

1 Song Sanghoun Modeling information structure in a crossshylinguistic perspective

2 Muumlller Sonja Distribution und Interpretation von ModalpartikelshyKombinationen

3 Bueno Holle Juan Joseacute Information structure in Isthmus Zapotec narrative and

conversation

4 Parikh Prashant Communication and content

5 Balogh Kata Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr (eds) Nominal anchoring

Specificity definiteness and article systems across languages

ISSN 2567shy3335


Edited by


language

science

press

Balogh Kata Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr (eds) 2020 Nominalanchoring Specificity definiteness and article systems across languages (Topics atthe Grammar-Discourse Interface 5) Berlin Language Science Press

This title can be downloaded athttplangsci-pressorgcatalogbook283copy 2020 the authorsPublished under the Creative Commons Attribution 40 Licence (CC BY 40)httpcreativecommonsorglicensesby40ISBN 978-3-96110-284-6 (Digital)

978-3-96110-285-3 (Hardcover)

ISSN 2567-3335DOI 105281zenodo4049471Source code available from wwwgithubcomlangsci283Collaborative reading paperhiveorgdocumentsremotetype=langsciampid=283

Cover and concept of design Ulrike HarbortTypesetting Kata BaloghProofreading Victoria Philpotts Amir Ghorbanpour Geoffrey SampsonGracious Temsen Ivelina Stoyanova Jeroen van de Weijer Lachlan MackenzieLea Schaumlfer Linda Leembruggen Ludger Paschen Lynell Zogbo MadelineMyers Jean Nitzke Radek ŠimiacutekFonts Libertinus Arimo DejaVu Sans Mono Source Han SerifTypesetting software XƎLATEX

Language Science PressxHainGruumlnberger Str 1610243 Berlin Germanylangsci-pressorg

Storage and cataloguing done by FU Berlin

Contents

1 Nominal anchoring IntroductionKata Balogh Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr 1

2 (In)definiteness and Vietnamese classifiersWalter Bisang amp Kim Ngoc Quang 15

3 Preverbal (in)definites in Russian An experimental studyOlga Borik Joan Borragraves-Comes amp Daria Seres 51

4 Referential anchoring without a definite article The case of Mopan(Mayan)Eve Danziger amp Ellen Contini-Morava 81

5 The specificity marker -119890 with indefinite noun phrases in ModernColloquial PersianKlaus von Heusinger amp Roya Sadeghpoor 115

6 Accent on nouns and its reference coding in Siwi Berber (Egypt)Valentina Schiattarella 149

7 Indirect anaphora in a diachronic perspective The case of Danish andSwedishDominika Skrzypek 171

Index 194

Chapter 1

Nominal anchoring IntroductionKata BaloghHeinrich-Heine-Universitaumlt Duumlsseldorf

Anja LatrouiteHeinrich-Heine-Universitaumlt Duumlsseldorf

Robert D Van Valinsbquo JrHeinrich-Heine-Universitaumlt Duumlsseldorf amp University at Buffalo

1 Aims and motivations

It has been observed that a multitude of the worldrsquos languages can do withoutexplicit formal marking of the concepts of definiteness and specificity througharticles (e g Russian Tagalog Japanese) while other languages (e g Lakhota)have very elaborate systems with more fine-grained distinctions in the domainsof definiteness and specificity-marking The main questions that motivate thisvolume are (1) How do languages with and without an article system go abouthelping the hearer to recognize whether a given noun phrase should be inter-preted as definite specific or non-specific (2) Is there clear-cut semantic defi-niteness without articles or do we find systematic ambiguity regarding the inter-pretation of bare noun phrases (3) If there is ambiguity can we still posit onereading as the default (4) What exactly do articles in languages encode that arenot analyzed as straightforwardly coding (in)definiteness (5) Do we find linguis-tic tools in these languages that are similar to those found in languages withoutarticles

The papers in this volume address these main questions from the point ofview of typologically diverse languages Indo-European is well represented byRussian Persian Danish and Swedish with diachronic phenomena investigated

Kata Balogh Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr 2020 Nominal anchoring IntroductionIn Kata Balogh Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr (eds) Nominal anchoring Specificitydefiniteness and article systems across languages 1ndash14 Berlin Language Science Press DOI 105281zenodo4049677

Kata Balogh Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr

in relation to the last two of these In terms of article systems they range fromRussian which has no articles the typical situation in most Slavic languages toPersian which has an indefinite article but no definite article to the more com-plete systems found in Romance and Germanic languages The three non-Indo-European languages investigated in this volume namely Mopan (Mayan) Viet-namese and Siwi (Berber) are typologically quite diverse Mopan is verb-initialand thoroughly head-marking Vietnamese is verb-medial and radically isolat-ing i e lacking inflectional and derivational morphology and Siwi is verb-initialwith the signature Afro-Asiatic trilateral roots which are the input to derivationaland inflectional processes What they have in common is the absence of articlessignaling (in)definiteness

2 Article systems and related notions

Chesterman (1991 p4) points out that ldquoit is via the articles that definiteness isquintessentially realized and it is in analyses of the articles that the descriptiveproblems are most clearly manifested Moreover it is largely on the basis of theevidence of articles in article-languages that definiteness has been proposed atall as a category in other languagesrdquo

Here we view definiteness as a denotational discourse-cognitive categoryroughly understood as identifiability of the referent to the speaker instead ofa grammatical (or grammaticalized) category and therefore we can investigatethe means that languages use for indicating definiteness or referential anchoringin general Natural languages have various means to signal definiteness andorspecificity Languages differ in their article systems as well as in the functions theset of articles they exhibit may serve Simple article languages (e g English Hun-garian) generally distinguish definite and indefinite noun phrases by different ar-ticles but they may also use their article inventory to code categories other thandefiniteness (e g Mopan Maya ) Complex article languages like Lakhota whichexhibits an elaborate and sophisticated system always mark more than simple(in)definiteness A great number of languages (e g Russian Tagalog Japanese)have no or no clear-cut article systems and rely on other means to encode defi-niteness distinctions

Most of the languages investigated in this volume belong to the last type Themeans they use to help indicate how the referent of a noun phrase is anchoredand intended to be interpreted include classifier systems (e g Vietnamese Chuj)clitics (e g Romanian) designated morphemes on nouns (e g Moksha Persian)and syntactic position (e g Chinese) In certain languages alongside article sys-

2

1 Nominal anchoring Introduction

tems and morphosyntactic means prosody plays a crucial role for the coding of(in)definiteness for example accent placement in Siwi or tone in Bambara

21 Basic notions definiteness and specificity

In the cross-linguistic investigation and analysis of article systems and nounphras-es various different but related notions play a key role In the analysisof various types of definite and indefinite noun phrases the two most importantnotions are definiteness and specificity together with further distinguishing no-tions of uniqueness familiarity discourse prominence and so on In the followingwe give a brief introduction to these notions Our aim is not to provide a detaileddiscussion of all notions and all theories but to present an overview of the mostimportant classical analyses relevant to the papers and their main issues in thisvolume

211 Definiteness

The notion of definiteness itself is a matter of controversy given the differentuses of definite noun phrases for anaphoric linkage relational dependencies sit-uationaldeictic salience or inherently uniquely referring nouns The notion isused in a variety of ways by different authors The classical analyses of definite-ness distinguish two main lines of characterization (1) the uniqueness analysisfollowing works by Russell (1905) and Strawson (1950) and (2) the familiarityaccount after Christophersen (1939) Kamp (1981) and Heim (1982)

In Russellrsquos (1905) analysis indefinites have existential quantificational forcewhile definite descriptions1 are considered referential Definites assert existenceand uniqueness as illustrated in the logical translation of sentences like (1)

(1) The N is Pexist119909(119873 (119909) and forall119910(119873 (119910) rarr 119909 = 119910) and 119875(119909))a there is an N (existence)b at most one thing is N (uniqueness)c something that is N is P

The meaning contribution of the definite article is to signal the existence of aunique referent (a-b) while the head noun provides sortal information of the ref-erent (c) In the Russellian tradition indefinites are distinguished from definites

1These mostly refer to noun phrases with a definite article e g the dog but other expressionslike possessive noun phrases and pronouns are also considered definite descriptions

3


in terms of uniqueness as the predicate (sortal information) applies to exactlyone referent Russellrsquos highly influential approach has inspired many theorieson definiteness similarly various approaches point out critical issues in Russellrsquostheory The most intriguing issues discussed in the literature are the problem ofpresuppositionality the problem of incomplete descriptions and the problem ofreferentiality To solve these crucial issues a great number of theories have beenproposed over the decades In Strawsonrsquos (1950) account existence and unique-ness are presupposed rather than asserted He claims that if the presuppositionfails the sentence does not bear a truthvalue i e it is neither true nor false Theincompleteness problem where the definite description does not have a uniquereferent inspired several authors (e g Strawson 1950 McCawley 1979 Lewis1979 Neale 1990) to offer various solutions like contextual restriction and theprominencesaliency approach The latter was proposed byMcCawley (1979) andLewis (1979) who argues that definite descriptions refer to the most prominentor most salient referent of a given context Donnellan (1966) argues that definitedescriptions have two different uses an attributive and a referential use The for-mer use can be characterized similarly to Russellrsquos account while the latter userequires a different analysis Donnellanrsquos famous example is (2) which can beused in different ways in different situations

(2) Smithrsquos murderer is insane (Donnellan 1966 p285)

In a situation where the murderer is unknown (e g at the scene of the crime)the noun phrase lsquoSmithrsquos murdererrsquo is understood attributively as meaning thatwhoever murdered Smith is insane On the other hand in a different situationwhere the murderer is known (e g at the trial) the noun phrase can be replacedby for example he as it is used referentially referring to the individual who isthe murderer

The other highly influential classical account of definites represents a differentview These theories follow the work by Christophersen (1939) who accountsfor the interpretation of definites in terms of familiarity rather than uniquenessIn his theory definite descriptions must be discourse-old already introduced inthe given discourse context and as such known to the hearer Christophersenrsquosfamiliarity account inspired famous theories in formal semantics File ChangeSemantics [FCS] of Heim (1982) and the similar Discourse Representation Theory[DRT] whichwas developed in parallel and introduced by Kamp (1981) and KampampReyle (1993) One of themajor contributions of these approaches is the solutionfor the so-called lsquodonkey sentencesrsquo (3a) and further issues of the interpretationof discourse anaphora (3b)

4


(3) a If a farmer119894 owns a donkey119895 he119894 beats it119895 b A student119894 came in She119894 smiled

In both sentences the indefinite noun phrases can be referred to by an ana-phoric expression in the subsequent sentence Based on such examples theypropose a division of labour between indefinite and definite noun phrases In-definites like a student introduce new discourse referents while definite nounphrases like the student pick up a referent that has already been introduced sim-ilarly to anaphoric pronouns

In his 1985 paper Loumlbner argues for a relational approach and against theuniqueness approach claiming that it is rather non-ambiguity that is essential fordefiniteness Loumlbner (1985) distinguishes noun phrases by their type of use Themain distinction is into sortal and non-sortal nouns where the latter is furtherdivided into relational and functional nouns and concepts Relational nouns in-clude kinship terms (e g sister) social relations (e g friend) and parts (e g eye)while functional nouns are roles (e g wife president) unique parts (e g headroof ) conceptual dimensions (e g height age) and singleton events (e g birthend) In the analysis of definite descriptions Loumlbner (1985) distinguishes seman-tic and pragmatic definites For semantic definites ldquothe referent of the definite isestablished independently of the immediate situation or context of the utterancerdquo(Loumlbner 1985 p298) while pragmatic definites are ldquodependent on special situa-tions and context for the non-ambiguity of a referentrdquo (Loumlbner 1985 p298) One-and two place functional concepts (4) as well as configurational uses (5) are con-sidered semantic definites Loumlbner claims that statements like (5) are impossiblewith sortal nouns

(4) 1-place functional concepts the time the last party the other girl etc2-place functional conceptsmywife the author the president of France etc

(5) He was the son of a poor farmer (Loumlbner 1985 ex17)

As Loumlbner argues this distinction is significant in various ways for examplefunctional nouns can only take the definite article (with the exception of existen-tial contexts) Further examples he gives are of German cliticization (6) wherethe cliticized article encodes a semantic definite as opposed to a non-cliticizedone In various languages there are different articles often referred to as weakand strong (Schwarz 2019) encoding semantic and pragmatic definites This dis-tinction can be found for example in the Fering (Foumlhr) dialect of Frisian (e gEbert 1971) and in the Rheinland dialect of German (e g Hartmann 1982)

5


(6) Germana Er

hemuszligmust

insin dasin=thein the

Krankenhaushospital

lsquoHe must go to hospital againrsquo(from Loumlbner 1985 ex52 our glosses)

b Erhe

muszligmust

wiederagain


Krankenhaushospital

zuruumlckback

ausfrom

demtheDAT

erhe

schonalready

entlassendischarged

warwas

lsquoHe has to go back to the hospital from which he had already beendischargedrsquo (from Loumlbner 1985 ex54 our glosses)

(7) Fering (Foumlhr) (Ebert 1971 p161)a Ik

Iskalmust

deeldown

tuto

aditheWtheS

kuupmangrocer

lsquoI have to go down to the grocerrsquob Oki

Okiheehas

ana

hingsthorse

keeftbought

AditheWtheS

hingsthorse

haaltetlimps

lsquoOki has bought a horse The horse limpsrsquo

As for the meaning contribution of the definite article based on the differentnounconcept types and their uses Loumlbner (1985) argues that the definite articleindicates that the given noun must be taken as a functional concept

212 Specificity

The notion of specificity (see e g von Heusinger 2011) is also defined and charac-terized in different ways and in relation to a variety of factors Specificity is gen-erally used to distinguish various readings of indefinites A generally acceptedview is that sentences like (8) can be interpreted in two ways depending onwhether the speaker has a particular entity in mind referred to by the indefinitenoun phrase

(8) Mia kissed a student yesterday1 whoever Mia kissed is a student (non-specific)2 there is a specific student whom Mia kissed (specific)

As a linguistic notion the opposition between the non-specific and the specificreadings of indefinites is characterized in relation to a variety of factors Farkas

6


(1994) distinguishes referential scopal and epistemic specificity Specific indefi-nites refer to an individual and hence can be anaphorically referred back toWithrespect to the second reading of (8) the sentence could be followed by He is tallwhile this is not possible after the first reading In relation to other operators spe-cific indefinites take a wide scope The epistemic opposition is very close to (ifnot the same as) the referential opposition as it is characterized by the fact thatby using specific indefinites the speaker has a referential intention i e theyhave a certain individual in mind (Karttunen 1968 Farkas 1994) In addition toFarkasrsquos (1994) three-way distinction von Heusinger (2011 2019) proposes fourmore oppositions namely partitivity noteworthiness topicality and discourseprominence As Enccedil (1991) argues specific indefinites are discourse-linked andinferable they refer to a part of a set previously introduced to the discourse Asa motivation she shows that this distinction is overtly marked in Turkish ac-cusative marked direct objects are interpreted specifically (9a) while unmarkedobjects are taken as non-specific (9b)

(9) a AliAli

birone

piyano-yupiano-ACC

kiralamakto-rent

istiyorwants

lsquoAli wants to rent a certain pianorsquo (Enccedil 1991 ex12)b Ali

Alibirone

piyanopiano

kiralamakto-rent

istiyorwants

lsquoAli wants to rent a (non-specific) pianorsquo (Enccedil 1991 ex13)

The relevance of noteworthiness is often illustrated by the use of the markedindefinite this N construction Such examples can only be followed by newswor-thyinterestingparticular information regarding the noun phrase

(10) He put this 31-cent stamp on the envelope (after Maclaran 1982)a and only realized later that it was worth a fortuneb so he must want it to go airmail

Topicality and discourse prominence are also closely related to specificity In-definite noun phrases that are topical receive a specific interpretation This canbe shown by Hungarian examples where topicality is syntactically marked byplacement to a left-peripheral position within the clause (11)

(11) Egya

diaacutekstudent

be-kopogottVPRT-knocked

azthe

igazgatoacute-hozdirector-ALL

lsquoA (particular) student knocked at the directorrsquos officersquo

7


The left-peripheral topic position can only host referential and specific nounphrases (e g Eacute Kiss 2002) and hence the indefinite noun phrase can only be inthe topic position when it is interpreted specifically

3 Contributions

The papers in this volume address to different degrees the general questions in-troduced in sect1 Most contributions report on research on different corpora andelicited data or present the outcome of various experimental studies One pa-per presents a diachronic study of the emergence of article systems As men-tioned before the volume covers typologically diverse languages VietnameseSiwi (Berber) Russian Mopan (Mayan) Persian Danish and Swedish

31 Languages with articles

If a language is analyzed as having an article the standard expectation is that itwill express either definiteness or indefiniteness However the number of papersintroducing article-languages in which the determiners do not encode differentdegrees of identifiability and uniqueness is on the rise (e g Lyon 2015) Thecrucial question is what features an element is required to exhibit to be countedas an article If the answer is given in line with Himmelmann (2001) and othersthen no functional element that does not convey some degree of specificity iscounted as an article If Dryerrsquos (2014) characterization of articles is adopted thenall functional elements that occur with high frequency in noun phrases indicateargumenthood and vary for grammatical features are included in the category

Eve Danziger and Ellen Contini-Morava adopt Dryerrsquos (2014) view in theircontribution Referential anchoring without a definite article The case of Mopan(Mayan) and investigate all the means that Mopan utilizes in order to evoke rel-ative identifiability and uniqueness While based on formal and distributionalcriteria the Yucatecan language Mopan exhibits a determiner of the type usu-ally classified as an article they find that this article does not encode any of thesemantic notions of definiteness specificity and uniqueness It merely serves toexpress that a given lexeme is used as an argument in the sentence In their anal-ysis and explanation they build upon Dryerrsquos (2014) definiteness hierarchy anddemonstrate that the article itself as well as the bare nominal form can occurin any position in Dryerrsquos definiteness hierarchy This observation leads to aninvestigation of exactly what the discourse-pragmatic function of the article isand how it can be calculated The authorsrsquo conclusion is that the contribution

8


of the article is best characterized by factors such as discourse salience whichcontexts or world knowledge may lend even to non-specific indefinites

In their paper The specificity marker -e with indefinite noun phrases in Mod-ern Colloquial Persian Klaus von Heusinger and Roya Sadeghpoor focus on thespecificity marker -e and its compatibility with two indefinite markers and inves-tigate the different kinds of indefinite readings that arise In their experimentalpilot studies they test and provide some support for the hypothesis that the dif-ference in interpretation between the combinations lies in the anchoring of thereferents i e in whether the referent is construable as speaker-specific or non-speaker-specific The studies thereby provide additional evidence for the need toassume a fine-grained approach in the investigation of specificity and referen-tial anchoring (von Heusinger 2002) However they also show that specificity-unrelated semantic properties like animacy need to be taken into account in theexplanation of their results

The contribution Indirect anaphora from a diachronic perspective The case ofDanish and Swedish by Dominika Skrzypek is the only diachronic study in thisvolume The author investigates different kinds of indirect anaphora (associativeanaphora bridging anaphora) as one of the steps in the grammaticalization pro-cess towards a definite article from the beginning of the 13th century until themiddle of the 16th century The paper is particularly concerned with the distribu-tion and use of indirect anaphora and the features that the relationship betweenindirect anaphora and their anchor is based on Looking at inalienable and othertypes of indirect anaphora the author shows that indirect anaphora form a het-erogeneous concept and are not easily positioned in the strong-weak definitenessdichotomy The evidence points to the fact that the definite article did not spreaduniformly through indirect anaphora in Danish and Swedish

32 Languages without articles

In article-less languages the encoding of definiteness is often a complex matterwhere various linguistic factors play a role Japanese and Chinese are both lan-guages that are well known for lacking an article system In Japanese argumentphrases are marked by case markers (nominative ga accusative wo dative ni)or non-case markers like the topic marker wa or the additive marker mo lsquoalsorsquoConsequently definiteness is not straightforwardly grammaticalized but ratherconsidered an interpretational category (e g Tawa 1993) for which classifiersplay a crucial role The same holds for Chinese which lacks case markers butexhibits even more numeral classifiers than Japanese These have been arguedby Cheng amp Sybesma (1999) and others to play a crucial role for the definiteness

9


reading of noun phrases whenever numeral information is missing HoweverPeng (2004 p1129) notes that for indeterminate expressions ldquothere is a strongbut seldom absolute correlation between the interpretation of identifiability ornonidentifiability and their occurrence in different positions in a sentencerdquo Simp-son et al (2011) who study bare classifier definites in Vietnamese Hmong andBangla also find that classifiers are relevant to nominal anchoring However thefact that bare noun phrases also seem to be able to receive definite interpretationsweakens the claim that classifiers are the morphosyntactic key to definiteness in-terpretation and rather points to the fact that a multilevel approach proposed byHeine (1998) is better in explaining how definiteness or specificity interpretationsarise

Walter Bisang and Kim Ngoc Quang in their study (In)definiteness and Viet-namese classifiers contribute to our understanding of the classifier language Viet-namese They investigate which linguistic factors influence the interpretation ofphrases with numeral classifiers [CL] in bare classifier constructions as eitherdefinite or indefinite and point out the licensing contexts for the different usesand readings of nominal classifiers They find a striking clustering of definiteinterpretations with animacy and subject status whereby definiteness is under-stood as identifiability in discourse Indefinite interpretations on the other handare predominantly witnessed in certain sentence types (existential sentences andthetic sentences) and with certain types of verbs (verbs of appearance) A crucialfinding is that noun class type following Loumlbner (1985 2011) and factors like ani-macy and grammatical relation are less important than information structure forthe appearance of classifiers in definite and indefinite contexts Classifiers areshown to be associated with pragmatic definiteness rather than semantic def-initeness i e identifiability rather than uniqueness Furthermore the authorsprovide evidence that contrastive topics contrastive focus and focus particlescorrelate with the use of classifier constructions Similar to the constructions dis-cussed for Persian andMopan (Mayan) in this volume the classifier constructionin Vietnamese can be once more viewed as a construction whose final interpreta-tion depends on the one hand on discourse prominence and on the other handon features of the morphosyntax-semantics interface that are well known forcontributing to the overall saliency of a phrase

In her contribution Accent on nouns and its reference coding in Siwi Berber Valentina Schiattarella investigates definiteness marking in Siwi Berber an in-digenous Berber language spoken in Egypt In Siwi a language without articlesit is claimed that the placement of accent on the last syllable versus the penul-timate syllable encodes indefiniteness and definiteness respectively i e the ac-

10


cent on the last syllable is generally assumed to encode indefiniteness and theaccent on the penultimate syllable to encode definiteness This default interpreta-tion can be overridden as Schiattarella shows in her paper She analyzes variouscorpus data from spontaneous discourse and guided elicitations to further exam-ine the role of various morphosyntactic means (e g possessive constructionsdemonstratives prepositions and adpositional phrases) as well as pragmatic as-pects (e g anaphoricity familiarity uniqueness reactivation and informationstructural considerations) in influencing the interpretation of noun phrases Theauthor furthermore finds that right- and left-detached constructions or the ap-pearance of a demonstrative a possessive marker or relative clause in postnom-inal position influences the interpretation

Olga Borik Joan Borragraves-Comes and Daria Seres in Preverbal (in)definites inRussian An experimental study present an experimental study on Russian barenominal subjects and investigate the relationship between definiteness linearorder and discourse linking Given that Russian lacks articles and has very flex-ible word order it is widely assumed that (in)definiteness correlates with theposition of a noun phrase in the clause i e preverbal position is associated witha definite reading and postverbal with an indefinite interpretation The authorsexperimentally verify that this correlation basically holds but they also find thatspeakers accept a surprising number of cases in which a preverbal NP is inter-preted as indefinite which leads to the conclusion that Russian bare nouns arebasically indefinite The unexpected correlations between position and interpre-tation lead to further investigations of the relevant factors involved and the sug-gestion that regardless of topicality discourse linking principles following Pe-setsky (1987) and Dyakonova (2009) facilitate the use of indefinite nominals inthe unexpected preverbal position

33 Summary

The papers in this volume deal with pragmatic notions of definiteness and speci-ficity The studies presented here provide the following findings regarding ourinitial motivating questions On the issue of how languages with and withoutarticles guide the hearer to the conclusion that a given noun phrase should beinterpreted as definite specific or non-specific the studies in this paper argue forsimilar strategies The languages investigated in this volume use constructionsand linguistic tools that receive a final interpretation based on discourse promi-nence considerations and various aspects of the syntax-semantics interface Incase of ambiguity between these readings the default interpretation is given byfactors (e g familiarity uniqueness) that are known to contribute to the salience

11


of phrases but may be overridden by discourse prominence Articles that do notstraightforwardly mark (in)definiteness encode different kinds of specificity Inthe languages studied in this volume whether they have an article system ornot similar factors and linguistic tools are involved in the calculation process ofinterpretations

Acknowledgments

The volume contains revised selected papers from the workshop entitled Speci-ficity definiteness and article systems across languages held at the 40th AnnualConference of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS) 7-9 March 2018 at the Uni-versity of StuttgartWe verymuch appreciate the contributions of all participantsin the workshop who enriched the event with their presence questions presen-tations and comments Special thanks to the DFG for all financial support andtheir funding of our project D04 within the SFB 991 in Duumlsseldorf which madethe workshop and this editing work possible Many thanks to the series editorsPhilippa Cook Anke Holler and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen for carefully guidingus through from the submission to the completion of this volume

References

Cheng Lisa amp Rint Sybesma 1999 Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structureof NP Linguistic Inquiry 30(4) 509ndash542

Chesterman Andrew 1991 On definiteness A study with special reference to En-glish and Finnish (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 56) Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Christophersen Paul 1939 The articles A study of their theory and use in EnglishCopenhagen Einar Munksgaard

Donnellan Keith S 1966 Reference and definite descriptions The PhilosophicalReview 75(3) 281ndash304

Dryer Matthew S 2014 Competing methods for uncovering linguistic diversityThe case of definite and indefinite articles (commentary on Davis Gillon andMatthewson) Language 90(4) e232ndashe249

Dyakonova Marina 2009A phase-based approach to Russian free word orderAm-sterdam University of Amsterdam (Doctoral dissertation)

Eacute Kiss Katalin 2002 The syntax of Hungarian Cambridge Cambridge Univer-sity Press

12


Ebert Karen 1971 Referenz Sprechsituation und die bestimmten Artikel in einemnordfriesischen Dialekt (Studien und Materialien Nr 4) Bredstedt NordfriiskInstituut

Enccedil Muumlrvet 1991 The semantics of specificity Linguistic Inquiry 22(1) 1ndash25Farkas Donka 1994 Specificity and scope In Lea Nash amp George Tsoulas (eds)

Proceedings of langues et grammaire 1 119ndash137Hartmann Dietrich 1982 Deixis and anaphora in German dialects The seman-

tics and pragmatics of two definite articles in dialectal varieties In JuumlrgenWeissenborn amp Wolfgang Klein (eds) Here and there Cross-linguistic studieson deixis and demonstration (Pragmatics amp Beyond III2-3) 187ndash208 Amster-damPhiladelphia John Benjamins

Heim Irene 1982 The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases AmherstMA University of Massachusetts (Doctoral dissertation)

Heine Julia E 1998 Definiteness predictions for Japanese noun phrases In Chris-tian Boitet amp Pete Whitelock (eds) COLING 1998 The 17th International Con-ference on Computational Linguistics 519ndash525 ACL Universiteacute de Montreal

Himmelmann Nikolaus 2001 Articles In Martin Haspelmath Ekkehard KoumlnigWulf Oesterreicher ampWolfgang Raible (eds) Language typology and languageuniversals 831ndash841 Berlin Mouton De Gruyter

Kamp Hans 1981 A theory of truth and semantic interpretation In Jeroen Groe-nendijk Theo Janssen amp Martin Stokhof (eds) Formal methods in the study oflanguage 277ndash322 Amsterdam Matematisch Centrum

Kamp Hans amp Uwe Reyle 1993 From discourse to logic Introduction to modelthe-oretic semantics of natural language formal logic and Discourse RepresentationTheory Dordrecht Kluwer Academic Publishers

Karttunen Lauri 1968 What do referential indices refer to Paper prepared forthe Linguistics Colloquium University of California Los Angeles

Lewis David 1979 Scorekeeping in a language game Journal of PhilosophicalLogic 8(1) 339ndash359

Loumlbner Sebastian 1985 Definites Journal of Semantics 4 279ndash326Loumlbner Sebastian 2011 Concept types and determination Journal of Semantics

28 279ndash333Lyon John 2015 Okanagan determiner phrases and domain restriction Interna-

tional Journal of American Linguistics 81(2) 187ndash219Maclaran Rose 1982 The semantics and pragmatics of the English demonstratives

Ithaca NY Cornell University (Doctoral dissertation)

13


McCawley James D 1979 Presupposition and discourse structure In Choon-KyuOh amp David A Dinneen (eds) Syntax and semantics vol 11 Presupposition371ndash388 New York Academic Press

Neale Stephen 1990 Descriptions Cambridge MA MIT PressPeng Danling 2004 Cognitive processing of the Chinese language and its neural

mechanism Contemporary Linguistics 2004-04 httpencnkicomcnArticle_enCJFDTOTAL-DDYX200404001htm

Pesetsky David 1987 Wh-in-situ Movement and unselective binding In EricReuland amp Alice G B ter Meulen (eds) The representation of (in)definiteness98ndash129 Cambridge MA MIT Press

Russell Bertrand 1905 On denoting Mind 14(56) 479ndash493Schwarz Florian 2019 Weak vs Strong definite articles Meaning and form

across languages InAnaAguilar-Guevara Julia Pozas LoyoampVioleta Vaacutezquez-Rojas Maldonado (eds) Definiteness across languages (Studies in Diversity Lin-guistics 25) 1ndash37 Berlin Language Science Press

Simpson Andrew Hooi Ling Soh amp Hiroki Nomoto 2011 Bare classifiers anddefiniteness A cross-linguistic investigation Studies in Language 35(1) 168ndash193

Strawson Peter F 1950 On referring Mind 59(235) 320ndash344Tawa Wako 1993 Interpretation of definiteness With special reference to

Japanese Word 44(3) 379ndash396von Heusinger Klaus 2002 Specificity and definiteness in sentence and dis-

course structure Journal of Semantics 19(3) 245ndash274von Heusinger Klaus 2011 Specificity In Klaus von Heusinger Claudia Maien-

born amp Paul Portner (eds) Semantics An international handbook of naturallanguage meaning vol 2 1025ndash1058 Berlin Mouton De Gruyter

von Heusinger Klaus 2019 Indefiniteness and specificity In Jeanette Gundel ampBarbara Abbott (eds) The Oxford handbook of reference 146ndash167 Oxford Ox-ford University Press

14

Chapter 2

(In)definiteness and VietnameseclassifiersWalter BisangJohannes Gutenberg University Mainz amp Zhejiang University

Kim Ngoc QuangJohannes Gutenberg University Mainz amp University of Social Sciences and Hu-manities Ho Chi Minh City

Vietnamese numeral classifiers (CL) in the bare classifier construction [CL+N] canbe interpreted as definite and as indefinite Based on a corpus of written and oraltexts with a broad range of different contexts for the potential use of classifiers thispaper aims at a better understanding of the factors and linguistic contexts whichdetermine the use of the classifier in [CL+N] and its specific functions The fol-lowing results will be presented (a) Even though classifiers tend to be interpretedas definite they are also used as indefinites irrespective of word order (subjec-tpreverbal or objectpostverbal) (b) There is a strong tendency to use the [CL+N]construction with definite animate nouns in the subject position while bare nouns[N] preferably occur with indefinite inanimate nouns in the object position (c) Thevast majority of nouns occurring with a classifier are sortal nouns with the features[minusunique minusrelational] (d) Discourse and information structure are the most promi-nent factors which determine the grammar of Vietnamese classifiers The influenceof discourse is reflected in the pragmatic definiteness expressed by the classifierMoreover information structure enhances the use of a classifier in contexts of con-trastive topic contrastive focus and focus particles Finally thetic statements andsome special constructions (existential clauses verbs and situations of appearance)provide the environment for the indefinite interpretation of classifiers

Walter Bisang amp Kim Ngoc Quang 2020 (In)definiteness and Vietnamese classifiers In KataBalogh Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr (eds) Nominal anchoring Specificity definite-ness and article systems across languages 15ndash49 Berlin Language Science Press DOI 105281zenodo4049679

Walter Bisang amp Kim Ngoc Quang

1 Introduction

Numeral classifiers are an areal characteristic of East and mainland SoutheastAsian languages in the context of counting This fact is well known and has beenfrequently discussed in the literature since the 1970s (Greenberg 1972) What isless well known and has been discussed only in more recent times is the useof the same classifiers in the contexts of definiteness and indefiniteness whenthey occur in the [CL+N] construction (bare classifier construction cf Bisang1999 Cheng amp Sybesma 1999 Simpson 2005 Wu amp Bodomo 2009 Li amp Bisang2012 Jiang 2015 Simpson 2017 Bisang amp Wu 2017) In Vietnamese classifiers in[CL+N] are clearly associated with reference What is controversial in the litera-ture is the question of whether they are used only in the context of definitenessor in contexts of definiteness and indefiniteness Tran (2011) claims that classi-fiers only have a definite interpretation while Nguyen (2004) argues for bothinterpretations (see also Trinh 2011) A look at an example from Nguyen (2004)in (1) shows that both interpretations are possible In this respect it differs sig-nificantly from many Sinitic languages with [CL+N] constructions While thedefinitenessindefiniteness interpretation of classifiers depends on the preverbalor postverbal position of the [CL+N] construction in most of these languages1

Vietnamese classifiers can have both interpretations in both positions In (1a) conbograve [CL cow] is in the subject position and is open to both interpretations (lsquothecowrsquolsquoa cowrsquo) Similarly cuocirc n saacutech [CL book] in the object position of (1b) can bedefinite as well as indefinite (lsquothe bookrsquolsquoa bookrsquo)

(1) Nguyen (2004)a Con

CLbogravecow

ăneat

luacuteapaddy

kigraveaSFP

lsquoLook Athe cow is eating your paddyrsquob Mang

bringcuocirc nCL

saacutechbook

raout

đacircyhere

lsquoGet athe bookrsquo

As can be seen from the following example nouns without a classifier (barenouns) can also be interpreted in both ways in both positions In Nguyenrsquos (2004)analysis the only difference between the bare noun construction and the [CL+N]

1In Wangrsquos (2015) survey of Sinitic classifiers as markers of reference the definitenessindefi-niteness distinction is independent of word order relative to the verb in only 10 out of his 120sample languages (cf Type I classifiers in his terminology)

16

2 (In)definiteness and Vietnamese classifiers

construction is that the former can be interpreted as singular or plural while thelatter can only have a singular reading

(2) Nguyen (2004)a Bograve

cowăneat

luacuteapaddy

kigraveaSFP

lsquoLook Athe cow(s) isare eating your paddyrsquob Mang

bringsaacutechbook

raout

đacircyhere

lsquoGet athe book(s) will yoursquo

Even though these examples show that classifier use is not obligatory and thatclassifiers can be interpreted as definite as well as indefinite neither the condi-tions under which classifiers have these functions nor their specific referentialmeaning are well understood Analyzing Vietnamese classifiers in the [CL+N]construction as variables whose interpretation depends on semantic syntacticand discourse-pragmatic contexts it is the aim of this paper to define the contextswhich determine their use in terms of obligatoriness and their interpretation asdefinite and indefinite Since the use of the classifier in the [CL+N] constructionand its interpretation in terms of (in)definiteness in Vietnamese strongly dependson discourse and information structure as in many other East and mainlandSoutheast Asian languages looking at individual examples in isolation is not suf-ficient for modeling the function and the use of the [CL+N] construction Whatis needed are texts both written and oral For that reason we decided to set upour own corpus of Vietnamese which is based on written and oral reports bynative speakers of Vietnamese on the content of two silent movies (for detailscf Section 2)

The analysis of the data from our Vietnamese corpus confirms the general ob-servation that classifiers in [CL+N] can be interpreted as definite as well as indef-inite irrespective of word order It also shows that the interpretation of numeralclassifiers in terms of definiteness and indefiniteness in [CL+N] depends on se-mantic and syntactic (preverbalpostverbal or subjectobject) factors as well ason discourse and information structure In addition to that it turns out that thedefinite function is muchmore frequent than the indefinite function Instances ofindefinite [CL+N] constructions mainly occur in special contexts and construc-tions such as thetic statements existential clauses and constructions with verbswhich introduce previously unidentified referents into discourse (i e verbs of ap-pearance) Given the relative rareness and the functional specifics of indefinite

17


classifiers it may not come as a surprise that the indefinite interpretations ofclassifiers remained unnoticed in a number of studies of Vietnamese classifiers

To find outmore about the function of classifiers and the factors that determinetheir use the following criteria will be studied in more detail

bull Definiteness and indefiniteness of the nominal expression

bull The semantic feature of [plusmnanimate] of the noun

bull The semantic features of [plusmnunique] and [plusmnrelational] in terms of Loumlbnerrsquos(1985 2011) four basic types of nouns

bull The syntactic criterion of word order (position of the noun in the subjectpreverbal or objectpostverbal position)

bull The role of discourse and the relevance of identifiability

bull Information structure and the use of a classifier (contrastive topics certaintypes of focus) as well as its function (i e theticity and indefiniteness)

bull The combination with specific verbs (i e existential verbs and verbs ofappearance)

The structure of the paper is as follows after the discussion of methodologicalissues in Section 2 Section 3 will describe classifiers in their definite functionsand the criteria that determine their use Section 4 will do the same with classi-fiers in their indefinite function The conclusion in Section 5 will briefly summa-rize our findings and situate them with regard to other languages with numeralclassifiers that are used in contexts of definiteness as well as indefiniteness

2 Methodology

Our analysis of the function and the use of classifiers in the [CL+N] constructionis based on a Vietnamese corpus of 30 written texts and 30 oral texts producedby native speakers of Vietnamese who were asked to report on the content oftwo films which were previously presented to them on the screen of a personalcomputer One of the films was used to create a written corpus the other an oralcorpus The total number of informants involved was 46 (25 female and 21 maleinformants) Fourteen informants (five female and nine male) from among these46 informants participated in both experiments and thus produced a written andan oral text2 In total there were 15 male and 15 female informants as well as 15

2Since it was more difficult to find male informants we had to ask more males to take part inboth experiments Six of the remaining 12 male informants only produced a written text whilethe other six only were involved in the oral experiment

18


graduate and 15 undergraduate informants for each experiment The reason forthis arrangement was to check for potential effects originating from differencesin gender or modality (written vs oral) Since we did not find any significantdifferences we will not address this issue in the present paper

The experiments were carried out by Kim Ngoc Quang in Ho Chi Minh city(Southern Vietnam) with the support of assistants who played the role of ad-dressees (readerslisteners) This arrangement was necessary to avoid speakerassumptions about information shared with the addressee Thus the informantsreported their stories in a situation in which it was clear that the addressee didnot know the story

For the purpose of our study we needed two films with multiple protagonistsfrequently changing scenes with different perspectives and a large number ofanimate and inanimate objects involved in a variety of actions expressed by tran-sitive and intransitive verbs The first film with the title lsquoCook Papa Cookrsquo isa silent movie of nine minutes and 38 seconds in length3 This very lively filmwhich was used to create the written corpus has three protagonists a husbanda wife and their son The story is characterized by intense quarrels between thehusband and his wife Because of this the wife decides that she is no longer pre-pared to make breakfast for her husband His attempts to make it himself are metby a number of obstacles and end up turning the kitchen into a total mess Whenhe finally manages to make his own kind of breakfast his wife refuses to eat it

The second film which was used to set up the oral corpus is from the lsquoPearStoriesrsquo (Chafe 1980)4 It is five minutes and 54 seconds long It has two protago-nists a farmer and a young boy who steals the farmerrsquos pears from some basketswhile the farmer is up a tree picking the rest of the pears When cycling awayfrom the farmer he inadvertently rides over a stone because he is distracted bya girl cycling in the opposite direction As a consequence the pears roll out ofthe basket and scatter all over the road Three other boys arrive and help the boyto pick up the pears As a reward for their help the boy offers them each a pearLater on the three boys walk past the farmer while eating their pears The filmends with the farmer trying to understand what has happened

The length of the 30 written texts varies between 491 and 1944 words Thewritten corpus as a whole consists of 31663 words The total length of the oralcorpus is 17777 words after transcription The length of the 30 oral texts variesbetween 321 and 1061 words

In this paper the two corpora are employed as sources of examples of a broadrange of different classifier functions and different conditions responsible for

3The film can be seen on YouTube at httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=OITJxh51z3Q4The film can be seen on YouTube at httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=bRNSTxTpG7U

19


their occurrence Moreover the data from these corpora are used for some gen-eralizations about frequency as far as that is possible on the basis of calculatingsimple percentages

3 Classifiers and definiteness

This section examines the correlation between classifiers with a definite interpre-tation in the [CL+N] construction5 from various perspectives sect31 discusses thesemantic feature of animacy and its interaction with definiteness An examina-tion of the semantic features of uniqueness and relationality in sect32 shows thatthe vast majority of nouns occurring with a classifier are sortal nouns definedby their features of [minusunique][minusrelational] The interaction of word order (pre-verbalsubject and postverbalobject) with animacy and definiteness is exploredin sect33 Finally the roles of discourse (identifiability) and information structure(contrastive topics focus particles and contrastive focus) are discussed in sect34

31 Animacy and definiteness

Animacy plays an important role in grammar This can be clearly seen from theanimacy hierarchy as introduced by Silverstein (1976) and Dixon (1979) which isinvolved in such divergent domains of grammar as alignment differential objectmarking directinverse marking and number marking on nouns (to name justa few) An examination of this hierarchy in its full form as it is presented inCroft (2003 130) shows that it is not only concerned with animacy but also withperson and referentiality

(3) Animacy hierarchy (Croft 2003 130)firstsecond person pronouns gt third person pronoun gt proper names gthuman common noun gt non-human animate common noun gt inanimatecommon noun

The role of animacy in a strict sense is limited to the animacy scale whichgoes from human to animate to inanimate Animacy generally contributes toprominence (for a good survey cf Bornkessel-Schlesewsky amp Schlesewsky 2009)Another important scale that contributes to prominence is the definiteness scalethat runs from personal pronoun to proper name to definite NP to indefinitespecific NP to non-specific NP (cf Aissen 2003 on the relevance of these two

5Notice that we do not discuss instances of [NUM CL N] with numerals gt 1 because we do nothave enough data in our corpus

20


scales for differential object marking) As will be shown in this subsection basedon the Vietnamese data from our experiments both scales have their impact inthe use of classifiers inasmuch as there is a strong tendency for classifiers to beused with definite animate nouns

As for animacy Table 1 below shows a clear correlation between the featureof [plusmnanimate] and classifier use Out of 1698 instances with animate nouns 1571instances6 (925) take a classifier while only 127 instances7 (75) occur withouta classifier In contrast only 742 instances8 of [minusanimate] nouns (276) occurwith a classifier while 1948 instances9 (724) are bare nouns10

Table 1 Token frequency of classifier use with [plusmnanimate] nouns inwritten texts and oral texts (in our Vietnamese corpus)

Nouns in narratives [+animate] [minusanimate]

[CL+N] 1571 instances (925) 742 instances (276)[N] 127 instances (75) 1948 instances (724)

Our Vietnamese data also show that classifiers can be interpreted as definiteas well as indefinite but that there is a strong tendency towards definite interpre-tation in our written and in our oral corpus This can be seen from Table 2 inwhich 1444 instances of [CL+N] in the written corpus are definite (920 1154+ 290) while only 125 instances are indefinite (80 22 + 103) Similarly the oralcorpus shows 680 instances of classifiers in their definite function (914 395 +285) which contrast with only 64 classifiers with an indefinite reading (86 0 +64) The same table additionally shows that definiteness clusters with animacy Inthe written corpus 1154 animate definite nouns with a classifier (904) contrastwith only 122 animate definite nouns with no classifier (96) In the case of oraltexts animate definite nouns reach an even higher percentage 100 of these

61571 is the result of all [+animate] nouns with a classifier in the written corpus (978 + 19 + 176+ 3) plus all [+animate] nouns with a classifier in the oral corpus (262 + 0 + 133 + 0) in Table 67127 is the result of all [+animate] nouns with no classifier in the written corpus (8 + 1 + 114 +0) plus all [+animate] nouns with no classifier in the oral corpus (0 + 1 + 3 + 0) in Table 6

8742 is the result of all [minusanimate] nouns with a classifier in the written corpus (34 + 9 + 256 +94) plus all [minusanimate] nouns with a classifier in the oral corpus (55 + 2 + 230 + 62) in Table 6

91948 is the result of all [minusanimate] nouns with no classifier in the written corpus (78 + 31 +1092 + 365) plus all [minusanimate] nouns with no classifier in the oral corpus (12 + 0 + 324 + 46)in Table 6

10The frequencies of classifier use in the tables in this paper are for those occurrences in [CL+N]constructions hence sequences such as hai cuocirc n saacutech [two CL book] lsquotwo booksrsquo would notbe counted in these tables

21


nouns take a classifier As for inanimate definite nouns only 199 of the writ-ten corpus (290 out of a total of 1460) and 459 of the oral corpus (285 out of621) take a classifier

Table 2 Token frequency of [plusmnanimate] nouns and their interpretationas definite and indefinite in written texts and oral texts (in our Viet-namese corpus)

Written texts Oral texts

[+animate] [minusanimate] [+animate] [minusanimate]

[CL+N] [N] [CL+N] [N] [CL+N] [N] [CL+N] [N]

Definite 1154 122 290 1170 395 3 285 336Indefinite 22 1 103 396 0 1 64 46Total 1176 123 393 1566 395 4 349 382

The following two examples illustrate the use of animate nouns with a classi-fier In (4) the classifier occurs with one of the human protagonists of the storywho is clearly identifiable and definite at the point at which he is mentioned inthat example In example (5) the classifier is interpreted as indefinite The ani-mate noun decirc lsquogoatrsquo is introduced into the story11 As will be seen later in sect42the co-occurrence with the copula verb lagrave lsquoto bersquo is one of the typical contexts inwhich [CL+N] is interpreted as indefinite (cf example 31)

(4) [+animate +CL +DEF] (Oral text 19 sentence 12)

CậuCL

beacuteboy

thacirc ysee

thecirc that

tặngpresent

mỗieach

ngườiperson

mộtone

traacuteiCL

lecircpear

hellip

lsquoThe boy saw that he gave each of them one pearrsquo

(5) [+animate +CL minusDEF] (Oral text 16 sentence 7)

Coacutehave

mộtone

ngườiperson

dẫnlead

conCL

conCL

đoacuteDEM

chắc lagravemaybe

conCL

decircgoat

đigo

ngangpass

quaover

lsquoThere was a man who led a a it may be a goat passing byrsquo

11Notice however that in the continuation of this text the goat is further specified as a decircnuacutei [goat mountain] lsquowild goatrsquo and does not take a classifier With this type of compoundclassifiers are often omitted

22


The following example shows how inanimate nouns tend to be realized as barenouns even if they are definite The referents expressed by thang lsquoladderrsquo andcacircy lsquotreersquo have already been mentioned but do not have classifier marking12

(6) [minusanimate minusCL +DEF] (Oral text 27 sentence 3)

Sauafter

đoacutethat

ocircng acirc y3SG

lạiagain

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

thangladder

vagraveCONJ

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

cacircytree

haacuteipluck

tiecirc pcontinue

lsquoAfter that he [the farmer] climbed up the ladder and climbed onto thetree again to continue picking [pears]rsquo

The comparatively less frequent combination of inanimate nouns with classi-fiers is illustrated by the following two examples

(7) [minusanimate +CL +DEF] (Written text 2 sentence 8)

Cậu ta3SG

đatildePERF

đặtplace

caacuteiCL

xocircbucket

ngayright

giữabetween

bocirc father

vagraveand

mẹmother

lsquoHe put the bucket right between his father and motherrsquo

(8) [minusanimate +CL minusDEF] (Written text 24 sentence 14)

Luacutectime

nagraveyDEM

ngườiCL

đagraven ocircngman

thứcwake

dậyup

lacirc ytake

caacuteiCL

bigravenhbottle

roacutetpour

nướcwater

vagraveoPREP

lyglass

lsquoAt this time the man woke up he took a bottle and poured water into aglassrsquo

In (7) the inanimate noun xocirc lsquobucketrsquo was previously introduced into the sceneby one of the protagonists (the boy) Given that the bucket is activated in thehearerrsquos mind the classifier marks definiteness in this example In (8) the nounbigravenh lsquobottlersquo refers to a newly introduced concept Thus the classifier caacutei marksindefiniteness in this context

The relationship between animacydefiniteness and word order (the positionof the [CL+N] construction relative to the preverbal and postverbal positions)will be discussed in sect33

12One of our reviewers asks if thang lsquoladderrsquo and cacircy lsquotreersquo may be analyzed as instances ofincorporation into the verb plus preposition Given that both referents represented by thesenouns can be clearly identified from their previousmention as individuated countable conceptsin the text such an analysis does not seem to be very likely

23


32 The semantic features of uniqueness and relationality

The distinction between plusmnrelational13 and plusmnunique14 nouns as discussed by Loumlb-ner (1985 2011) is of crucial importance for describing the use of classifiers in Viet-namese The combination of these features with their two values yields the fol-lowing four basic types of nouns which correspond to four types of concepts orfour logical types sortal nouns ([minusrelational][minusunique] ⟨et⟩) individual nouns([minusrelational][+unique] ⟨e⟩) relational nouns ([+relational][minusunique] ⟨e⟨et⟩⟩)and functional nouns ([+relational][+unique] ⟨ee⟩)

Table 3 presents our data on the presence or absence of classifiers in the con-text of Loumlbnerrsquos (1985 2011) basic types of nouns As can be seen the vast major-ity of nouns occurring with a classifier are sortal nouns ([minusunique][minusrelational])out of a total of 2313 nouns with a classifier 2309 (998) belong to this typeMoreover only three [+unique] nouns (marked in bold) out of 108 (2+83+1+22)take a classifier (28) while 105 of them are realized as bare nouns (972) Ina similar way relational nouns ([minusunique][+relational]) have a strong tendencyto occur without a classifier Only one out of a total of 57 instances of this type(18) takes a classifier

Table 3 Token frequency of classifier with [plusmnrelational] [plusmnunique]nouns in written texts and oral texts (in our Vietnamese corpus)

[plusmnrelational] [+relational] [minusrelational]

[plusmnunique] [+unique] [minusunique] [+unique] [minusunique]nouns functional relational individual sortal


Written texts 2 76 0 48 0 2 1567 1563Oral texts 0 7 1 8 1 20 742 351Total 2 83 1 56 1 22 2309 1914

From the four non-sortal nouns with a classifier two are used in anaphoricsituations In example (9) the [+unique+relational] nounmocircng lsquobuttocksrsquo is firstintroduced into the story by a bare noun The second time it is mentioned thesame noun occurs with the general classifier caacutei its interpretation being definitebecause the object it denotes is now activated in the hearerrsquos mind

13Relational nouns have not only a referential argument but also an additional relational argu-ment (cf the relational noun daughter [of someone] in contrast to the absolute noun girl)

14Unique nouns denote concepts which are uniquely determined in a given situation (e g thesun the pope) Notice that the default use of uniqueness is singular definite Plural indefiniteand quantificational uses require special marking

24


(9) (Written text 1 sentence 45)

BịPASS

noacutenghot

mocircngbuttock

anh ta3SG

mởopen

vogravei-nướcwater-tap

xịtspray

maacutetcool

chofor

caacuteiCL

mocircngbuttock

thigraveCONJ

luacutectime

đoacuteDEM

bạnfriend

anh ta3SG

chocirc mprance

từfrom

ngoagraveioutside

cửa sổwindow

vagraveoin

hocirc iurge

anh ta3SG

nhanh-lecircnhurry-up

kẻootherwise

trễ giờlate

lsquo[His] buttocks were burnt he turned on the tap and sprayed cool wateronto the buttocks at that time his friend gesticulated from outside of thewindow to urge him to hurry up as otherwise he would be latersquo

A similar pattern is found in example (10) with the [minusunique+relational] nounchacircn lsquolegrsquo which is expressed by a bare noun when it is first mentioned Lateron it is taken up together with the general classifier caacutei expressing definitenessin this context

(10) (Oral text 4 sentence 21)

Lecircpear

đổpour

raout

tung toeacuteeverywhere

higravenh nhưseems

noacute3SG

bịPASS

đauhurt

chacircnleg

nữamore

thacirc ysee

noacute3SG

sờtouch

sờtouch

caacuteiCL

chacircnleg

lsquoThe pears rolled out everywhere it seemed that his leg was hurt(because I saw) he touched [his] legrsquo

In the other two instances of the [CL+N] construction with a non-sortal nounthe use of the classifier is due to information structure (focus) For that reasonthe relevant examples will be discussed in sect343 (cf (23) and (25))

33 Word order definiteness and animacy

In many Sinitic numeral classifier systems the referential status associated withthe classifier in [CL+N] constructions depends on word order relative to the verb(see Wang 2015 for a survey) The following examples in (11) and (12) from Li ampBisang (2012) show how the preverbal subject position and the postverbal objectposition are associated with definiteness and indefiniteness in Mandarin in theWu dialect of Fuyang and in Cantonese

While the [CL+N] construction in the subject position is ungrammatical inMandarin Chinese (11a) it is interpreted in terms of definiteness in theWu dialectof Fuyang (11b) and in Cantonese (11c)

25


(11) [CL+N] in the subject position (Li amp Bisang 2012 338)Context Where is the booka Mandarin

nagravethat

běnCL

shūbook

(ge)CL

xueacuteshēngstudent

mǎi-zǒubuy-away

lePF

lsquoThe book the student(s) hashave bought itrsquob Wu Chinese

penCL

cybook

keCL

iaʔsnstudent

mabuy

lePFV

tccedilhigo

dieSFP

lsquoThe book the student bought (it)rsquoc Cantonese

bunCL

syubook

goCL

hoksaangstudent

maai-jobuy-PFV

laSFP

lsquoThe book the student bought (it)rsquo

In the object position the classifier in [CL+N] is associated with indefinitenessin Mandarin (12a) and the Wu dialect of Fuyang (12b) In Cantonese it goes withdefiniteness and indefiniteness (12c)

(12) [CL+N] in the object position (Li amp Bisang 2012 338-339)a Mandarin

wǒI

mǎi-lebuy-PFV

liagravengCL

chēcar

lsquoI bought a carrsquob Wu Chinese

NgeI

mabuy

lePFV

buCL

tsʰotsʰicar

lsquoI bought a carrsquoc Cantonese

Keuihhe

maai-zosell-PFV

gaaCL

cecar

lsquoI sold a carthe carrsquo

As can be seen from Table 4 the situation is different in Vietnamese The[CL+N] construction occurs preverbally and postverbally and the classifier canbe associated with definiteness as well as indefiniteness in both positions Acloser look reveals that the definite interpretation of the classifier is generally

26


preferred The overall percentage of definite [CL+N] constructions is 918 incontrast to only 82 of classifiers with an indefinite function15 The dominanceof the definite interpretation is even stronger in the subject position (cf the fig-ures printed in bold) If the written and oral texts are combined 1329 out of 1359[CL+N] constructions or 978 are definite16 In the object position the asym-metry between the definite and the indefinite interpretation is not as strong as inthe subject position In spite of this the definite interpretation still clearly dom-inates with 795 (432 + 363) instances (833) compared with only 159 (97 + 62)instances (167) with an indefinite interpretation17

Table 4 Token frequency of the presenceabsence of a classifier in sub-ject and object positions in relation to definite vs indefinite function(in our Vietnamese corpus)

Nouns in Written texts Oral texts

narrative Subject Object Subject Object



The two examples in (13) and (14) illustrate the definite function of the classifierin [CL+N] In (13) con lừa [CL donkey] lsquothe donkeyrsquo is in the subject positionBecause it is mentioned in the previous context the classifier con has a definitereading In (14) cocirc vợ [CL wife] lsquothe wifersquo is in the object position Since it ismentioned in the preceding text it is also interpreted as definite

(13) Definite subject (Oral text 26 sentence 9)

ConCL

lừadonkey

cứalways

nhigravenlook

vagraveoinside

caacutecPL

cacirc nCL

xeacute lecircpear

nhưlike

muocirc nwant

đứng lạistop

vagraveCONJ

ăneat

lecircpear

lsquoThe donkey kept on looking into the baskets as if it wanted to stand byand eat themrsquo

15The total number of definite [CL+N] constructions is 2124 (1012 + 432 + 317 + 363) the totalnumber of indefinite [CL+N] constructions is 189 (28 + 97 + 2 + 62)

16The total number of definite [CL+N] constructions in subject position is 1329 (1012 + 317) thetotal number of indefinite [CL+N] constructions is 30 (28 + 2)

17Recall that bare nouns in Vietnamese can also occur in both subject positions and object posi-tions and be interpreted as either definite or indefinite

27


(14) Definite object (Written text 9 sentence 14)

Bực migravenhangry

anhCL

chocirc nghusband

đoacuteng sacirc mslam

cửadoor

khiecirc ncause

cocircCL

vợwife

giật migravenhstartled

rocirc iCONJ

bỏleave

vagraveoenter

nhagrave tắmbathroom

lsquoAnnoyed the husband slammed the door This upset [his] wife then hewent to the bathroomrsquo

The following two examples focus on the object position and indefiniteness(for indefinite [CL+N] constructions in the subject position cf sect41) At the sametime they also illustrate how classifiers in the same syntactic position can beinterpreted as indefinite or definite depending on context In example (15) fromour data on written texts we find the same expression (chiecirc c xe [CL car] lsquoathecarrsquo) in both functions

(15) [Indefinite object plusmnDEF] (Written text 1 sentence 26)

Anh ta3SG

bướcstep

vagraveoPREP

nhagravehouse

thigraveCONJ

lạiEMPH

bịPASS

đứaCL

conson

chơiplay

chiecirc cCL

xe1car

đẩypush

truacutengRES

vagraveoPREP

chacircnleg

khiecirc ncause

anh ta3SG

ngatilde ngửafallback

vagraveoPREP

chiecirc cCL

xe2car

lsquoWhen he entered the house he ran into his son who was playing and hegot hit by a car [a toy car] into [one of his legs] [This] made him falldown onto the carrsquo

In the first line the noun xe lsquocarrsquo in chiecirc c xe is not activated by previous contextThus the classifier must be interpreted as indefinite In the second line the samecar is taken up again with the same classifier (chiecirc c) which now has a definiteinterpretation The next example is from our oral corpus

(16) [Indefinite object plusmnDEF] (Oral text 26 sentence 1)

Coacuteexist

mộtone

ngườiCL


đangPROG

ởPREP

trecircntop

caacuteiCL

thangladder

bắcconnect

lecircnPREP

cacircyCL

lecircpear

vagraveCONJ

đangPROG

haacuteipluck

traacuteiCL

lecircpear

lsquoThere was a man on [a] ladder which was propped up against [a] peartree He was picking [its] pearsrsquo

In this example we find three [CL+N] constructions i e caacutei thang [CLgeneralladder] cacircy lecirc [CLtree pear] and traacutei lecirc [CLfruit pear] Since the first two nomi-

28


nal concepts are newly introduced the corresponding [CL+N] constructions areinterpreted as indefinite (lsquoa ladderrsquo and lsquoa pear treersquo) The third [CL+N] construc-tion is associated with the previously mentioned pear tree For that reason theclassifier traacutei for fruits can be interpreted as definite through bridging (lsquoits pears[i e the pears of the previously mentioned tree]rsquo)

If the data on classifier use in the subject and in the object position is combinedwith the semantic feature of animacy as in Table 5 it can be seen that thereis a clear preference for animate nouns in the subject position There are 1269instances (852) of [+animate] nouns in the subject position which contrastwith only 221 instances (148) of [minusanimate] nouns Similarly the object positionis characterized by its clear preference for [minusanimate] nouns There are 2469[minusanimate] object nouns (852) and only 429 [+animate] object nouns (148)Thus the data in Table 5 reflect the well-known preference of animate subjectsand inanimate objects (cf Givoacuten 1979 Du Bois 1987 and many later publications)

Table 5 Distribution of instances of [plusmnanimate] nouns in the positionsof subject and object (in our Vietnamese corpus)

Subject Object


Written texts 1006 152 293 1807Oral texts 263 69 136 662Total 1269 (852) 221 (148) 429 (148) 2469 (852)

Finally the combination of the three parameters of word order (subject vsobject) reference (definite vs indefinite) and animacy (animate vs inanimate)yields the following results for the presenceabsence of the classifier ([CL+N] vs[N])

Table 6 reveals that of the 1012 definite [CL+N] constructions in the subjectposition of the written text corpus 978 (966) are [+animate] nouns Only 34definite [CL+N] constructions in the subject position (34) are [minusanimate] Sim-ilarly in oral texts 262 animate definite subject [CL+N] constructions (826)contrast with only 55 inanimate definite subject [CL+N] constructions (174)In the object position the percentage of animate nouns with definite subject[CL+N] constructions is much lower 407 (176 vs 256) in the corpus of writtentexts and 366 (133 vs 230) in the corpus of oral texts The results from Table 6combined with the results from Table 4 (general preference of definite classifier

29


Table 6 Presenceabsence of classifiers depending on the features of[plusmnanimate] subject vs object and definite vs indefinite (in our Viet-namese corpus)

[+def] vs [minusdef] Written texts

Subject Object

[CL+N] [N] [CL+N] [N][plusmnani] [plusmnani] [plusmnani] [plusmnani]

+ minus + minus + minus + minus

+def 978 34 8 78 176 256 114 1092minusdef 19 9 1 31 3 94 0 365

Total 997 43 9 109 179 350 114 1457

[+def] vs [minusdef] Oral texts

Subject Object



+def 262 55 0 12 133 230 3 324minusdef 0 2 1 0 0 62 0 46

Total 262 57 1 12 133 292 3 370

interpretation particularly with [CL+N] constructions in the subject position)plus Table 5 (preference of animate subjects) show that the classifier prototypi-cally occurs with definite animate nouns in the subject position

These observations can be visualized more clearly by means of the bar chartin Figure 1 The blue columns represent definiteness while the green ones standfor indefiniteness

In accordance with the data in Table 6 the blue columns representing definite-ness are generally higher than the green columns reflecting again the overalldominance of the definite function of Vietnamese classifiers Moreover the bluecolumn in Figure 1 clearly dominates over the green column at the leftmost polerepresenting animate subjects with classifiers [Subj +CL +ani] The preference

30


[Subj+CL+ani]

[Subj+CL-ani]

[Subj-CL+ani]

[Subj-CL-ani]

[Obj+CL+ani]

[Obj+CL-ani]

[Obj-CL+ani]

[Obj-CL-ani]

0

500

1000

15001240

89 8 90309

486

117

1416

19 11 2 31 3156

0

411

DefiniteIndefinite

Figure 1 Token frequency of [plusmnanimate] nouns in subject and objectfunction marking definiteness or indefiniteness with or without a clas-sifier (in our Vietnamese corpus)

for classifier use with animate subjects is further corroborated if the total numberof tokens with the features [Subj +CL +ani] in the written and the oral corpusis compared with the total number of tokens with the features [Subj minusCL +ani]The figure for [Subj +CL +ani] is 1259 (978 + 19 + 262 + 0) while the figure for[Subj minusCL +ani] is just 10 (8 + 1 + 0 + 1) Thus the use of the classifier with ani-mate subjects overwhelmingly dominates over its absencewith 992 In additionto these results the rightmost pole in Figure 1 with the features [Obj minusCL minusani]demonstrates that inanimate object nouns tend to occur without a classifier Theoverall number of tokens with the features [Obj minusCL minusani] from the written andthe oral texts is 1827 (1092 + 365 + 324 + 46) while the overall number of tokenswith the features [Obj +CL minusani] is only 642 (256 + 94 + 230 + 62) Thus thepercentage of inanimate object nouns without a classifier is 740 against 260with a classifier Taken together there is a clear preference for animate subjectsto occur with a classifier and for inanimate objects to occur as bare nouns

To conclude the data presented in this subsection show that the (in)definite-ness interpretation of the classifier is not rigidly determined by the position ofthe [CL+N] construction relative to the verb (subject vs object position) In factthere is an overall preference for interpreting classifiers in [CL+N] as definiteeven though indefinite [CL+N] constructions are found in both positions In spiteof this there are other factors which operate against this general tendency aswellas against the use of classifiers in definite contexts The semantic factors werepresented above in sect32 sect34 will discuss aspects of discourse and informationstructure

31


34 Discourse and information structure

Discourse and information structure affect the meaning of Vietnamese classifiersas well as their presence or absence in a given context As discussed in sect341on meaning the definiteness expressed by the classifier is discourse-based Thesame subsection also shows how discourse enhances the use of classifiers with[+unique] nouns which otherwise show a strong preference for occurring as barenouns in our data (cf sect32) sect342 and sect343 illustrate how information structuredetermines the presence of a classifier It will be shown that contrastive topicsgenerally take a classifier (cf sect342) Similarly focus as it manifests itself incontrastive focus and focus particles can support the use of a classifier evenwith non-sortal nouns (sect343)

341 Definiteness identifiability and information structure

Classifiers in [CL+N] constructions very rarely occur with [+unique] nouns (cfsect32 on the strong preference for sortal nouns ([minusunique][minusrelational])) More-over the majority of definite classifiers are used in anaphoric contexts in whicha previously introduced concept is taken up with a classifier in order to highlightthe speakerrsquos assumption that it can be identified by the hearer (cf examples (4)(7) (13) (14) and (15)) Even two of the four non-sortal nouns with a classifieracquire their classifier in an anaphoric context (cf (9) and (10) for the other twocf sect343 on focus) Taken together these facts are strong indicators that the def-initeness expressed by the classifier marks pragmatic definiteness rather thansemantic definiteness in terms of Loumlbner (1985) In Schwarzrsquos (2009 2013) frame-work Vietnamese definite classifiers express anaphoric or ldquostrongrdquo definitenessrather than unique or ldquoweakrdquo definiteness

With these properties the definiteness associated with the classifier corre-sponds to the findings of Li amp Bisang (2012 17) on identifiability As they showin example (17) from the Wu dialect of Fuyang uniqueness is not a necessarycondition for the definite interpretation of the [CL+N] construction Unique con-cepts can be expressed either by bare nouns or by the [CL+N] construction A[+unique] [minusrelational] noun like thin lsquoskyrsquo in (17) occurs in its bare form if thesky is understood generically as the one and only one sky Thus (17a) is a genericsentence expressing the fact that the sky is blue in general In contrast the clas-sifier in ban thin [CL sky] (17b) indicates that the speaker means the sky as it isrelevant for a given speech situation with its temporal or spatial index and thatshe thinks that the hearer can identify it (Li amp Bisang 2012 17)

32


(17) Wu dialect of Fuyang (Li amp Bisang 2012 17)a Generic use

Thinsky

zibe

lanblue

koSFP

lsquoThe sky is blue (in general)rsquob Episodic use

BanCLpiece

thinsky

gintsɔtoday

manvery

lanblue

lsquoThe sky is blue todayrsquo

In Vietnamese the situation seems to be similar Since a much larger corpusthan the two corpora used here would be needed to find examples like (17) wepresent another example from a Vietnamese dictionary in (18) (Nguyen et al2005 116 and 1686) In (18a) we find trời lsquoskyrsquo as a bare noun In this form thesky is understood generically as the endless outer space seen from the earthwith its general property of being full of stars In contrast bacirc u trời [CL sky] lsquotheskyrsquo in (18b) with a classifier denotes the inner space seen from the earth as it iscurrently relevant to the speech situation The speaker employs the classifier toinform the hearer that she is referring to the sky as it currently matters and asit can be identified by the speaker and the hearer in a shared temporal or spatialenvironment

(18) a Trờisky

đacirc yfull

saostar

lsquoThe sky is full of starsrsquob Bacirc u

CLtrờisky

đecircm naytonight

đacirc yfull

saostar

lsquoTHE sky tonight is full of starsrsquo

Further evidence for the discourse-dependency of classifier usewith [+unique]nouns comes from the fact that the noun trời lsquoskyrsquo can take several different clas-sifiers e g bầu trời [CLround sky] khung trời [CLframe sky] or vugraveng trời [CLareasky] etc The selection of a specific classifier out of a set of possible classifiersdepends on the particular property of the sky the speaker wants to highlight tofacilitate its identifiability to the hearer In such a situation selecting a particularclassifier is even compulsory

33


(19) (Khungbacirc uvugraveng)CL

trờisky

mơ ướcdream

củaPOSS

haitwo

chuacuteng ta2PL

đacircyhere

rocirc iSFP

lsquoOur dream skyworld is herersquo

In the above example the speaker creates a specific notion of the sky as it isrelevant for herhim and the hearer This lsquodream skyrsquo is then anchored in spaceand time as relevant to the speech situation by a classifier

In another of our four examples of non-sortal nouns with a classifier in (23)the [+unique minusrelational] noun đacirc t lsquoearth groundrsquo is marked by the classifiermặt lsquofacesurfacersquo in a situation of contrastive focus As in the case of the sky in(19) this noun is also compatible with other classifiers among themmảnhmiecirc nglsquopiecersquo and vugraveng lsquoarearsquo The selection of a specific classifier depends again on theproperties of the concept expressed by the noun as they are relevant to the speechsituation

342 Contrastive topics

There is an impressive body of literature on contrastive topics For the purposeof this paper Lambrechtrsquos (1994 183 291 195) discourse-based definition in termsof two activated topic referents which are contrasted will be sufficient This typeof topic is quite frequent in our Vietnamese corpus A look at the statistics showsthat classifier use is very strongly associated with contrastiveness In fact thereis a classifier in each of the 84 instances of contrastive focus (66 in the writtencorpus and 18 in the oral corpus) Moreover all nouns occurring in this functionare [+animate]

In most examples the actionstate of one protagonist is contrasted with theactionstate of another protagonist As shown in (20) the actions of the son in thekitchen are contrasted with the actions of his mother in the bedroom (describedas lsquothewifersquo from the perspective of the husband) The son takes the classifier đứafor young boys while the mother takes the classifier bagrave for women The contrastbetween these two protagonists is supported by the adverbial subordinator cogravenlsquowhilewhereasrsquo


ĐứaCL

con traison

thigraveTOP

đứngstand

lecircnup

kệ-becirc pkitchen-bar

vagraveCONJ

vẽdraw

bậydisorderly

lecircnon

tườngwall

cogravenwhile

bagraveCL

vợwife

thigraveTOP

nằmlie

ăneat

đocirc ăn nhanhfastfood

vớiPRE

vẻ mặtexpression

khoaacutei chiacutedelightful

lsquo[His] son stood on the kitchen base (cabinet) and scribbled [something]onto the wall while [his] wife was lying in bed eating fast food with afacial expression of delightrsquo

34


In (21) the husband is contrasted with his wife The husbandrsquos anger and hisintention to make his wife eat some food is mirrored against his wifersquos reactionof refusing to give in Both nouns take a classifier The husband occurs with theclassifier ocircng for men and the wife again takes the classifier bagrave for women Thecontrast is explicitly expressed by the disjunctive conjunction nhưng lsquobutrsquo


Thacirc ysee

thaacutei độattitude

củaPOSS

vợ-migravenhwife-self

ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband

điecircn-maacuteu-lecircngetcrazy

vagraveand

bắt eacutepforce

ăneat

nhưngCONJ

bagraveCL

vợwife

vẫnstill

khocircngNEG

ăneat

lsquoSeeing the behaviour of his wife the husband went crazy and [tried to]force her to eat but [his] wife still did not eatrsquo

In the final example of this subsection there is a contrast between a protago-nist and a non-protagonist The noun beacute lsquoboyrsquo as one of the two protagonists inthe Pear Story is contrasted with the children (trẻ lsquochildrsquo) What is contrasted isthe boyrsquos action of leaving on a bike and the childrenrsquos action of walking awayAgain both nouns occur with a classifier (thằng for the boy and bọn for the chil-dren) and there is a contrastive conjunction (cograven lsquowhile whereasrsquo)


ThằngCL

beacuteboy

tập tễnhlimping

dắtlead

xebike

đigo

vagraveifew

bướcstep

cogravenCONJ

bọnCL

trẻkid

thigraveTOP

đigo

theotoward

hướngdirection

ngược lạiopposite

lsquoThe boy led the bike limpingly while the children walked in the oppositedirection of the boyrsquo

343 Focus

Classifiers are also selected in various types of focus This will be shown by thediscussion of the two remaining non-sortal nouns with a classifier (cf sect32) plustwo additional examples The first example is on the [+unique minusrelational] nounđacirc t lsquoearthgroundrsquo In (23) this noun is interpreted as definite by the classifiermặt18 for flat surfaces because it has the function of contrastive focus The author

18Mặt has the meaning of lsquofacersquo In this context it is a classifier for objects with a flat surfaceAs a full noun it can be interpreted as a [+relational] noun as in mặt bagraven [surface table] lsquothesurface of the tablersquo

35


of this text starts her story from the perspective of the protagonist a farmerwho is up lsquoon a treersquo (trecircn một caacutei cacircy) Having described a series of the farmerrsquosactions up there her attention suddenly moves to the position of the basketslsquodown on the groundrsquo (dưới mặt đacirc t) which is contrasted to the position up onthe tree19


Ổng3SG

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

mộtone

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đểso that

ổng3SG

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

mộtone

caacuteiCL

cacircytree

đểto

ổng3SG

haacuteipluck

Ổng3SG

haacuteipluck

xongRES

thigraveCONJ

ổng3SG

leoclimb

xuocirc ngdown

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đoacuteDEM

xuocirc ngdown

đoacuteDEM

Rocirc iCONJ

ổng3SG

dướidown

mặtCL

đacirc tground

sẽFUT

coacutehave

bathree

caacuteiCL

giỏbasket

lsquoHe climbed a ladder to get on [a] tree to pick [the fruits] Having picked[them] he went down [the] ladder Then he down on the ground therewere three basketsrsquo

In contrast to (23) đacirc t lsquoearth groundrsquo does not have a classifier in the non-contrastive situation of the following example


ThigraveCONJ

coacutehave

bathree

sọtCL

traacutei cacircyfruit

dướiunder

đacirc tground

khocircngNEG

coacutehave

aiwho

trocircng nomtake-care

hecirc tatall

lsquoThere were three baskets of fruit on the ground but nobody was takingcare of themrsquo

Another context that induces classifier use is the context of focus particleswhich typically mark the inclusion or exclusion of alternatives (Koumlnig 1991) Theother two examples to be discussed here both belong to this type of focus Thefirst example (25) is on the [+unique+relational] noun mặt lsquofacersquo which occurswith the two focus particles chỉ cograven lsquoonlyrsquo and mỗi lsquoonlyrsquo The noun mặt lsquofacersquotakes the position between these two particles to emphasize the fact that the foam

19One of our reviewers suggests that dưới mặt đất lsquodown on the groundrsquo is a frame-setter (e gKrifka 2008) This interpretation cannot be fully excluded However we would like to point outthat the contrast between the position lsquoup in the treersquo and the position lsquodown on the groundrsquois clearly given in the way the scenes are presented in the film

36


covers almost the whole of the husbandrsquos body leaving only his face unaffectedThus the two particles exhaustively single out one part of the body which isexcluded from the disturbing presence of foam


Luacutectime

bacirc y giờthat

ngườiCL

chocirc nghusband

nghehear

thacirc yRES

begravenCONJ

trocirc irise

lecircnout

khỏiout of

mặtsurface

nướcwater

toagravenwhole

thacircnbody

ocircng3SG

lagraveCOP

bọt xagrave phogravengfoam

chỉ cogravenonly

thacirc ysee

mỗionly

khuocircnCL

mặtface

lsquoAt that time the husband heard (the bell) then he moved out of thewater His whole body was full of soap foam except [the] face [lit onecan just only see [his] face]rsquo

Our next two examples are not included in the statistics in Table 3 becausethey contain a possessive construction and thus go beyond the distinction ofbare noun vs [CL+N] In spite of this they are relevant because classifiers veryrarely occur with non-sortal head nouns of possessor constructions In (26) the[+unique +relational] possessee head noun chocirc ng lsquohusbandrsquo in chocirc ng của migravenh[husband CL self] lsquohusband of herrsquo takes the classifier ocircng Since non-sortalnouns of this type do not have a classifier in our data (e g chocirc ng (của) migravenh[husband (possessive marker) self-reflexive pronoun] lsquo[her] husbandrsquo vợ (của) migravenh[wife (possessive marker) self-reflexive pronoun] lsquo[his] wifersquo con trai họ [son (pos-sessive marker) selves-reflexive pronoun] lsquo[their] sonrsquo etc) it is reasonable to as-sume that the presence of the classifier is due to the focus particle ngoagravei lsquoexceptrsquo


Khiwhen

giật migravenhstartle

vigravebecause

bịPASS

tạtthrow

nướcwater

bagraveCL

vợwife

liecirc nimmediately

thức giacirc cawake

nhigravenlook

xung quanharound

xemsee

aiwho

lagravemdo

vagraveCONJ

chảNEG

coacutehave

aiwho

ngoagraveiexcept

ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband

củaPOSS

migravenhself

lsquoBeing startled by the water the wife awoke immediately looked aroundto see who did it But there was nobody except [her] husbandrsquo

Finally the classifier even occurs with non-sortal head nouns of possessiveconstructions if the relevant focus situation can only be derived from contextwithout the explicit presence of a focus marker This is illustrated by (27) inwhich we find the two non-sortal nouns chacircn lsquofootrsquo and mocircng lsquobuttocksrsquo the

37


former without a classifier the latter with a classifier The interpretation of thissentence crucially depends on the function of the adverbial subordinator necircnlsquotherefore to the extent thatrsquo which creates a context in which the situation be-comes worse and worse until it culminates in a rather unexpected situation inwhich the husband even burns his buttocks This situation can be compared tothe situation created by a focus particle like even


Ocircng acirc y3SG

bịPASS

bỏngburn

vagraveCONJ

đauhurt

quaacutevery

necircnCONJ

ocircmhold

chacircnfoot

lecircnRES

vagraveand

khocircngNEG

giữkeep

đượcRES

thăng bằngbalance

necircnCONJ

teacutefall

vagraveointo

chiecirc cCL

chảopan

đangPROG

chaacuteyburn

đoacuteDEM

caacuteiCL

mocircngbuttock

củaPOSS

ocircng acirc y3SG

đatildePERF

bịPASS

phỏngburn

lsquoHe got burnt and he got hurt therefore he lifted [his] leg up to hold itthen he was no longer able to keep his balance to the extent that he felldown on [the] burning pan and [as a consequence] even [his] buttocksgot burntrsquo

4 Classifiers and indefiniteness

Classifiers with indefinite interpretation are limited to particular contexts theindefinite function of classifiers in the subject position of thetic statements ispresented in sect41 sect42 discusses the [CL+N] construction in existential clauseswhile sect43 describes [CL+N] constructions in combination with verbs of appear-ance

41 Thetic statements

As can be seen from Table 4 indefinite subjects are rather rare 978 of the pre-verbal [CL+N] constructions of the written and the spoken corpus together aredefinite (cf sect33) The vast majority of the remaining 22 of indefinite prever-bal [CL+N] constructions are subjects of thetic constructions (Kuroda 1972 Sasse1987 1995) Thetic utterances are seen in contrast to categorical utterances Sasse(1995) defines both types as follows

38


Categorical utterances are said to be bipartite predications involving a pred-ication base the entity about which the predication is made and a predi-cate which says something about the predication base In other words oneof the arguments of the predicate is picked out as a ldquotopicrdquo in the literalsense namely an object about which something is asserted Thetic utter-ances on the other hand are monomial predications (called ldquosimple asser-tionsrdquo in Sasse 1987) no argument is picked out as a predication base the en-tire situation including all of its participants is asserted as a unitary whole(Sasse 1995 4-5)

In utterances of this type the entire clause is an lsquoall-newrsquo utterance that is seenas inactivated information (often backgrounded) that is assumed by the speakernot to be present in the hearerrsquos mind Thus nominal participants of thetic utter-ances are generally indefinite The following two examples constitute the begin-ning of the story as told by two different informants They provide a descriptionof the initial scene as it was presented in the film In the first sentence of bothexamples the subject đocirc ng hocirc baacuteo thức lsquoalarm clockrsquo is marked by the classifierchiecirc c Similarly the subject đagraven ocircng lsquomanrsquo has the default classifier for humansngười in the second sentence of both examples

(28) Indefinite Subject (Written text 12 sentence 1 2)

Chiecirc cCL

đocirc ng hocirc clock

baacuteo thứcalarm

reoring

lecircnup

luacutecat

8eight

giờorsquoclock

đuacutengexactly

NgườiCL


đangPROG

ngủsleep

thigraveCONJ

bịPASS

nướcwater

văng tung toacuteesplatter

vagraveoPREP

mặtface

lsquoThe alarm clock rang at exactly eight orsquoclock There was a man who wassleeping and then [his] face was splattered with waterrsquo


Chiecirc cCL



reoring

lecircnRES

baacuteo hiệusignaling

đatildePERF

taacutemeight

giờorsquoclock

saacutengmorning

NgườiCL


mởopen

mắteye

liecirc c nhigravenglance

sangtoward


lsquo[The] alarm clock rang to signal that it was already 8 orsquoclock in themorning [A] man opened his eye and glanced at [his] wifersquo

39


42 Existential expressions

Existential sentences of the type lsquothere is an Xrsquo are typically used to introducepreviously unidentified referents Thus [CL+N] constructions occurring in thistype of construction are typically indefinite Since they are positioned after theverb they form a considerable part of the indefinite object classifiers in our data(but cf inanimate nouns below) A good example is (30) from our oral corpus inwhich the [CL+N] construction is preceded by the verb coacute lsquohave there isrsquo


Luacutectime

nagraveyDEM

coacutehave

viecircnCL

cảnh saacutetpoliceman

vagraveoenter

hỏiask

xemsee

tigravenh higravenhsituation

vigravebecause

haitwo

vợwife

chocirc nghusband

catildeiargue

nhauRECIP

lsquoThis time [a] policeman entered and asked why this couple was arguingwith each otherrsquo

Another verb that implies indefiniteness is the copula verb lagrave lsquobersquo which isused in identificational contexts (lsquothis is an Xrsquo) as well as in locative contexts(lsquoY is [placed] inaton an Xrsquo) The following example starts out with a locativeexpression in the topic position (becircn cạnh đoacute lsquoat the side of it besidersquo) The threesubsequent objects following the copula lagrave are introduced as previously unmen-tioned elements into the scene by being situated within that locative topic


Becircn cạnhbeside

đoacuteDEM

lagraveCOP

caacuteiCL

kệshelf

nhỏsmall

caacuteiCL

bigravenhbottle

vagraveand

lyCL

nướcwater

đượcPASS

đặtplace

lecircnmoveup

trecircntop

noacute3SG

lsquoBeside [him] was a small shelf with a bottle and a glass of water placedon itrsquo

Previous Context The man who wore glasses awoke opened his eyes for amoment had a look around himself ignored the alarm clock and went onsleeping

In contrast to the thetic utterances of the preceding subsection existentialconstructions can also be combined with constructions other than [CL+N] Forthat reason their impact on postverbal indefinite classifiers in our data is lessstrict than the impact of thetic utterances on indefinite classifiers in the subject

40


position As is shown by the following example existential expressions can alsooccur with the [một lsquoonersquo+CL+N] construction

(32) (Oral text 20 sentence 1 2)

CacircuCL

chuyệnstory

đượcPASS

bắt đacirc ubegin

vagraveoin

mộtone

buổi sangmorning

tạiat

mộtone

caacutenhCL

đocirc ngfield

coacutehave

mộtone

ngườiCL

nocircng dacircnfarmer

leoclimb

lecircnup

trecircnon

mộtone

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đangPROG

haacuteipluck

mộtone

loạikind


nagraveosome

đoacutecertain

giocirc nglike

traacuteiCL

lecircpear

lsquoThe story began in a morning in a field There was a farmer who wasclimbing up a ladder to pick a kind of fruit like a pearrsquo

Finally there are also some instances of inanimate nouns which occur with-out a classifier in existential constructions This is illustrated by the followingexample with the noun xe cứu hoả lsquofire truckrsquo in its bare form


Gacirc n đoacutenearby

coacutehave

xecar

cứusave

hỏafire

vagraveCONJ

lập tứcimmediately

đecirc narrive

xịtspray

nướcwater

vagraveointo

chữaextinguish

chaacuteyfire

nhưngCONJ

lagravem chocause

mọi thứeverything

hỏng hecirc truin

lsquoNearby there was [a] fire truck it arrived immediately to extinguish thefire However it also ruined everythingrsquo

The extent to which the use of the classifier ultimately depends on the animacyof the noun cannot be determined from our data because we do not have enoughexamples20

20In an alternative analysis readers may be tempted to argue that the absence of the classifier isrelated to the complexity of the head noun (compounds vs simple nouns) or to its status as alexical item borrowed fromChinese Since Emeneau (1951) it has often been claimed that nounsof this type take no classifiers In spite of this the noun cảnh saacutet lsquopolicemanrsquo which is borrowedfrom Chinese 警察 jǐngchaacute lsquopolice(man)rsquo does occur with the classifier viecircn in (30) Thus wecan at least exclude borrowing from Chinese as a strong factor for determining classifier usein existential constructions In (31) it seems that animacy is more important Ultimately moredata would be needed to enable more precise conclusions to be reached

41


43 Verbs and situations of appearance

Vietnamese has quite a few verbs with the meaning of lsquoappear come uprsquo lsquoturnout to bersquo or lsquorevealrsquo whose subsequent nouns introduce previously unidentifiedelements into the discourse In such cases the postverbal noun is indefinite Inthe following example with the verb logravei ra lsquocome to light appearrsquo the noun tẩuthuocirc c lsquosmoking pipersquo takes the general classifier caacutei Since the pipe was hiddenin the husbandrsquos pocket it is unknown to the audiencereader of the text and isinterpreted as indefinite


NhưngCONJ

sauafter

đoacutethat

caacuteiCL

tuacutei aacuteopocket

củaPOSS

ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband

bịPASS

lủngburst

lograveishow

raout

caacuteiCL

tẩu thuocirc csmoking-pipe

chứCONJemph

khocircng phảiNEG

vật gigravesomething

coacute thểcan

gacircycause

nguy hiểmdanger

lsquoHowever after that his pocket burst and what came to light was asmoking pipe definitely nothing that may cause any dangerrsquo

Sometimes the meanings of verbs implying the emergence of unidentifiableconcepts are highly specific This can be shown by the verb vacirc p lsquotrip walk intostumble overrsquo which creates a situation in which the object is unpredictable andhas the status of being unidentifiable as in the following example


Mải mecircpassionately

nhigravenlook

gaacuteigirl

necircnCONJ

noacute3SG

vacirc ptrip

phảiPASS

cụcCL

đaacutestone

vagraveCONJ

teacutefall

xuocirc ngdown

đườngroad

lsquo[He] looked at the girl passionately and thus stumbled over [a] stone andfell down on the roadrsquo

Thus the object đaacute lsquostonersquo is marked by the classifier cục in (35) The boy whois one of the two protagonists in the story as well as the audience cannot knowwhat will happen when the boy is looking at the girl rather than at the road whileriding his bike The stone is clearly not activated and is interpreted as indefinite

42


5 Conclusion

The aim of this study was to reach a better understanding of the referential func-tions of Vietnamese classifiers based on the systematic analysis of data from acorpus of written and oral texts which was designed to generate a broad varietyof contexts which may trigger classifier use The main results on the use and thefunctions of the Vietnamese classifier in [CL+N] can be summarized as follows

(i) Classifiers can be interpreted as definite as well as indefinite but there is aclear preference for using the classifier in definite contexts (cf sect31)

(ii) There is a clear clustering of animacy and definiteness definite animatenouns occur much more frequently with a classifier than definite inani-mate nouns (sect31)

(iii) There is a clear clustering of [CL+N] with [+definite +animate subject]and of bare nouns [N] with [minusdefinite minusanimate object] (sect33)

(iv) The overwhelming majority of nouns occurring in the [CL+N] construc-tion are sortal nouns [minusunique minusrelational] (sect32)

(v) Discourse and information structure play an important role in the functionas well as in the presenceabsence of a classifier

a The definiteness with which classifiers are associated in [CL+N] isbased on identifiability in discourse (sect341)

b Information structure is an important factor for determining the useof a classifier in [CL+N] (sect342 and sect343) and its interpretation interms of definiteness vs indefiniteness (particularly cf sect41 on indef-initeness and theticity)

(vi) There are certain semantic environments which support the indefinite in-terpretation of the classifier (existential clauses and verbs of appearancesect42 and sect43)

The results in (i) to (iii) on animacy definiteness and subjectpreverbal posi-tion tie in with general findings on prominence at the level of the morphosyntax-semantics interface as they manifest themselves in hierarchies like the animacyhierarchy (Silverstein 1976 Dixon 1979) or the accessibility hierarchy (Keenan amp

43


Comrie 1977) (for a survey cf Bornkessel-Schlesewsky amp Schlesewsky 2009)21

The clustering observed in (ii) and (iii) additionally reflects a universal tendencyto associate animate subjects in clause-initial positions of SVO languages withdefiniteness (Keenan amp Comrie 1977 Givoacuten 1979 Du Bois 1987 and many oth-ers) This tendency is also well known for word order in Sinitic languages (Li ampThompson 1976 Sun amp Givoacuten 1985 LaPolla 1995) Chen (2004 1166) talks aboutdefiniteness-inclined preverbal positions and indefiniteness-inclined postverbalpositions in Mandarin Chinese As can be seen from (i) word order does notdetermine the (in)definiteness interpretation of the classifier in Vietnamese asrigidly as it does in Cantonese or in the Wu dialect of Fuyang (cf the discussionof (11) and (12) for the discourse-based reasons for this cf below)22

21Based on the relevance of (in)definiteness and animacy one may think of analyzing the useof the classifier in [CL+N] in the light of Differential Object Marking (DOM) as suggested byone of our reviewers In our view such an account would be problematic for at least the fol-lowing reasons (i) The use of the classifier in the [CL+N] construction is strongly associatedwith sortal nouns ([minusrelational][minusunique]) while DOM marking is not limited to this type ofnouns (ii) As pointed out by Aissen (2003 439) ldquoit is those direct objects which most resembletypical subjects that get overtly case-markedrdquo If one takes the use of the classifier as a DOMmarker one would expect the highest frequency of classifier use with [+definite] and [+ani-mate] objects This is clearly not borne out in the case of definiteness As can be seen fromTable 4 the ratio of definite subjects with CL is much higher than the ratio of definite objectswith CL There are 1329 [= 1012 + 317] definite subjects with CL vs 98 [= 86 + 12] definitesubjects with no CL i e 933 of the definite subjects in our two corpora have a classifier Incontrast only 341 of the definite objects have a classifier (795 [= 432 + 363] definite objectswith CL contrast with 1533 [= 1206 + 327] without CL) In the case of animacy the differencebetween the two ratios is smaller but it is still higher with animate subjects As can be seenfrom Table 6 there are 1259 [= 997 + 262] animate subjects with CL and only 10 [= 9 + 1]animate subjects with no CL i e 992 of the animate subjects have a classifier In the case ofanimate objects the ratio is 727 (312 [= 179 + 133] animate objects with CL contrast with 117[= 114 + 3] animate objects with no CL) (iii) The results discussed in (ii) are remarkable fromthe perspective of split vs fluid DOM languages in terms of De Hoop amp Malchukov (2007) Insplit languages DOMmarking is obligatory for a particular feature while it is optional in fluidsystems In most DOM languages DOM is split for at least one category As can be seen in (ii)this is not the case with the use of the classifier Vietnamese classifiers are not obligatory withdefinite objects nor are they obligatory with animate objects

22In the case of Sinitic Li amp Bisang (2012) argue that the definiteness interpretation of subjectsis due to a process of grammaticalization in which the definiteness properties of the topicposition were passed on to the subject position (cf the classical grammaticalization pathwayfrom information structure to syntax in Givoacuten 1979) In a similar way the observation thatpostverbal [CL+N] constructions are preferably indefinite but do not exclude definiteness inSinitic can be derived from the association of informational focus with the postverbal position(Xu 2004) As Lambrecht (1994 262) points out focus differs from topic inasmuch as it is notnecessarily identifiable or pragmatically salient in discourse For that reason it is open toindefinite and definite interpretation even though the default interpretation is indefinite If this

44


The observation in (iv) that the vast majority of nouns occurring in the [CL+N]construction are sortal nouns in the terms of Loumlbner (1985) confirms and fur-ther specifies the findings of Simpson (2017 324) on the Wu variety of Jinyunthat nouns denoting ldquospecifically unique individualselementsrdquo predominantlyappear as bare nouns [N] (cf the three instances of [+unique] nouns taking aclassifier in Table 3) These results show the potential relevance of Loumlbnerrsquos (19852011) four basic types of nouns for understanding definitenessindefiniteness asassociated with the [CL+N] construction in East and mainland Southeast Asianlanguages

Even though the factors of semantics (animacy uniqueness relationality) andsyntax (subject object) clearly have an impact on the presence or absence ofthe classifier in contexts of definiteness and indefiniteness we have evidencethat discourse and information structure are stronger than these factors Thedominance of discourse is reflected in the very function of the classifier itselfAs discussed in sect341 classifiers mark identifiability rather than uniqueness (cfpoint (va) also cf Li amp Bisang 2012 on Sinitic) Thus they express pragmaticdefiniteness rather than semantic definiteness in terms of Loumlbner (1985 2011)or anaphoric (ldquostrongrdquo) definiteness rather than unique (ldquoweakrdquo) definiteness interms of Schwarz (2009 2013) In addition to the discourse-based definiteness ex-pressed by the classifier contrastive topics (sect342) as well as contrastive focusand focus particles (sect343) enhance the use of the [CL+N] construction Theticstatements as another instantiation of information structure play an importantrole in the indefinite interpretation of [CL+N] in the subject position (sect41 also cf(vb)) Moreover there are more specific discourse-based environments as men-tioned in point (vi) which support the use of a classifier in contexts of indefiniteinterpretation (sect42 and sect43) Finally evidence of the dominance of discoursecomes from data outside of our corpus In order to disentangle the semantic ef-fects of animacy vs discourse effects associated with protagonists we lookedfor narrative texts with inanimate protagonists In the three texts we found theinanimate protagonists generally occur in the [CL+N] construction (Quang forth-coming) One of the stories is about a flying carpet which is already mentionedin the title Tacirc m thảm bay [CL carpet fly] lsquoThe Flying Carpetrsquo23 After the protag-onist is introduced by an indefinite construction of the type [one CL N] the nounthảm lsquocarpetrsquo consistently occurs with a classifier It is important to add in this

analysis is true onemay argue that in Sinitic the classifier in [CL+N] is like a variable that takeson the [plusmndefinite] function that corresponds to its syntactic position if it is not overwritten bystronger factors In Vietnamese such a syntactic scenario turns out to be problematic becausethe classifier generally favours definite interpretation (cf point (i))

23The story was published by Viet Nam Education Publisher in 2003

45


context that the carpet has no anthropomorphic properties in the story i e itdoes not act in any way It is just the element that keeps the story going throughmany different events and episodes Needless to say such examples are hard tofind in a corpus no matter how large it is because they are rare overall The factthat even inanimate protagonists generally can take a classifier together with thefindings summarized in (v) are good evidence for the dominance of discourse andinformation structure over semantics and syntax

Taking these findings together the classifier in [CL+N] is used as a variablewhose use and interpretation depend on prominence in discourse and interactwith factors from the morphosyntax-semantics interface The details of that in-teraction will undoubtedly need more research What is remarkable and makesthe data on Vietnamese and other East and mainland Southeast Asian languagesparticularly relevant from a typological perspective is the observation that thedifferent factors associated with (in)definiteness are well known while cross-linguistic variation in how they interact is still under-researched In Vietnamesefactors of discourse are particularly prominent In order to further corroboratethese observations and compare themwith the situation in othermainland South-east Asian languages it is necessary to look at how classifiers are used in actualdiscourse in text corpora We understand the corpus discussed here as a startingpoint for Vietnamese

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editors for their time and support in the editorialprocesses Comments from two anonymous reviewers have greatly improved thecontent We owe special thanks to our 46 informants and friends in Ho Chi Minhcity Vietnam for their help in participating in our experiments

References

Aissen Judith 2003 Differential object marking Iconicity vs Economy NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theory 21 435ndash483

Bisang Walter 1999 Classifiers in East and Southeast Asian languages Count-ing and beyond In Jadranka Gvozdanovic (ed) Numeral types and changesworldwide (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs (TiLSM) Vol 118)113ndash185 Berlin Mouton De Gruyter

Bisang Walter amp Yicheng Wu 2017 Numeral classifiers in East Asia Linguistics55 257ndash264

46


Bornkessel-Schlesewsky Ina amp Matthias Schlesewsky 2009 The role of promi-nence information in the real‐time comprehension of transitive constructionsA cross‐linguistic approach Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1) 19ndash58

Chafe Wallace L 1980 The Pear Stories Cognitive cultural and linguistic aspectsof narrative production Norwood NJ Ablex

Chen Ping 2004 Identifiability and definiteness in Chinese Linguistics 42 1129ndash1184


Croft William 2003 Typology and universals 2nd edition Cambridge Cam-bridge University Press

De Hoop Helen A amp Andrej Malchukov 2007 On fluid differential case markingA bidirectional OT approach Lingua 117 1636ndash1656

Dixon Robert M W 1979 Ergativity Language 55 59ndash138Du Bois John W 1987 The discourse basis of ergativity Language 63 805ndash855Emeneau Murray B 1951 Studies in Vietnamese (Annamese) Grammar (Univer-

sity of California Publications in Linguistics 8) BerkeleyLos Angeles Univer-sity of California Press

Givoacuten Talmy 1979 On understanding grammar New York Academic PressGreenberg Joseph 1972 Numerical classifiers and substantival number Prob-

lems in the genesis of a linguistic typeWorking Papers on Language Universals9 Department of Linguistics Stanford University 1ndash39

Jiang L Julie 2015 Marking (in)definiteness in classifier languages Bulletin ofChinese Linguistics 8 319ndash343

Keenan Edward L amp Bernard Comrie 1977 Noun phrase accessibility and uni-versal grammar Linguistic Inquiry 8(1) 63ndash99

Koumlnig Ekkehard 1991 The meaning of focus particles A comparative perspectiveLondonNew York Routledge

Krifka Manfred 2008 Basic notions of information structure Acta LinguisticaHungarica 55(3-4) 243ndash276

Kuroda Shichiro 1972 The categorical and the thetic judgment Evidence fromJapanese syntax Foundations of Language 9(2) 153ndash185

Lambrecht Knud 1994 Information structure and sentence form Topic focus andthe mental representation of discourse referents Cambridge Cambridge Univer-sity Press

LaPolla Randy J 1995 Pragmatic relations and word order in Chinese In PamelaA Downing amp Michael Noonan (eds) Word order in discourse 297ndash329 Ams-terdamPhiladelphia John Benjamins

47


Li Charles N amp Sandra A Thompson 1976 Subject and topic A new typologyof language In Charles N Li (ed) Subject and topic 457ndash489 New York Aca-demic Press

Li XuPing amp Walter Bisang 2012 Classifiers in Sinitic languages From individ-uation to definiteness-marking Lingua 122 335ndash355


28 279ndash333Nguyen Kim Than Hai Thuy Ho amp Duc Duong Nguyen 2005 Từ điển tiếng Việt

[Vietnamese Dictionary] Ho Chi Minh City Saigon Cultural PublisherNguyen Tuong H 2004 The structure of the Vietnamese noun phrase Boston Uni-

versity (Doctoral dissertation)Quang KimNgoc Forthcoming Vietnamese classifiers and (in)definiteness A text-

based analysis University of Mainz (Doctoral dissertation)Sasse Hans-Juumlrgen 1987 The theticcategorical distinction revisited Linguistics

25 511ndash580Sasse Hans-Juumlrgen 1995 lsquoTheticityrsquo and VS order A case study Sprachtypologie

und Universalienforschung 48 3ndash31Schwarz Florian 2009 Two types of definites in natural language Amherst MA

University of Massachusetts (Doctoral dissertation)Schwarz Florian 2013 Two types of definites cross-linguistically Language and

Linguistics Compass 7(10) 534ndash558Silverstein Michael 1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity In Robert M W

Dixon (ed) Grammatical categories in Australian languages 112ndash171 New Jer-sey Humanities Press

Simpson Andrew 2005 Classifiers and DP structure in Southeast Asian lan-guages In Guglielmo Cinque amp Richard S Kayne (eds) The Oxford handbookof comparative syntax 806ndash838 Oxford Oxford University Press

Simpson Andrew 2017 Bare classifiernoun alternations in the Jinyun (Wu) va-riety of Chinese and the encoding of definiteness Linguistics 55(2) 305ndash331

Sun Chao-Fen amp Talmy Givoacuten 1985 On the so-called SOV word order in Man-darin Chinese A quantified text study and its implications Language 61 329ndash351

Tran Jennie 2011 The acquisition of Vietnamese classifiers Honolulu Universityof Hawaii (Doctoral dissertation)

Trinh Tue 2011 Nominal reference in two classifier languages In Ingo ReichEva Horch amp Dennis Pauly (eds) Sinn und Bedeutung 15 Proceedings of the

48


2010 annual conference of the Gesellschaft fuumlr Semantik 629ndash644 SaarbruumlckenSaarland University Press

Wang Jian 2015 Bare classifier phrases in Sinitic languages A typological per-spective In Hilary M Chappell (ed) Diversity in Sinitic languages 110ndash133Oxford Oxford University Press

Wu Yicheng amp Adams Bodomo 2009 Classifiers ne determiners Linguistic In-quiry 40(3) 487ndash503

Xu Liejiong 2004 Manifestations of informational focus Lingua 114 277ndash299

49

Chapter 3

Preverbal (in)definites in Russian Anexperimental studyOlga BorikUniversidad Nacional de Educacioacuten a Distancia (UNED) Madrid

Joan Borragraves-ComesUniversitat Autogravenoma de Barcelona amp Universitat Pompeu Fabra Barcelona

Daria SeresUniversitat Autogravenoma de Barcelona

This paper presents an experimental investigation aimed at determining the exactnature of the relationship between type of interpretation (definite or indefinite) andlinear position (pre- or postverbal) of bare nominal subjects of intransitive predi-cates in Russian The results of our experiment confirm that preverbal positioncorrelates with a definite interpretation and postverbal position with an indefiniteinterpretation However we also discovered that the acceptance rate of preverbalindefinites is reasonably high We suggest an explanation for the appearance ofindefinites in preverbal subject position in terms of lexical accessibility which iscouched in general terms of D-linking

1 Introduction

This paper is devoted to the study of bare singular nominals in Russian in pre- andpostverbal subject position and a possible correlation between their (in)definite-ness and their linear position in a sentence Russian as is well known is a lan-guage without articles i e a language that does not express definiteness as agrammatical category in a strict sense This means that to establish the referen-tial status of a bare nominal as a definite or an indefinite expression (a contrast

Olga Borik Joan Borragraves-Comes amp Daria Seres 2020 Preverbal (in)definites in Russian Anexperimental study In Kata Balogh Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr (eds) Nominalanchoring Specificity definiteness and article systems across languages 51ndash80 Berlin LanguageScience Press DOI 105281zenodo4049681

Olga Borik Joan Borragraves-Comes amp Daria Seres

that seems to be perceivable for native speakers of Russian) the communicationparticipants have to rely on a combination of clues and use various indicators pro-vided both at a sentential and at a discourse level In this paper we are interestedin establishing the role of the linear position of a nominal in this combination offactors that Russian uses to signal (in)definiteness

To tackle this problem we conducted an experimental study the empirical cov-erage of which is limited to subjects of stage-level intransitive verbs In this studynative speakers of Russianwere asked to judge the acceptability of sentences con-taining pre- and postverbal bare nominals in two types of contexts definiteness-and indefiniteness-suggesting contexts In definiteness-suggesting contexts weused anaphoric bare nominals i e those that are linked to a referent in the pre-vious context This practical decision suggests a familiarity theory of definite-ness (Christophersen 1939 Heim 1982) as a theoretical basis for the paper Thefamiliarity approach to definiteness is based on the idea that the referent of thedefinite description is knownfamiliar to both the speaker and the addressee Def-inites are assumed to pick out an existing referent from the discourse whereasindefinites introduce new referents (see specifically Heim 1982 Kamp 1981)

A different and very influential theory of definiteness is based on the unique-ness property of definite nominals (Russell 1905) which is usually taken to bepart of the presupposition associated with a definite NP (Frege 1879 Strawson1950) The two approaches are not mutually exclusive and familiarity is some-times claimed to be subsumed by uniqueness (see for instance Farkas 2002Beaver amp Coppock 2015) The basic idea behind the uniqueness approach is thata definite description is felicitous if within a certain pragmatically determineddomain there is exactly one entity in the case of singulars or unique maximalset in the case of plurals satisfying the description1

In this paper we follow Farkas (2002) who introduced the notion of deter-mined reference to ldquocapture what is common to anaphoric and unique referencerdquo(Farkas 2002 221) Determined reference simply means that the value assignedto the variable introduced by a definite DP is fixed there is no choice of enti-ties that satisfy the descriptive content of a definite nominal Although definitedescriptions always have a determined reference it can be achieved in differ-ent ways definite DPs have determined reference if the descriptive content of a

1Some other relevant theoretical notions related to definiteness in the current literature aredeterminacy (Coppock amp Beaver 2015) and salience (von Heusinger 1997) We will not discussthese here since a deep theoretical discussion of what it means to be definite is outside thescope of this paper We limit our attention to one particular type of definite expression in thispaper although it is very well known that there are various types of definites (cf for instanceLyons 1999 for an overview)

52

3 Preverbal (in)definites in Russian An experimental study

nominal (ie cat in the cat) denotes a singleton set relative to a context or if theyare used anaphorically In our experimental study the nominal that appears inthe definiteness-suggesting contexts is always anaphoric by a link to a previousantecedent or by bridging

The main conclusion drawn from our experiment is that linear word order inRussian cannot be considered the primary means for expressing definiteness andindefiniteness of bare nominals Apart from the fact that we have confirmed astrong and clear correlation between linear position and interpretation of barenominals in the sense that preverbal bare subjects are mostly interpreted def-initely and postverbal subjects indefinitely we also report on another impor-tant result some (not all) indefinite preverbal subjects are judged as acceptableby native speakers It is this result that we are focusing on in this paper ouraim is to ascertain what makes it possible or impossible to use a bare nominalsubject in preverbal position in an indefiniteness-suggesting context Thus themain theoretical contribution of this paper consists in identifying requirementsthat facilitate the acceptability of what is considered an outcast i e preverbalsubjects with an indefinite interpretation We propose that the general mecha-nism employed in licensing preverbal indefinite subjects is D-linking and identifysome conditions for indefinites in Russian to be D-linked justifying our proposalthrough an item-by-item analysis of all our preverbal contexts

The rest of the paper is organised as follows In sect2 we discuss the category of(in)definiteness and various means of expressing it especially in those languagesthat lack articles and hence do not have a straightforward way of signallingwhen a nominal is (in)definite Our discussion is limited to Russian a well-knownrepresentative of languages without articles sect3 is devoted to the experimentalstudy that we have conducted with pre- and postverbal subjects of intransitiveverbs In this section we outline the design and the methodology used in theexperimental study describe the results and present our interpretation of theresults In sect4 we discuss some theoretical issues that can be raised on the basisof the results of our experiment and sect5 concludes the paper

2 The category of (in)definiteness and its realizations

The category of definiteness (with two values definite and indefinite) is mostlydiscussed in the literature in relation to articles although it is often assumedthat this category is in fact semantically universal and also present in thoselanguages that do not possess formal means to express definiteness The intuitionis indeed that one of the differences in the interpretation of the nominal subject

53


in (1a) vs (1b) in Russian corresponds to the contrast between (2a) and (2b) inEnglish where the (in)definiteness of the subject is overtly expressed In Russianeven though the nominal subject appears in the same morphological form andwithout any additional markers in both sentences the interpretation that thespeakers are likely to attribute to the subject koška in (1a) by default seems to beindefinite and thus comparable to the interpretation of a cat in (2a) Howeverthe same nominal in (1b) is most likely to be interpreted as definite and hence iscomparable to the definite subject in the English example (2b)

(1) a Vin

uglucornerLOC

spitsleeps

koškacatNOM

b KoškacatNOM

spitsleeps

vin

uglucornerLOC

(2) a A cat is sleeping in the corner There is a cat sleeping in the cornerb The cat is sleeping in the corner

Thus at least at first impression definiteness forms part of the inventory ofsemantic contrastscategories that can be expressed in Russian since the contrastbetween definite and indefinite readings of nominals can be easily perceived andunderstood by speakers This observation is supported by the literature wherecommonwisdom seems to be that languageswithout articles can express definite-ness contrasts despite the absence of an article system In fact all the literatureon definiteness in Russian simply assumes that it is entirely legitimate to talkabout definite and indefinite readings The only question that is discussed anddebated is how (in)definiteness is expressed (see for instance Galkina-Fedoruk1963 Pospelov 1970 Krylov 1984 Nesset 1999)

From a formalcompositional semantic perspective a sentence like (3) needssome functional semantic operations to make sure that the result of combining anominal phrase and a predicate in a simple intransitive sentence is well formed

(3) KoškacatNOM

spitsleep

lsquoAthe cat is sleepingrsquo

In formal semantics common nouns like cat in English or koška in Russianare expressions of the type ⟨et⟩ i e they denote a set of entities that can becharacterized as cats2 Intransitive verbs are standardly given the same type ⟨et⟩

2See Chierchia (1998) for the claim that common nouns can be lexically of different logical types

54


as they denote a set of entities that sleep Technically speaking the two elementsin (3) could be combined even though they are of the same type without theneed to introduce any other semantic operations for instance by intersection inwhich case we would end up with a set of entities that are sleeping cats A wayto combine the two elements without resorting to any type-shifting operationscould be by pseudo-incorporation (e g Mithun 1984) However in these casesthe meaning predicted for the whole expression is far from the actual meaningof (3) (3) does not denote either a set of sleeping cats or a sleeping action astypically performed by cats Moreover the nominal itself does not exhibit any ofthe properties of pseudo-incorporated nominals (cf Borik amp Gehrke 2015 for anoverview of such properties) The sentence in (3) is a typical predication wheresomething is said (asserted) about a cat entity As a proposition (3) can also begiven a truth value In order to properly derive the truth conditions of (3) we needto resort to type-shifting operations (Chierchia 1984 Partee 1987) which turn anargument (in this case koška lsquocatrsquo) into an entity ⟨e⟩ or a quantifier ⟨⟨et⟩t⟩

In languages with articles one of the functions that is attributed to an articleor in more general terms a determiner is shifting the noun denotation from apredicate type to an argument type In particular a type-shifting operation thatthe definite article lsquoperformsrsquo is called an iota shift and is formally defined asfollows (see Heim 2011 998)

(4) JtheK = 120582119875 exist119909forall119910[119875(119910) harr 119909 = 119910]120580119909119875(119909)where 120580119909 abbreviates ldquothe unique x such thatrdquo

It is reasonable to hypothesize that in Russian the same type-shifting rules canbe applied as in English although in the case of Russian the type-shifter itself isnot lexically expressed In fact it has been proposed by Chierchia (1998) thatexactly the same set of type-shifting operators that are used to formally deriveargument types in languages like English can be employed in languages withoutarticles to reflect various types of readings (entity type predicate type or quanti-fier type) of nominal phrases The proposal is quite attractive since it postulatesa universal set of semantic operations that are used to model various denotationsof nominal constituents The only difference is that in some languages these op-erators are lexicalized (languages with articles) whereas in others they are not(languages without articles) as suggested for instance by Dayal (2004)

Thus from a theoretical viewpoint it is rather attractive to assume that a uni-versal set of formal operators called type-shifting operators is postulated to de-

in different languages although in his system English and Russian belong to the same groupof languages where the denotation of a common noun is taken to be of a predicate (ie ⟨et⟩)type

55


rive various readings of nominal phrases in different (possibly all) languagesBoth definite and indefinite readings can then be derived by using appropriatetype-shifting operations regardless of language It seems that we have ampleempirical evidence from languages without articles like Russian that these read-ings do indeed exist so that type-shifting operators are not vacuous but giverise to various interpretations of nominal arguments as illustrated in (1) and (3)above However in the absence of any obligatory lexical items that would reflect(in)definiteness of the corresponding nominal phrase the question that arises ishow we know when a nominal phrase is interpreted as a definite or as an indef-inite one in a language like Russian

21 Expressing (in)definiteness in Russian lexical and grammaticalmeans

Languages without articles possess various means to indicate the referential sta-tus of a nominal argument In this section we will review various means that canbe employed in Russian to facilitate different (definite or indefinite) readings ofa nominal

First of all there are lexical elements including determiners quantifiers anddemonstrative pronouns3 that can be used to indicate whether the nominal theymodify or combine with has a definite or an indefinite reading Some examplesof such lexical items are given in (5) below

(5) a VasjaVasja

znaetknows

ėtogothisACCM

studentastudentACCM

lsquoVasja knows this studentrsquob Odna

oneNOMFznakomajaacquaintanceNOMF

prixodilacame

včerayesterday

vto

gostiguests

lsquoA (particular) friend came to visit yesterdayrsquoc Vasju

VasjaACCiskalalookedfor

kakaja-tosomeNOMF

studentkastudentNOMF

lsquoSome student was looking for Vasjarsquod Vasja

Vasjaopjatrsquoagain

kupilbought

kakuju-nibudrsquosomeACCF

erundunonsenseACCF

lsquoVasja bought some useless thing againrsquo

3Here we refer to a class of canonical not pragmatic demonstratives (cf Elbourne 2008) Canon-ical demonstratives are strongly associated with definiteness in the literature (see for instanceLyons 1999 Wolter 2004 Elbourne 2008)

56


In (5a) the direct object student is preceded by a demonstrative which givesthe whole nominal phrase a definite interpretation it is a particular contextu-ally unique and identifiable (possibly deictically) student that the nominal phraserefers to In (5b) we are dealing with a specificity marker odin (lit lsquoonersquo see Ionin2013) and hence the whole noun phrase one friend is a specific indefinite Sim-ilarly the (postverbal) subject in (5c) is also a specific indefinite although themarker here is different from the previous example The last example (5d) fea-tures a marker for non-specific low scope indefinites so the object argument inthis example is a weak indefinite4 In all these examples there is a lexical de-terminer that indicates the definiteness status of a nominal argument althoughthese elements are really not like articles in the sense that it is never (or almostnever) obligatory to use them

Apart from lexical means there are some grammatical tools in Russian thatcan affect the definiteness status of a nominal phrase The two most well-knownones are case and aspect both grammatical categories primarily affect the defi-niteness status of nominal arguments in direct object position The influence ofcase-marking on referential properties can be demonstrated by the genitiveac-cusative case alternation on the direct object For instance mass nominal argu-ments of perfective verbs marked by the genitive case receive a partitive (in-definite) interpretation whereas the same object in the accusative case can beinterpreted as definite

(6) a VasjaVasja

kupilbought

molokamilkGEN

lsquoVasja bought (some) milkrsquob Vasja

Vasjakupilbought

molokomilkACC

lsquoVasja bought (the) milkrsquo

Note however that the accusative case in (6b) allows for but does not guaran-tee a definite reading of the direct objectmoloko (milkACC) so that the observedeffect is not strong enough to postulate a direct link between definiteness andcase-marking5

4Various indefiniteness markers in Russian are discussed in detail in the literature especially inrelation to specificity See for instance Haspelmath (1997) Pereltsvaig (2000) Yanovich (2005)Geist (2008) Ionin (2013) etc

5Speaking more generally there is no correlation between case-marking and definiteness inRussian There are languages that seem to exhibit such a correlation especially with respectto direct object marking such as Turkish Persian (Comrie 19811989) and Sakha (Baker 2015)

57


As for aspect the question of whetherhow perfectivity influences the inter-pretation of a direct object in Slavic languages has been widely discussed in theliterature (see Wierzbicka 1967 Krifka 1992 Schoorlemmer 1995 Verkuyl 1999Filip 1999 etc) It is often claimed (ibid) that plural and mass objects of perfec-tive verbs receive a definite interpretation6 whereas imperfective aspect doesnot impose any restrictions on the interpretation of a direct object The claim isillustrated in (7) below

(7) a VasjaVasja

risovalpaintedIPFV

pejzažilandscapesACC

lsquoVasja painted landscapesrsquob Vasja

VasjanarisovalpaintedPFV


lsquoVasja painted the landscapesrsquo

The effect of aspect on the interpretation of direct objects can be demonstratedvery clearly in Bulgarian another Slavic language which in contrast to Russiandoes have a definite article The example in (8) below taken from Dimitrova-Vulchanova (2012 944) illustrates that the definite article cannot be omitted ifthe verb is perfective

(8) a IvanIvan

pidrankIPFV

vinowineACC

lsquoIvan drankwas drinking winersquob Ivan

IvanizpidrankPFV

vino(-to)wineACC-the

lsquoIvan drank the winersquo

Thus the correlation between the aspectual marking of a verb and the inter-pretation of its direct object seems indeed to be very strong However as il-lustrated above perfective aspect is also compatible with an indefinite partitiveinterpretation if the object appears in the genitive case Thus in example (6a)the object is clearly indefinite and best translated as lsquosome (indefinite quantityof) milkrsquo and not lsquosome of the milkrsquo Future or non-past (Borik 2006) tense on averb is another factor that can neutralize the effect of perfectivity if the verb in(7b) is used in a non-past tense the inferred definiteness of the direct object isconsiderably weakened or even invalidated This means that the effect of aspect

6In the case of Verkuyl (1999) the terminology that is used is lsquoquantizedrsquo not lsquodefinitersquo

58


on definiteness of an internal argument is really just a tendency and might beoverruled by other factors But even in the strongest cases comparable to (7b)the correlation between perfectivity and definiteness in Russian is not absoluteBorik (2006 92) provides an example where the internal argument of a perfectiveverb can have a non-maximalexistential interpretation7

(9) PetjaPetja

razdelildividedPFV

ljudejpeopleACC

nain

dobryxkindACC

iand

zlyxmeanACC

lsquoPetja divided people into kind ones and mean onesrsquo

To summarize we have seen that there are some grammatical factors such ascase or aspect that can favour or facilitate a certain (definite or indefinite) in-terpretation of a nominal argument but there are no strict correlations betweendefiniteness and other grammatical categories The lexical means that Russianpossesses to signal (in)definiteness are only optional and cannot be semanticallycompared to articles The interim conclusion is then that there is nothing so farin the grammatical system of Russian that would allow us to predict whether anominal argument will necessarily be interpreted as a definite or an indefiniteone

Another factor often mentioned in the discussion of (in)definiteness in Rus-sian is the effect of word order on the interpretation of nominal arguments thephenomenon which underlies the experimental part of the paper In the next sub-section we will briefly discuss word order in Russian and its (potential) relationto definiteness and provide motivation for the experiment that will be reportedin sect3 of the paper

22 The effects of word order on the interpretation of nominalarguments

Russian is a classic example of a so-called lsquofree word orderrsquo language i e a lan-guage where the linear order of the elements in a sentence is determined not somuch by grammatical functions like subject and object or grammatical proper-ties like case assignment but by the requirements imposed by discourse and in-formation structure (see Mathesius 1964 Sgall 1972 Hajičovaacute 1974 Isačenko 1976

7In fact Borik (2006) claims that the interpretation in this case is lsquogenericrsquo However since thesentence itself is not interpreted generically but rather refers to an episodic event lsquoexistentialinterpretationrsquo is a more accurate term We thank one of the reviewers for pointing this out tous

59


Yokoyama 1986 Comrie 1989 among others) However more cautious typologi-cal sources always point out that the lsquofreersquo word order is to a large extent an illu-sion since various permutations of sentence constituents are usually not entirelyfree but guided by some pragmatic or information structure principles (see forinstance Dryer 2013) For these languages the connection is oftenmade betweenthe linear position of a nominal argument and its definiteness status In particu-lar it is often stated in the literature that preverbal (subject) position is stronglyassociated with a definite interpretation (Pospelov 1970 Fursenko 1970 Kraacutemskyacute1972 Chvany 1973 Szwedek 1974 Topolinjska 2009 etc) whereas nominals inpostverbal position are likely to be interpreted as indefinites This descriptivegeneralization is primarily assumed to hold for subjects as the canonical wordorder in Russian is SVO and objects unless they are topicalized follow the verbrather than precede it

The relationship between definiteness and preverbal subjects is often medi-ated by topicality a notion that plays a crucial role in the interpretation of argu-ments in languages with a (relatively) free word order Both preverbal subjectsand objects are considered topics when they appear in sentence-initial position(Jasinskaja 2014) As illustrated in the examples below both subject (see (10)) andobject (see (11)) in the leftmost position can also be left-dislocated (creating ar-guably a bi-clausal structure) a construction that we consider to be a reasonablealthough not clear-cut diagnostic for topichood (Reinhart 1981)

(10) a TolyaTolya

včerayesterday

razgovarivaltalkedIPFV

swith

AnejAnya

lsquoTolya yesterday talked to Anyarsquob Čto

whatkasaetsjaconcerns

ToliTolya

tothat

onhe

včerayesterday


swith

AnejAnya

lsquoAs for Tolya he talked to Anya yesterdayrsquo

(11) a Varenjejam

jaI

včerayesterday

srsquoelatePFV

lsquoI ate the jam yesterdayrsquob Čto


varenjajam

tothat

jaI

egoit

včerayesterday

srsquoelatePFV

lsquoAs for the jam I ate it yesterdayrsquo

The type of topic illustrated in (10a) and (11a) is called aboutness topic (Rein-hart 1981) or what we believe to be essentially the same phenomenon internaltopics (King 1995) The connection between definiteness and topicality is based

60


on a descriptive generalization that is accepted in a lot of semantic literature ontopics in general namely that elements that appear in topic position can only bereferential i e definite or specific indefinite (see Reinhart 1981 Erteschik-Shir1997 Portner amp Yabushita 2001 Endriss 2009 etc) An appealing intuitive ideabehind this generalization is that if there is no entity that the nominal topic refersto this expression cannot be aboutness topic because then there is no entity tobe talked about

Nevertheless a number of examples from various Romance languages havebeen brought up in the literature to show that a topicalized left-dislocated ele-ment can in fact be interpreted non-specifically The following examples fromLeonetti (2010) illustrate the phenomenon in Spanish (12a) and Italian (12b)

(12) a Buenosgood

vinoswines

(los)(CLMPL)

hayhavePRS3SG

enin

CastillaCastile

lsquoThere are good wines in Castilersquob Libri

booksinin

ingleseEnglish

(line)(CLMPLCLPART)

puogravecanPRS3SG

trovarefind

alonthe

secondosecond

pianofloor

lsquoEnglish books can be found on the second floorrsquo

As suggested by Leonetti (2010) non-specific or weak indefinites are highlyrestricted in topic position He identifies two conditions that must be met to al-low for non-specific indefinites to appear as topics First they can be licensedby certain kinds of contrast that cannot lead to a specific reading This conditionhas to do with intonation and stress factors that fall outside the scope of the dis-cussion in this paper Second they can be licensed in the sentential context withwhich the topic is linked In other words this second condition means that whatmatters for licensing non-specific indefinite topics is the presence of supportingcontext In general the examples in (12) illustrate that the correlation betweentopic and definiteness andor topic and referentiality is not a strict dependencybut rather a strong tendency

For Russian as well as for other languages with free word order it is impor-tant to dissociate the effects that can be attributed to topicality from those thatcan (potentially) arise merely from word order In particular the question thatwe address in this paper is whether the linear position of a subject regardlessof topichood correlates with its definiteness or not Therefore our experimentalitems include preverbal subjects which are not topics i e which do not appearin a sentence-initial position It has been claimed in the literature that preverbal

61


subjects that are not topics for instance preverbal subjects of thetic sentencescan be both definite and indefinite (cf Geist 2010 among others) but the re-sults of our experiment suggest that there is nonetheless a strong dependencybetween linear position and interpretation In particular we will show that in-definites have a relatively low acceptance rate when they appear preverbally innon-topical contexts Just like (weak) indefinite topics preverbal non-topical in-definites seem to still need contextual support so the conditions for licensingindefinites in preverbal position appear to be quite rigorous Thus the general-ization seems to be that preverbal indefinites need special contextual conditionsto facilitate their use regardless of whether they are topics

3 The experimental study

The relationship between the syntactic position of a bare nominal and its inter-pretation has been found in other languages (e g Cheng amp Sybesma 2014 forMandarin Chinese) it has even been claimed that the pattern where the prever-bal nominal is interpreted definitely and the postverbal nominal is interpretedindefinitely is universal (Leiss 2007) However there have not been many experi-mental studies based on articleless languages to ascertain how speakers interpretbare nominal subjects in preverbal and postverbal position Some of the most rel-evant experimental studies that have been conducted for Slavic languages arediscussed in the next subsection The scarcity of experimental work concerningthe interpretation of bare nominals in Slavic languages in general and in Russianin particular motivated our study of Russian bare plural subjects

31 Previous experiments

The recent experimental studies on Slavic languages that we are aware of are thestudy of bare singular NPs in Czech by Šimiacutek (2014) a statistical analysis based onPolish and English texts by Czardybon et al (2014) and Šimiacutek amp Burianovaacute (2020)who conducted a corpus study of bare nominals found in pre- and postverbalposition in Czech All the studies even though methodologically different showthat there is a quite strong correlation betweenword order and the interpretationof nominal arguments

Šimiacutekrsquos (2014) experiment tested the preference for a definite or an indefinitereading of an NP in initial or final position in a sentence The study demonstratedthat the initial position (topicality) of the subject increased the probability of adefinite interpretation however it was not a sufficient force to ensure this typeof reading Even though the indefinite interpretations were selected less for NPs

62


in initial position than in final position they were still not excluded Moreoverindefinite interpretations were overall preferred over definite ones

A comparative study of Polish translations of English original texts by Czardy-bon et al (2014) aimed to provide a quantitative assessment of the interactionbetween word order and (in)definiteness in Polish The results of this quantita-tive evaluation support previous theories about the correlation between the verb-relative position and the interpretation of bare nominals preverbal position isstrongly associated with definiteness and postverbal position is connected to theindefinite reading of an NP Nevertheless the study revealed quite a high numberof preverbal indefinite NPs which the authors were not expecting (Czardybon etal 2014 147-148) However as pointed out by Šimiacutek amp Burianovaacute (2020) Czardy-bon et al (2014) did not distinguish between preverbal and sentence-initial posi-tion which complicates the interpretation of their results considerably

Some important and relevant findings concerning the relationship betweendefiniteness of a nominal argument and its linear position in a sentence are re-ported in Šimiacutek amp Burianovaacute (2020) who conducted a corpus study and discov-ered that in Czech clause-initial position shows very high intolerance towardsindefinite nominal phrases Šimiacutek amp Burianovaacute (2020) argue that definiteness ofbare nominals in Slavic is affected by an absolute (i e clause-initial vs clause-final) but not a relative (i e preverbal vs postverbal) position of this nominal ina clause Our experimental findings which will be described in the next sectionseem to contradict this conclusion In particular we find that preverbal indefi-nites in non-initial position have much lower acceptability than postverbal onesWe therefore argue that preverbal indefinites need additional anchoring mecha-nisms to be activated which would ensure their successful use in a given contextWe will propose that this anchoring mechanism is D-linking a general discoursecoherence principle that can be defined by a set of specific conditions

All the studies reviewed in this section demonstrate that at least to some ex-tent NPs with an indefinite interpretation do appear preverbally where they arenot generally expected Our experiment will also confirm this result

32 Overall characteristics of the experiment

This section provides a general description of the experimental study we con-ducted As mentioned above the aim of our study was to investigate the relation-ship between the interpretation of bare nominals in Russian and their position inthe sentence (preverbal or postverbal) which relies on the long-standing assump-tion that word order in articleless Slavic languages is one of the means of express-ing (in)definiteness The main goal of the experimental study was to see whether

63


the claim that preverbal bare subjects are interpreted definitely while postverbalbare subjects are interpreted indefinitely correlates with native speaker judge-ments

Given that we limited our study to anaphoric definiteness our initial hypoth-esis can be formulated as follows

(13) The preverbal position of the bare subject expresses definiteness (familiarity)and the postverbal position expresses indefiniteness (novelty)

In order to verify this initial hypothesis a survey was created The interpreta-tion of bare subject NPs was examined using an Acceptability Judgement Test(AJT) with a scale from 1 (not acceptable) to 4 (fully acceptable) The surveywas administered online using the SurveyMonkey software The items were pre-sented to participants visually and acoustically so as to avoid a possible changein the interpretation due to intonation as it has been claimed in the literaturethat if a preverbal noun receives a nuclear accent it may be interpreted indef-initely (Pospelov 1970 Jasinskaja 2014 among others) Potentially the effect ofintonation may be stronger than the word order restriction described above (seethe initial hypothesis) Thus we considered it important to exclude variation injudgement caused by intonation and all the experimental items were recordedwith the usual most neutral intonation contour used for statements in Russian(intonation contour 1 cf Bryzgunova 1977) This intonation contour is character-ized by a flat level pitch before the stressed syllable of the intonational nucleusi e the stressed syllable of the most informative word in a sentence In our ex-amples the stress was always on the last word of the sentence

A total of 120 anonymous participants took part in the survey Demographic in-formation about the participants was collected in a pre-survey sociological ques-tionnaire All participants claimed to be native Russian speakers the gender dis-tribution was 102 women 17 men one non-binary the mean age (in years) was3659 (SD = 855) 91 participants claimed to have received a university degree inlanguage-related fields

The experimental items contained a bare subject nominal in a preverbal orpostverbal position All predicates were stage-level according to Carlsonrsquos (1977)classification expressed by an intransitive verb All subject nominals were plu-ral for the sake of uniformity however we expected the effects found in thecourse of the experiment to be manifested in the case of singular nominals aswell The experimental sentences were presented in a brief situational contextwhich suggested either novelty (associated with indefiniteness) or familiarity(associated with definiteness) of the subject A total of 48 items were presented

64


to participants 16 definiteness-suggesting (8 preverbal and 8 postverbal) plus 16indefiniteness-suggesting (8 preverbal and 8 postverbal) experimental scenariosand 16 fillers The average answer time was 22 minutes

Below we provide some examples of our experimental items

(14) Preverbal subject in an indefiniteness-suggesting context

Ėto že pustynja ėto samaja nastojaščaja pustynja V ėtoj mestnosti dosix por ne bylo ni odnogo živogo suščestva No na prošloj nedele pticyprileteli8

lsquoItrsquos a desert itrsquos a real desert In this area there has never been a livingcreature But last week birds came (lit birds cameflying)rsquo

(15) Postverbal subject in an indefiniteness-suggesting context

Čto-to strannoe stalo proisxoditrsquo v našej kvartire V kuxne vsegda byloočenrsquo čisto nikogda ne bylo ni odnogo nasekomogo No nedelju nazad ob-naružilisrsquo tarakanylsquoSomething strange started happening in our flat It has always been veryclean in the kitchen there has never been a single insect But a week agocockroaches were found (lit foundthemselves cockroaches)rsquo

(16) Preverbal subject in a definiteness-suggesting context

KogdaKatja i Boris vernulisrsquo iz otpuska oni obnaružili čto ix domograblenPervym delom Katja brosilasrsquo v spalrsquonju i proverila seif Ona uspokoilasrsquoDragocennosti ležali na mestelsquoWhen Katja and Boris came back from holiday they discovered that theirhouse had been burgled First of all Katja rushed into the bedroom andchecked the safe She calmed down The jewellery was still there (lit jew-elleries lay in place)rsquo

(17) Postverbal subject in a definiteness-suggesting context

Oživlenije spalo publika potixonrsquoku potjanulasrsquo domoj ldquoPočemu vse uxo-djatrdquo ndash sprosil Miša ldquoGonki zakončilisrsquo V garaži vernulisrsquo mašinyrdquolsquoThe agitation declined the public slowly started going home ldquoWhy is ev-erybody leavingrdquo Misha asked ldquoThe race has finished The cars have re-turned to their garagesrdquo rsquo (lit to garages returned cars)

In the following section we discuss the results of the experiment

8In order to make the examples easier to understand the bare NP subject is in bold while theverb is in italics This marking does not reflect any stress pattern

65


33 General results

A total of 3840 data points were collected (120 participants times 2 definiteness condi-tions [indefinite definite] times 2 positions in which the NP appeared in the sentencewith respect to the verb [preverbal postverbal] times 8 scenarios) These responseswere analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model using the GLMM interface from IBMSPSS Statistics 24

The Linear Mixed Model was applied to the data The model was defined withParticipant as the subject structure and Situation times Position as the repeated mea-sures structure (Covariance Type Diagonal) The participantsrsquo perceived accept-ability of the sentences was set as the dependent variable The fixed factors wereDefiniteness Position and their interaction Regarding the random factors a ran-dom intercept was set for Participant with a random slope over Position (Covari-ance Structure Variance Components)

The two main effects were found to be significant Definiteness F(1 3829) =44700 p lt 001 such that indefinite sentences obtained significantly more ac-ceptability than definite sentences (diff = 164 SE = 024 p lt 001) and PositionF(1 3829) = 14236 p lt 001 indicating that preverbal NPs obtained more accept-ability than postverbal NPs (diff = 113 SE = 030 p lt 001)

The interaction Definiteness times Position was found to be significant F(1 3829)= 4958853 p lt 001 which could be interpreted in the following two ways Onthe one hand in preverbal position definites were more adequate than indefi-nites (diff = minus1561 SE = 035 p lt 001) and in postverbal position indefiniteswere more adequate than definites (diff = 1888 SE = 034 p lt 001) On the otherhand indefinites were found to be more adequate in postverbal rather than inpreverbal position (diff = minus1612 SE = 037 p lt 001) while definites were foundto be more adequate in preverbal rather than in postverbal position (diff = 1837SE = 040 p lt 001) Figure 1 shows the mean perceived acceptability that theparticipants ascribed to the experimental items on the 4-point Likert scale from1 (not acceptable) to 4 (fully acceptable)Themost perceptible result seen from the graph is that the participants favoured

two out of the four possible combinations of Definiteness and Position i e post-verbal subjects in indefiniteness-suggesting contexts (M = 3399 SD = 791) andpreverbal subjects in definiteness-suggesting contexts (M = 3289 SD = 874) giv-ing substantially lower ratings to preverbal subjects in indefiniteness-suggestingcontexts (M = 1831 SD = 885) and postverbal subjects in definiteness-suggestingcontexts (M = 1657 SD = 932)

Besides the optimal combinations (preverbal NP + definiteness-suggesting con-text and postverbal NP + indefiniteness-suggesting context) additional statisti-

66


Figure 1 Average perceived acceptability that our participants at-tributed to the experimental sentences Error bars depict the 95 con-fidence interval

cally significant results were obtained Firstly an overall superior acceptabilityfor NPs in indefiniteness-suggesting contexts (regardless of the syntactic positionof the NP) as compared to definiteness-suggesting ones was observed Secondlythe acceptability of bare nominals in preverbal position was higher compared tothe postverbal position regardless of type of preceding context

The results in our view can be interpreted in the following way First of allthere is quite a strong preference for interpreting preverbal NPs definitely andpostverbal NPs indefinitely However there is no clear one-to-one correspon-dence which suggests that the linear position of a subject nominal in Russiancannot be considered a means of expressing its definitenessindefiniteness Soour initial hypothesis has to be modified Instead of saying that the word orderencodes the referential status of a nominal (i e its definiteness or indefiniteness)we think the results only show that preverbal nominal subjects are much morelikely to be interpreted as definites Indefinites are not rare in this position eitherand their acceptability is fairly high so our next question is what the factors arethat influence speakersrsquo judgements in the case of preverbal indefinites

67


In an attempt to answer this question we looked at our preverbal definiteness-and indefiniteness-suggesting contexts one by one and tried to analyze everypreverbal context that we had used in our experimental study The results thatwe obtained are reported in the next section

34 Item-by-item analysis of preverbal subjects

One of the main theoretical questions that we try to answer in this paper is whatmakes it possible for a particular nominal to appear in a preverbal subject posi-tion In search for a possible answer we looked at the information status of thesubject NPs in the experimental sentences Baumann amp Riester (2012) claim thatfor an adequate analysis of the information status of a nominal expression occur-ring in natural discourse it is important to investigate two levels of givennessreferential and lexical The authors propose a two-level annotation scheme forthe analysis of an NPrsquos information status the RefLex scheme In this article weadopt this scheme in order to investigate the correlation between acceptabilityof an item in preverbal position and its information status

341 Definiteness-suggesting contexts

In definiteness-suggesting contexts the subject NPs can be labelled according toBaumann amp Riesterrsquos RefLex scheme (2012 14) as r-given or r-bridging at a ref-erential level The r-given label is used when the anaphor co-refers with the an-tecedent in the previous discourse R-bridging is assigned when the anaphor doesnot co-refer with an antecedent but rather depends on the previously introducedscenario At a lexical level the items can be classified (Baumann amp Riester 201218-19) as l-given-syn (the nouns are at the same hierarchical level i e synonyms)l-given-super (the noun is lexically superordinate to the nominal antecedent) l-accessible-sub (the noun is lexically subordinate to the nominal antecedent) orl-accessible-other (two related nouns whose hierarchical lexical relation cannotbe clearly determined)

Table 1 represents the experimental scenarios with definiteness-suggestingcontexts It provides the anchor nominal from the previous context the targetnominal (the preverbal subject NP from the experimental sentence) the RefLexlabels of the target nominal the mean acceptability given (M in a 0 to 1 scale)9

and the standard deviation (SD) acceptability figures for each item

9The original acceptability variable was changed from 1-4 to 0-1 for reasons of clarity Thischange was the result of the following formula (acceptability ndash 1)3 We consider it to be easierto interpret what an acceptability score of 4 on a 0-1 scale represents than the equivalent scoreof 22 on a 1-4 scale which might be misconceived as if it was a 0-4 scale thus indicating morethan a half of accepted readings

68


Table 1 Annotation of target nominals in definiteness-suggesting con-texts

Previous context Target nominal RefLex annotation M SD

1 boy and girla children r-givenl-given-syn

8333 2520

2 family of tigers animals r-givenl-given-super

7750 2806

3 safe jewellery r-bridgingl-accessible other

8833 2102

4 canary and parrot birds r-givenl-given-super

8418 2166

5 crucians fishes r-givenl-given-super

6863 3016

6 family silverware cutlery r-givenl-given-syn

7583 2930

7 Plato and Aristotle philosophers r-givenl-given-super

5972 3372

8 races cars r-bridgingl-accessible-sub

7306 3155

aWe are not using articles here as naturally they are absent in the Russian examples

As can be seen from Table 1 the acceptability of preverbal nominals in definite-ness-suggesting contexts is quite high and fairly uniform This is an expectedresult as preverbal position is strongly related with familiarityidentifiability ofthe referent and the degree of givenness which is high in all cases (as can be seenfrom the labels) So it is natural for NPs to appear preverbally in definiteness-suggesting contexts when they are anaphorically or situationally related to anantecedent in a previous context

The item with the lowest (although still high in absolute terms) acceptabilityis 7 given in (18)

69


(18) Sredimnogočislennyx antičnyx prosvetitelej otmetivšixsja v istorii možnovydelitrsquo neskolrsquoko naibolee važnyx Platon i Aristotelrsquo izvestny vo vseumlmmire Filosofy žili v Drevnej GreciilsquoAmong numerous classical thinkers that left their trace in the history it ispossible to distinguish a few most important ones Plato and Aristotle areknown all over the world The philosophers lived in Ancient Greece (litphilosophers lived in Ancient Greece)rsquo

In terms of its information status the bare nominal subject philosophers is notreally different from the subjects of other items it is r-given A lower acceptabilityrate must then be due to other factors e g the use of proper names or attributinga generic type of interpretation to the last sentence (i e lsquoIn general philosopherslivedrsquo) which would cancel the anaphoric connection10

Thus apart from one item discussed above (item 7) all the definiteness-sugges-ting contexts show the same result a high acceptability rate for the preverbalbare nominal subject

342 Indefiniteness-suggesting contexts

In all indefiniteness-suggesting contexts the existence of referents was negatedthus the novelty of the target nominal was presupposed Using Baumann amp Ri-esterrsquos (2012 14) annotation scheme at a referential level all the target NPs areclassified as r-new i e specific or existential indefinites introducing a new ref-erent At a lexical level they are either l-accessible-sub or l-accessible-other Ta-ble 2 presents the annotation results for bare nominals in preverbal position inindefiniteness-suggesting contexts

As can be seen from Table 2 the acceptability of preverbal NPs in indefinite-ness-suggesting contexts is uniformly low but high enough to be statistically

10It is interesting to note that a similar effect has been observed for an item with a postverbalsubject in a definiteness-suggesting context While other items with definite postverbal sub-jects were given low acceptability as expected the acceptability of this particular item wasquite high (M = 4667 SD = 3441) The English translation of the item is given in (i)

(i) I love birds and I advise all my friends to have at least one feathered pet They are gen-erally undemanding although sometimes they make noises and give you extra troubleAt home I have lit canary and parrot Yesterday I forgot to close the cagersquos door andall day long lit around room flew birds

Our hypothesis is that the informants processed the antecedent and the anaphor NPs in thisexample as non-co-referential therefore interpreting the target NP as referentially new whichmade it possible for the subject to be accepted in postverbal position

70


Table 2 Annotation of target nominals in indefiniteness-suggestingcontexts


1 no rodents mice r-new l-accessible-sub 3833 31952 no insects cockroaches r-new l-accessible-sub 2167 27553 empty street people r-new l-accessible-other 1750 27664 no fruit bananas r-new l-accessible-sub 2778 27785 no living creatures birds r-new l-accessible-sub 2861 29406 no mail postcards r-new l-accessible-sub 3056 31637 no domestic animals cats r-new l-accessible-sub 3194 28478 no wild animals wild boar r-new l-accessible-sub 2521 2709

significant (see sect32) All these NPs are referentially new However it should bepointed out that at a lexical level the target nominals in indefiniteness-sugges-ting contexts are accessible being a subset of a superset mentioned in the previ-ous context

The item that received the lowest ranking in Table 2 is item 3 (M = 1750 SD=2766) which has a slightly different information status label at a lexical levelIt has an l-accessible-other label which means that unlike other items with aclear lexical relation of hyponymy the hierarchical relation between the contextand the target NP cannot be clearly established in the given scenario Item 3 isprovided in (19)

(19) Bystro stemnelo nastupil večer Na ulice bylo tixo i pustynno Vdrug iz-zaugla ljudi vyšlilsquoIt got darker the night came very quickly Lit In the street it was silentand empty Suddenly from around the corner lit people came outrsquo

As opposed to other experimental scenarios in this context there is no NP towhich the target nominal ljudi lsquopeoplersquo could be anchored Even though it can belinked to the whole context given our common knowledge that people usuallywalk in the streets this vague type of contextual support does not seem to beenough to lsquolicensersquo11 the bare nominal ljudi lsquopeoplersquo to appear in preverbal posi-tion Even though it is just one example we believe that the lower acceptabilityrate of this example might not be accidental In the next section we will discuss

11We use the term lsquolicensersquo here in a loose sense without appealing to anything as strict aslsquolicensing conditionsrsquo the way they are understood in syntax

71


the factors that could make this sentence different from the other experimentalitems in the same group

4 Some theoretical considerations

We begin this final section of the paper by suggesting a tentative answer to thequestion posed in the previous sections what are the conditions that bare indef-inites have to meet to be accepted in preverbal position Having analyzed thedata in all preverbal contexts we can propose a plausible hypothesis as an an-swer to this question although the validity of this hypothesis should be furtherconfirmed in future empirical and experimental studies

An item-by-item analysis of our experimental scenarios suggests that if anitem is r-given it has a tendency to appear preverbally and this combination (i er-givenness and preverbal position) is judged highly acceptable by native speak-ers of Russian This is illustrated by the item-by-item analysis of our definiteness-suggesting contexts If however a nominal is r-new it is judged much less ac-ceptable in preverbal position even though it is still tolerable the acceptabilityrate for these items was about 18 on a 4-point scale as we saw in sect33 wherethe general results of the experiments were discussed What our data seems toindicate is that it is not only referential givenness but also accessibility at a lex-ical level that plays a significant role in licensing bare nominals in preverbalposition Thus if a bare nominal is r-new it can still appear preverbally in thosecases where it establishes a clear lexical connection with a nominal phrase in theprevious context However in the example where the connection between theprevious context and the target item is looser and the item can only be classifiedas l-accessible-other (i e a target nominal can only be pragmatically related tothe whole context) the acceptability rate drops and the item is judged close tounacceptable

It might be too early to draw any far-reaching theoretical conclusions on thebasis of just one experiment with 16 test items However we believe that the re-sults we obtained in our experimental study for preverbal bare nominals in Rus-sian at least allow us to identify some conditions that seem to facilitate the use ofbare nominal phrases in indefiniteness contexts in preverbal position in Russianr-givenness and l-accessibility We would like to suggest that these conditionscould be connected with a much broader phenomenon which might serve as ageneral explanation for a reduced and restricted but still accepted appearanceof indefinite nominal phrases in preverbal position The phenomenon that werefer to is called D-linking

72


Pesetsky (1987) described discourse linking (or D-linking) as a phenomenonwhere one constituent is anchored to another one in the preceding discourse orextralinguistic context Dyakonova (2009 73) building on this idea gives thefollowing definition of D-linking

(20) A constituent is D-linked if it has been explicitlymentioned in the previousdiscourse is situationally given by being physically present at the momentof communication or can be easily inferred from the context by being inthe set relation with some other entity or event figuring in the precedingdiscourse

As can be seen from this definition D-linking is a rather broad phenomenonthat allows for various connections to be established between a constituent Xand the preceding discourse or a situational context We suggest that this generalphenomenon could be split into a set of specific conditions that would allow usto achieve a more precise characterisation of D-linking

As was pointed out in sect22 discourse support seems to play a role in licensingnon-specific (weak) indefinite nominals in topic position in Romance languagesFor instance Leonetti (2010) identifies two conditions under which non-specificindefinites appear as topics in Romance languages contrast and contextual sup-port We suspect that the latter could fit into what we describe as D-linkingalthough the precise characterization of what it means to be contextually sup-ported is yet to be established

Our experiment has shown that native speakers of Russian a language whichdoes not encode (in)definiteness by any grammatical means can accept an indef-inite interpretation of a bare nominal in preverbal position even though a gen-eral acceptability rate for preverbal indefinites is much lower than for preverbaldefinites What we have suggested in this paper is that for indefiniteness con-texts not only referential but also lexical linking to a previous nominal elementcan play a role Those nominals that were strongly supported by the previouscontexts by lexical relations such as hyponymyhyperonymy are judged moreacceptable than those which do not have this type of support This of courseis almost directly captured by the definition of D-linking given in (20) in allour test sentences the preverbal nominals in indefiniteness-suggesting contextswere lexically accessible as they were in the set relation with an entity from thepreceding context except for item 3 (which obtained the lowest acceptability)This fact indicates that it would be plausible to explore the role of D-linking prin-ciple(s) for a general account of the distribution of bare nominals with indefinitereadings in Russian

73


To conclude this section we would like to raise another theoretical issue thathas come to our attention both while conducting the experiment that we havereported on here and in the course of the interpretation of the results It concernsthe notion of definiteness and the status of our test items with respect to thiscategory

Aswe pointed out in the introduction the debate onwhat definiteness actuallymeans in semantic terms continues although here we follow Farkas (2002) in as-suming that the familiarity and the uniqueness approaches to definiteness couldconverge In the experiment reported on here in the definiteness-suggesting con-texts we test nominal phrases that are anaphorically linked to a referent in thepreceding discourse and we consider our experimental items to be fully legiti-mate candidates for definite nominals in the definiteness contexts because theyare familiar to the speaker However all our anaphoric nominals in definiteness-suggesting contexts are also given so the question that presents itself is whetherthe results of the experiment are influenced by the givenness status of the testeditems12

Givenness is a category related although not equivalent to definiteness Anelement is given if there is an antecedent for it in the preceding discourse sogivenness is an information-structural category that is also closely related toanaphoricity Any constituent of a sentence can have the status of lsquogivenrsquo in-cluding of course nominal arguments

The relationship between definiteness and givenness is not straightforwardin principle both definite and indefinite arguments can be either given or newFor instance any contextually unique definite mentioned for the first time isnot given but new (e g The UV is very high today The head of the departmentjust called me) whereas any anaphoric definite is given Crucially however thegivennew status seem to correlate with stress deaccentuation and word or-der are common ways to indicate givenness of a certain constituent (cf Krifka2008)13 As for Slavic languages ŠimiacutekampWierzba (2015) present a thorough studyof the interaction between givenness word order and stress in Czech

As we have already mentioned in our experiment we tried to eliminate thestress factor by recording all our example sentences with a neutral intonationflat pitch and a phrasal stress at the end of a sentence Hence all preverbalitems (in definiteness and indefiniteness contexts) were unstressed and post-

12We thank a reviewer for bringing up this question and for suggesting that we look into therole of givenness in the distribution of nominal arguments

13Although see Rochemont (2016) for the claim that only salient-based givenness is associatedwith deaccenting

74


verbal items (also in definiteness and indefiniteness contexts) were stressed onlywhen they also appeared in a sentence-final position It might be that givennessis the factor that influenced the acceptability judgements in our experiment es-pecially in the case of nominals in definiteness contexts because the speakersmight have been less willing to accept a postverbal stressed given nominal sincethe nominal appeared in sentence-final position However to properly answerthis question we need to design an experiment with postverbal definites that ap-pear in sentence-final and non-final position and also manipulate stress Stressmight be particularly important for indefinite nominals as it has been noted inthe literature that stressed indefinites become more acceptable in preverbal posi-tion All in all we think that studying the role of givenness versus definiteness inthe distribution of bare nominal arguments is an exciting task for a (near) futureproject

5 Conclusions

In this paper we have discussed the relationship between the definiteness statusof a bare nominal and its linear position in a sentence in Russian We have con-firmed that according to the results of the experiment that we conducted withnative speakers of Russian the general tendency is indeed to associate prever-bal position with a definite interpretation and postverbal with an indefinite onealthough it cannot be stated that this connection is a strict correspondence Con-sequently we cannot say that linear position lsquoencodesrsquo definiteness or indefinite-ness the observed correlations are tendencies rather than strict rules

One of the other results of our experiment is the reasonably high rankingthat is assigned to bare nominals with an indefinite interpretation that appearin preverbal position We carried out an item-by-item analysis of all the prever-bal nominals with the aim of identifying a specific condition or a set of specificconditions that wouldmake indefinite nouns acceptable in this position Our con-clusion was that the condition has to do with the level of accessibility of a targetnoun at a lexical level if a (subset) lexical relation can be established between atarget noun and its antecedent the acceptability rate of the target noun in pre-verbal position increases We link this condition to a more general principle ofD-linking which by hypothesis is the same principle that can be used to explainvarious exceptional occurrences of weak indefinites in topic position Thus wesuggest that D-linking principles facilitate the use of indefinite nominals in pre-verbal position whether they are topics or not

75


Acknowledgments

This study has been supported by three grants a grant from the SpanishMINECOFFI2017-82547-P (all authors) an ICREAAcademia fellowship awarded toM Tere-sa Espinal and a grant from the Generalitat de Catalunya (2017SGR634) awardedto the Centre for Theoretical Linguistics of UAB (the second and the third au-thor)

References

Baker Mark C 2015 Case Its principles and parameters Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Baumann Stefan amp Arndt Riester 2012 Referential and lexical givenness Seman-tic prosodic and cognitive aspects In Gorka Elordieta amp Pilar Prieto (eds)Prosody and meaning 119ndash162 Berlin Mouton De Gruyter

Beaver David amp Elisabeth Coppock 2015 Novelty and familiarity for free InThomas Brochhagen Floris Roelofsen amp Nadine Theiler (eds) Proceedings ofthe 20th Amsterdam Colloquium 50ndash59 Amsterdam ILLCUniversity of Ams-terdam

Borik Olga 2006 Aspect and reference time Oxford Oxford University PressBorik Olga amp Berit Gehrke 2015 An introduction to the syntax and semantics

of pseudo-incorporation In Olga Borik amp Berit Gehrke (eds) The syntax andsemantics of pseudo-incorporation 1ndash43 LeidenBoston Brill

Bryzgunova Elena A 1977 Zvuki i intonacija russkoj reči Moskva Russkij jazykCarlson Gregory 1977 Reference to kinds in English Amherst MA University of

Massachusetts (Doctoral dissertation)Cheng Lisa amp Rint Sybesma 2014 Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure

of NP In C T James Huang Y-H Audrey Li amp Andrew Simpson (eds) Thehandbook of Chinese linguistics 248ndash274 Oxford Wiley Blackwell

Chierchia Gennaro 1984 Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives andgerunds Arnhem University of Massachusetts (Doctoral dissertation)

Chierchia Gennaro 1998 Reference to kinds across languagesNatural LanguageSemantics 6(4) 339ndash405


Chvany Catherine V 1973 On the role of presuppositions in Russian existentialsentences PCLS 9 68ndash77

76


Comrie Bernard 1989 The major languages of Western Europe London Rout-ledge

Comrie Bernard 19811989 Language universals and linguistic typology ChicagoIL The University of Chicago Press

Coppock Elisabeth amp David Beaver 2015 Definiteness and determinacy Linguis-tics and Philosophy 38(5) 377ndash435

Czardybon Adrian Oliver Hellwig amp Wiebke Petersen 2014 Statistical analy-sis of the interaction between word order and definiteness in Polish In AdamPrzepioacuterkowski amp Maciej Ogrodniczuk (eds) Advances in natural languageprocessing 9th international conference on NLP (PolTAL 2014) vol 8686 (LNC-SLNAI) 144ndash150 Cham Springer

Dayal Veneeta 2004 Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms Lin-guistics and Philosophy 27(4) 393ndash450

Dimitrova-Vulchanova Mila 2012 Voice In Robert I Binnick (ed) The Oxfordhandbook of tense and aspect 937ndash959 Oxford Oxford University Press

Dryer Matthew S 2013 Order of subject object and verb In Matthew S Dryer ampMartin Haspelmath (eds) The world atlas of language structures online LeipzigMax Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology httpwalsinfochapter81 (12 November 2018)


Elbourne Paul D 2008 Demonstratives as individual concepts Linguistics andPhilosophy 31(4) 409ndash466

Endriss Cornelia 2009 Quantificational topics Dordrecht SpringerErteschik-Shir Nomi 1997 The dynamics of focus structure Cambridge Cam-

bridge University PressFarkas Donka 2002 Specificity distinctions Journal of Semantics 19(3) 213ndash243Filip Hana 1999 Aspect situation types and noun phrase semantics New

YorkLondon Garland Publishing IncFrege Gottlob 1879 Begriffsschrift Eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formel-

sprache des reinen Denkens Halle Verlag von Louis NebertFursenko Diana I 1970 Porjadok slov kak odno iz sredstv vyraženija neopre-

deleumlnnosti opredeleumlnnosti imeumln suščestvitelrsquonyx Russkij jazyk za rubežom 468ndash72

Galkina-Fedoruk Evdokia M 1963 Vyraženije neopredeleumlnnosti v russkom jazykeneopredeleumlnnymi mesoimenijami i narečijami Moscow Izdat MoskovskogoUniv

77


Geist Ljudmila 2008 Specificity as referential anchoring Evidence fromRussianIn Atle Groslashnn (ed) Proceedings of the 12th Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB12) 151ndash164 Oslo ILOS

Geist Ljudmila 2010 Bare singular NPs in argument positions Restrictions onindefiniteness International Review of Pragmatics 2(2) 191ndash227

Hajičovaacute Eva 1974 Meaning presupposition and allegation Philologica Pragen-sia 17 18ndash25

Haspelmath Martin 1997 Indefinite pronouns Oxford Oxford University PressHeim Irene 1982 The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases Amherst

MA University of Massachusetts (Doctoral dissertation)Heim Irene 2011 Definiteness and indefiniteness In Claudia Maienborn Klaus

von Heusinger amp Paul Portner (eds) Semantics An international handbook ofnatural language meaning 1025ndash1058 Berlin Mouton De Gruyter

Ionin Tania 2013 Pragmatic variation among specificity markers In CorneliaEbert amp Stefan Hinterwimmer (eds) Different kinds of specificity across lan-guages 75ndash103 Dordrecht Springer

Isačenko Alexander V 1976 O grammaticheskom porjadke slov In Opera selecta365ndash372 Munich Fink

Jasinskaja Katja 2014 Information structure in Slavic In Caroline Feacutery ampShinichiro Ishihara (eds) The Oxford handbook of information structure Ox-ford Oxford University Press DOI 101093oxfordhb978019964267001325


King Tracy H 1995 Configuring topic and focus in Russian Stanford CA CSLIPublications

Kraacutemskyacute Jiřiacute 1972 The article and the concept of definiteness in language TheHague Mouton

KrifkaManfred 1992 Thematic relations as links between nominal reference andtemporal constitution In Ivan A Sag amp Anna Szabolcsi (eds) Lexical matters29ndash53 Stanford CA CSLI Publications


Krylov Sergei 1984 Determinacija imeni v russkom jazyke Teoretičeskije prob-lemy Semiotika i informatika 23 124ndash154

Leiss Elisabeth 2007 Covert (in)definiteness and aspect In Werner AbrahamElisabeth Stark amp Elisabeth Leiss (eds) Introduction to nominal determina-

78


tion Typology context constraints and historical emergence 73ndash102 Amster-damPhiladelphia John Benjamins

Leonetti Manuel 2010 Specificity and topicality Some thoughts on their complexinteraction Talk given at the workshop lsquoSpecificity from empirical and theo-retical points of viewrsquo Stuttgart University

Lyons Christopher 1999 Definiteness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMathesius Vileacutem 1964 On some problems of the systematic analysis of grammar

In Josef Vachek (ed) A Prague School reader in linguistics 306ndash319 Blooming-ton IN Indiana University Press

Mithun Marianne 1984 The evolution of noun incorporation Language 60(4)847ndash894

Nesset Tore 1999 The realization of (in)definiteness in Russian Poljarnyj Vestnik2 84ndash109

Partee Barbara 1987 Noun-phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles InJeroen Groenendijk amp Martin Stokhof (eds) Studies in discourse representationtheory and the theory of generalized quantifiers GRASS 8 115ndash143 DordrechtForis

Pereltsvaig Asya 2000 Monotonicity-based vs Veridicality-based approachesto negative polarity Evidence from Russian In Tracy Holloway King amp IrinaA Sekerina (eds) Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 8 The Philadelphiameeting 1999 328ndash346 Ann Arbor MI Michigan Slavic Publications


Portner Paul amp Katsuhiko Yabushita 2001 Specific indefinites and the informa-tion structure theory of topics Journal of Semantics 18(3) 271ndash297

Pospelov Nikolaj S 1970 O sintaksičeskom vyraženii kategorii opredeleumlnnostindash neopredeleumlnnosti v sovremennom russkom jazyke In Timofey P Lomtev(ed) Issledovanija po sovremennomu russkomu jazyku 182ndash189 Moskva IzdatMoskovskogo Univ

Reinhart Tanya 1981 Pragmatics and linguistics An analysis of sentence topicsPhilosophica 27(1) 53ndash94

Rochemont Michael 2016 Givenness In Caroline Feacutery amp Shinichiro Ishihara(eds) The Oxford handbook of information structure 41ndash63 Oxford OxfordUniversity Press

Russell Bertrand 1905 On denoting Mind 14(56) 479ndash493Schoorlemmer Maaike 1995 Participial passive and aspect in Russian Utrecht

Utrecht University (Doctoral dissertation)

79


Sgall Petr 1972 Topic focus and the ordering of elements of semantic represen-tations Philologica Pragensia 15 1ndash14

Šimiacutek Radek amp Markeacuteta Burianovaacute 2020 Definiteness of bare NPs as a func-tion of clausal position A corpus study of Czech In Tania Ionin amp JonathanEric MacDonald (eds) Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 26 The Urbana-Champaign meeting 2017 343ndash361 Ann Arbor MI Michigan Slavic Publica-tions

Šimiacutek Radek amp Marta Wierzba 2015 The role of givenness presupposition andprosody in Czech word order An experimental study Semantics and Pragmat-ics 8(3) 1ndash103

Šimiacutek Radek 2014 Definiteness and articleless languages Unpublished mshttpswwwradeksimikeupdfsimik-dacice-definitenesspdf (19 Novem-ber 2018)

Strawson Peter F 1950 On referring Mind 59(235) 320ndash344Szwedek Alexander 1974 Some aspects of definiteness and indefiniteness of

nouns in Polish Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics 2 203ndash211Topolinjska Zuzanna 2009 Definiteness (synchrony) In Sebastian Kempgen Pe-

ter Kosta Tilman Berger amp Karl Gutschmidt (eds) The Slavic languages 176ndash187 BerlinNew York Mouton De Gruyter

Verkuyl Henk J 1999 Tense aspect and aspectual composition In MilaDimitrova-Vulchanova amp Lars Hellan (eds) Topics in South Slavic syntax andsemantics 125ndash162 Amsterdam John Benjamins DOI httpsdoiorg101075cilt17207ver

von Heusinger Klaus 1997 Salience and definiteness The Prague Bulletin ofMathematical Linguistics 67 5ndash23

Wierzbicka Anna 1967 On the semantics of verbal aspect in Polish In To honorRoman Jakobson Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (Junua Lin-guarum Series Maior) 2231ndash2249 The HagueParis Mouton

Wolter Lynsey 2004 Demonstratives definiteness and determined reference InKeir Moulton amp Matthew Wolf (eds) NELS 34 Proceedings of the 34th annualmeeting of the North East Linguistic Society 603ndash617 Amherst MA GLSA Pub-lication

Yanovich Igor 2005 Choice-functional series of indefinite pronouns and Ham-blin semantics In Efthymia Georgala amp Jonathan Howell (eds) Proceedingsof the 15th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference 309ndash326 Ithaca NYCornell University

Yokoyama Olga 1986 Discourse and word order AmsterdamPhiladelphia JohnBenjamins

80

Chapter 4

Referential anchoring without a definitearticle The case of Mopan (Mayan)Eve DanzigerUniversity of Virginia

Ellen Contini-MoravaUniversity of Virginia

Mopan Maya is a language in which pragmatic factors play a significant role in ref-erential anchoring Its article occurs in both definite and indefinite contexts and sodo bare nominals We discuss several forms that assist with referential anchoringusing Dryerrsquos (2014) reference hierarchy as an organizing framework but none ofthese forms is obligatory for any of the functions in the hierarchy Rather thanexplicitly encoding e g definiteness or specificity their employment is sensitiveto factors such as discourse salience

1 Introduction

It is now well documented (e g Sasse 1988 Matthewson 1998 Gillon 2009 2013Davis et al 2014 e201-e207 Lyon 2015) that languages exist in which determinersdo not signal semantic gradations of relative lsquodefinitenessrsquo (degrees of identifia-bility and uniqueness see Hawkins 1978 Loumlbner 1985 2011 Lyons 1999 Dryer2014) as they do in most European languages (for example by the contrast be-tween English the and aan) The question therefore arises whether degrees ofdefiniteness are explicitly signaled in such languages or if not how related mes-sages can be conveyed In the following we discuss the case of Mopan Mayan(Yukatekan) a language in which the form that fills distributional criteria to bean article does not encode the semantic concept of definiteness or the related

Eve Danziger amp Ellen Contini-Morava 2020 Referential anchoring without a definite articleThe case of Mopan (Mayan) In Kata Balogh Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr (eds)Nominal anchoring Specificity definiteness and article systems across languages 81ndash113 BerlinLanguage Science Press DOI 105281zenodo4049683

Eve Danziger amp Ellen Contini-Morava

concepts of specificity and uniqueness (Contini-Morava amp Danziger forthcom-ing) We address the various means which are used in Mopan to indicate relativeidentifiability and uniqueness using a scale developed by Dryer (2014) specifi-cally to handle the notions lsquodefiniteindefinitersquo in typological comparison1 Wedescribe a number of forms which can be used to indicate relatively high or lowdegrees of identifiability and we also document the fact that ART can occur atevery position on Dryerrsquos hierarchy thus confirming that ART does not usefullyconvey information about identifiability or uniquenessWe also note however that in verymanyMopan discourse cases explicit means

of indicating the status of a referent vis-agrave-vis identifiability and uniqueness arenot in fact employed We show that in all positions on Dryerrsquos hierarchy refer-ents can be expressed by unmarked or lsquobarersquo nominals2 and therefore no ex-plicit information is provided about degrees of identifiability or uniqueness Weconclude that the identification of referents in terms of degrees of previous men-tion uniqueness specificity or familiarity to speech participants is not alwaysexplicitly formulated in Mopan When this is the case calculation of these prop-erties of referents must be accomplished if it is accomplished at all by pragmaticmeans

11 Resources for referential anchoring in Mopan

In Mopan information about the referential status of argument expressions canbe provided in a variety of ways These include

(a) use of the article (ART) which explicitly signals that the associated con-stituent is to be construed as an entity and hence an argument

(b) use of a demonstrative expression involving one of four stative deictic pred-icates that specify proximity visibility and states of prior knowledge tovarious speech-act participants and discourse referents (Danziger 1994)with or without an accompanying NP

1Other scales and metalanguages such as Gundel et alrsquos (1993) givenness hierarchy or Loumlb-nerrsquos (2011) uniqueness scale would have been reasonable alternatives For present purposesDryerrsquos hierarchy has the advantage in that it pursues degrees of lsquoindefinitenessrsquo as well as oflsquodefinitenessrsquo and does not deal with contrasts other than those of lsquodefinitenessrsquo (For examplelsquorelationalityrsquo is not a dimension on Dryerrsquos scale)

2The distinction between lsquonounrsquo and lsquoverbrsquo as separate lexical classes is problematic in Mopan(Danziger 2008 see further below) but for ease of reference we will use the terms lsquonounrsquo andlsquonominalrsquo to mean lsquoword understood as serving in a given utterance as an argument in thepredication as possessor in a possessive phrase or as object of a prepositionrsquo and lsquoverbrsquo tomean lsquoword understood as serving as predicator in a given utterancersquo

82

4 Referential anchoring without a definite article The case of Mopan (Mayan)

(c) use of the emphatic 3rd person pronoun lersquoek

(d) use of a numeral classifier phrase

(e) a bare nominal absence of any explicit specification of referential status

The chapter is organized as follows In sect2 we provide distributional and se-mantic characterization of the above forms In sect3 we introduce Dryerrsquos (2014)reference hierarchy which we use as a framework for fuller description of thelsquodefinitenessindefinitenessrsquo functions of the forms listed above We show howsome of the listed means of expression are restricted to certain portions of thescale meaning that they can be characterized as conveying degrees of definite-ness or indefiniteness But we also show that both ART and lsquobare nominalrsquo canoccur in any position on the hierarchy This means on the one hand that ARTdoes not usefully convey degrees of lsquodefinitenessrsquo and on the other that none ofthe definiteness-conveying means which we also document is actually requiredeven when its preferred segment of the scale is at issue in a given utterance Thatis it is often the case that degrees of e g anaphora specificity etc are pragmat-ically inferred rather than semantically conveyed by reliance on dedicated gram-matical forms sect4 provides a summary and conclusion A table summarizing thedata appears in this final section

Our data are drawn primarily from Mopan narratives including 75 narrativesfrom eight speakers collected by Pierre Ventur in Guatemala in the 1970s (Ven-tur 1976) 14 texts of varied kinds from ten speakers collected by Matthew andRosemary Ulrich (Ulrich amp Ulrich 1982) and narratives collected in Belize morerecently by Eve Danziger (pc) and by Lieve Verbeeck (Verbeeck 1999) We alsodraw on conversational data elicited by Eve Danziger from Mopan speakers inBelize (Danziger 1994)

2 Descriptive preliminaries

Mopan is a Mayan language spoken by several thousand people living in com-munities that span the Belize-Guatemala border in Eastern Central America Itis a predominantly head-marking predicate-initial language Pluralization is op-tional numeral classifiers are required for enumeration and there is no copularverb

83


21 The article (ART) a

TheMopan lexicon is characterized by the neutrality ofmany lexical items in rela-tion to the traditional distinction between noun and verb (Danziger 2008) Manylexical items which would translate into English as nouns may play the role ofa clause predicate without derivation Such items fall into the category of lsquosta-tivesrsquo in Mopan (see Danziger 1996 for similar observations in other Yukatekanlanguages see Bricker 1981 Lucy 1994 Lois amp Vapnarsky 2006) This can be seenin example (1a) where the lexeme winik inflected with the pronominal suffixfrom the series known to Mayanists as Set B is interpreted as a stative predicate(lsquobe a manrsquo) In other contexts such as (1b) the same lexeme is construed as anargument (lsquothe manrsquo or lsquoa manrsquo) Note the presence of ART a before winik inexample (1b)

(1) Noun-verb neutrality in Mopana Stative lexeme with 2nd person Set B inflection3

[Authorrsquos data Ix Chersquoil etel Baumlkrsquo lsquoWild Womanrsquo J S]inchech=e2EMPH=EV

tan-emptybe_continuing-3B

inw1A(prevocalic)

il-ik-echsee-TRIPFV-2B

winik-echman-2BlsquoAs for you I am looking at you Yoursquore (a) manrsquo

b Same lexeme with ART[Source as in (1a)]ldquordquo kutrsquoan

3qUOTaART

winikman

t-uyPREP-3A(prevocalic)

aumltan=awife=EV

lsquo ldquordquo said the [ART] man to his wifersquo

ART designates an entity that instantiates the content of the accompanyingconstituent (see Contini-Morava amp Danziger forthcoming for details) As such ithelps to distinguish arguments unambiguously from predicates

We show below that ART does not usefully convey semantic contrasts on thedefiniteness dimension If this is the case are we justified in calling it an lsquoarti-clersquo Although some have argued that semantic criteria such as definiteness or

3Orthography is as preferred by the Academiacutea de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala(ALMG England amp Elliott 1990) Interlinear glosses follow the Leipzig glossing rules(httpwwwevampgdelinguaresourcesglossing-rulesphp) with some additions see Ab-breviations at the end of the chapter

84


specificity are necessary for defining the category lsquoarticlersquo (e g Himmelmann2008 833-4) others foreground distributional criteria For example Dryer (2007158) states that the term lsquoarticlersquo can be applied to ldquoa set of words which occurwith high frequency in noun phrases and which vary for certain grammaticalfeatures of the noun phraserdquo4 Mopan ART occurs in a fixed position precedingexpressions that are to be construed as nominals It is also in complementarydistribution with forms that function as possessive pronouns (the pronoun se-ries known to Mayanists as Set A) again suggesting determiner status5 ART isglossed as lsquothersquo in several previous works on Mopan (Shaw 1971 Ulrich amp Ulrich1982 Ulrich et al 1986) even though it can be used in contexts that cannot beconstrued as definite (see sect3 below) Hofling (2006) glosses it as DET[erminer]We use the term lsquoarticlersquo to distinguish a from the Set A possessives with whichit is in complementary distribution and which might also be considered to beDET[erminer]

Aside from occurring before single lexical items as in example (1b) ART alsooccurs before lsquoproperty conceptsrsquo and other expressions if they are to functionas arguments as in (2)

(2) ART preceding lexemes usually construed as adjectival modifiers[Ventur (1976) 316 Aj Kaumlnaumln Kax lsquoThe Chicken Keeperrsquo E S]6

jokrsquo-ijexit-3BINTRPFV

aART

nooch=obig=EV

Tal-ijcome-3BINTRPFV

aART

nenersquo=esmall=EV

lsquoThe [ART] big (one) left off (lit went out) Thea [ART] little (one) camersquo

4In his WALS study Dryer defines lsquoarticlesrsquo more narrowly as ldquowords or morphemes that occurin noun phraseshellip[that] must code something in the general semantic domain of definitenessor indefinitenessrdquo (2014 e234) but this was for the purpose of surveys specifically of definiteand indefinite articles

5Apossessive construction involves two referents each ofwhichmay require its own referentialanchoring As such they do not fit easily into Dryerrsquos (2014) reference hierarchy used belowas an organizing framework for our discussion Dryer suggests that a possessor is inherentlyan indication of an NPrsquos definiteness (fn 4 p e234) and he does not include possessive con-structions in his discussion Others however (e g Alexiadou 2005) argue that possessives arenot always definite Given the complexity of integrating possessive constructions with Dryerrsquoshierarchy we will not discuss them further here

6Venturrsquos collection of narratives transcribed and translated into Spanish by Ventur and hisMopan consultants was donated by Ventur to the SmithsonianWe provide our own interlinearglosses and translations into English Venturrsquos manuscript includes the names of the originalnarrators but since we have no way to obtain permission to publish their names we use onlyinitials to refer to them For examples from published sources we include the full names of thespeakers

85


In some cases ARTrsquos ability to allow forms that do not normally denote en-tities to function as clause arguments yields an English translation as a relativeclause In example (3) the article precedes something that would otherwise beinterpreted as a predicate lsquohe went under the bedrsquo)7

(3) ART preceding predicative expression[Ventur (1976) 103 Aj Okol ich Witz lsquoHe who Enters the Mountainrsquo R Krsquo]

ldquordquo kutrsquoan3qUOT

brsquoinHSY

aART

brsquoin-ijgoPFV-3BINTRPFV

yalanunder

kamaj=abed=EV

lsquo ldquordquo said the [ART] (one who) had gone under the bedrsquo

211 ART with relativized deictic predicates

One frequent example of the relativizing function of ART that will be relevantto our discussion of referential anchoring is its use with a set of four dedicatedstative deictic predicates that provide information about referents with respectto their proximity visibility and states of prior knowledge to various speech-act participants These are larsquosimdrsquoarsquo lsquodeictic stative 1st personrsquo kan(arsquo) lsquodeicticstative 2nd personrsquo lorsquosimdrsquoorsquo lsquodeictic stative 3rd person known through visualmeansrsquo and brsquoersquo lsquodeictic stative 3rd person known through other than visualmeansrsquo (Danziger 1994) When a predicate of this series is relativized using ARTa the result is a form most simply rendered in English as a deictic demonstrative(lsquothis onethat onersquo) A more literal translation recognizes the predicate contentand might read lsquoone whowhich is near mersquo lsquoone whowhich is near yoursquo etc(Danziger 1994 891-894 see also Jelinek 1995 489-490 for similar analysis of De-terminer Phrases in Straits Salish) We therefore refer to these demonstrative ex-pressions as lsquorelativized deicticsrsquo We do not include the deictic predicates dorsquosimlorsquolsquodeictic stative 3rd person visiblersquo darsquosimlarsquo lsquodeictic stative 1st personrsquo and kan(arsquo)lsquodeictic stative 2nd personrsquo in the discussion which follows because these formsare used primarily in face-to-face conversation and the categories of Dryerrsquoshierarchy are better suited for application to narrative contexts

A relativized deictic can occur alone or together with lexical specification ofthe referent (4) is an example of the latter

7A reviewer asks why we do not just use the gloss lsquonominalizerrsquo for ART One reason is itscomplementary distribution with the possessive pronouns mentioned above as a criterion fordeterminer status Another is that lexemes can function as lsquonominalsrsquo (clause arguments) inMopan with or without ART (see example (8) below)

86


(4) Lexeme with relativized deictic expression[Ventur (1976) 507 Aj Marsquo Narsquooorsquo lsquoThe Orphansrsquo J I]

peroDISC

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A

karsquoagain

kaumlx-t-aj-emptyseek-T-TRPFV-3B

u3A

laakrsquoother

uy3A(prevocalic)

aumltanwife

lsquoSo that [ART] man known by other than visual means he looked againfor another wifersquo

As we will show below a relativized deictic may be employed to indicate iden-tifiability of a discourse referent

212 Emphatic pronoun

Mopan is a polysynthetic language in which verb arguments are frequently en-coded only in obligatory person affixes of the verb (See for instance the 2ndperson Set B affix in example (1a) lsquoyou are a manrsquo) This includes argumentswhich denote referents previously mentioned in the discourse

(5) 3rd person undergoer affix for anaphoric reference8

[Ventur (1976) 315 Siete Kolor lsquoSeven Colorsrsquo E S]

sas-aj-ijlighten-INCH-3BINTRPFV

samal-il=inextday-POSS=EV

karsquoagain

brsquoin-oorsquogoPFV-3PL

tukadyersquoanothertime

u3A

kaumlx-t-aj-empty-oorsquoseek-T-TRPFV-3B-3PL

brsquoinHSY

lsquo(When) it dawned the next day they went and looked for it againrsquo

In this example lsquoitrsquo (expressed by the zero Set B suffix) refers to previouslymentioned coffee and cacao for the kingrsquos horse to eat after the protagonistshave been unsuccessful in finding this food the day before The unusual food hasalready been named and discussed at length

If emphasis on a particular argument is desired it is possible to add a person-indicating independent pronoun The third person in this series has the form lersquoekand is relevant to our discussion of referential anchoring Lersquoek occurs twice inthe example below which comes from a story in which a young womanrsquos fatherhas shot a small hummingbird which he found in her bedroom and now comes to

8The 3rd person Set B undergoer affix is a zero morpheme

87


understand that this hummingbird was actually a magical disguise for his daugh-terrsquos lover the Holy Sun The first use of lersquoek (lsquothat hummingbird I shotrsquo) occursin combination with a nominal (tzrsquounursquoun lsquohummingbirdrsquo) and helps to specifywhich hummingbird we are talking about The second use (lsquothat was the HolySunrsquo) occurs alone as one side of an equational predication

(6) Lersquoek emphatic pronoun[Ventur (1976) 105 U kwentojil Santo Krsquoin y Santo Uj lsquoThe Story of the HolySun and Holy Moonrsquo R Krsquo]

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

tzrsquounursquounhummingbird

in1A

tzrsquoon-aj-empty=ashoot-TRPFV-3B=EV

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

santoholy

krsquoin=isun=EV

lsquoThat hummingbird I shot that was the Holy Sunrsquo [Lit That which is ahummingbird I shot is that which is the Holy Sun]

213 Numeral + classifier construction

In Mopan enumeration of nominals requires use of a numeral classifier A nu-meral classifier phrase consists of numeral + classifier (+ optional ART) + nom-inal It is overwhelmingly the numeral jun lsquoonersquo that is found in this functionalthough other numerals can also introduce referents where appropriate Thisconstruction is often used to introduce new discourse referents9 An example is(7) the first sentence in a story see also sect334 below

(7) Numeral classifier construction[Ventur (1976) 108 Aj Jookrsquo lsquoThe Fishermanrsquo R Krsquo]

junone

tuulCLFANIM

brsquoinHSY

aART

winik=iman=EV

topvery

kirsquo-emptybegood-3B

brsquoinHSY

t-uPREP-3A

wicheye

aART

jookrsquo=ofishing=EV

lsquoA man fishing was very good in his eye(s) (he liked fishing very much)rsquo

214 Bare nominal

Despite the abovementioned noun-verb lexical fluidity that is characteristic ofMopan it is possible for a bare lexical item to be construed as an argument if itslexical meaning readily supports this An example is (8)

9Use of the numeral lsquoonersquo for discourse-new referents is common cross-linguistically and isoften the source for indefinite articles (see e g Lyons 1999)

88


(8) Bare lexical item interpreted as argument[Authorrsquos data Ix Chersquoil etel Baumlkrsquo lsquoWild Womanrsquo J S]

ooh

inen=e1EMPH=EV

wayersquoDLOC1

watak-enbeimminent-1B

wayersquoDLOC1

yan-Oslashexist-3B

in1A

kaalhometown

kutrsquoan3qUOT

winik=iman=EV

lsquo ldquoOh myself I come from here Here [this] is my home villagerdquosaid (the) manrsquo

Here the word winik lsquo(be a) manrsquo follows a direct quotation along with thequotative kutrsquoan so it is readily interpreted as the one doing the saying i e asan argument We will show that bare nominals may be ascribed a wide range ofdefiniteness interpretations in Mopan

3 Dryerrsquos (2014) reference hierarchy

As an organizing framework for discussing anchoring we will use the referencehierarchy described by Dryer (2014 e235) the basis for his chapter on definitearticles in the World Atlas of Language Structures (httpswalsinfochapter37)Dryer proposes that a hierarchical organization facilitates cross-linguistic com-parison and asserts that any article which accomplishes the leftmost functionsin the hierarchy to the exclusion of at least some functions on the right shouldbe declared a definite one (Dryer 2014 e241)10 Dryerrsquos hierarchy was intendedfor typological comparison specifically of articles but we include a broader set

10Dryer (2014 e237-238) treats preferential occurrence of an article on a contiguous span of hisreference hierarchy as the basis for classifying the article as lsquodefinitersquo or lsquoindefinitersquo dependingon whether its span is located toward the left or right of the hierarchy He classifies the Basquearticle as lsquodefinitersquo even though it occurs in all positions of the hierarchy (Dryer 2014 e239)because it cannot occur in a subset of indefinite contexts (semantically nonspecific indefiniteswithin the scope of negation) This may be an acceptable heuristic for typological purposes (orit may not see Contini-Morava amp Danziger forthcoming) but it does not solve the potentialsemantic ambiguity of actual occurrences of Mopan ART as regards identifiability or unique-ness when this form occurs in actual discourse In fact ART can occur within the scope ofnegation as in the following example uttered by an unsuccessful hunter

marsquoNEG

yan-emptyexist-3B

aART

brsquoaumlk=agame=EV

lsquoThere isnrsquot any gamersquo[Authorrsquos data Ix Chersquoil etel Baumlkrsquo lsquoWild Woman and Meatrsquo J S]

89


of anchoring devices in order to provide a fuller picture of referential anchoringin Mopan The typological aspects of Dryerrsquos proposal are of less interest to ushere than the usefulness of his framework for descriptive organization in a singlelanguage His hierarchy is as follows

Dryerrsquos reference hierarchy (Dryer 2014 e235)11

anaphoric definites gt nonanaphoric definites gt pragmatically specific in-definites gt pragmatically nonspecific (but semantically specific) indefinitesgt semantically nonspecific indefinites

A brief explanation of terms that may not be familiar to the reader (see Dryer2014 e236-e237) An anaphoric definite NP refers back in the discourse i e is ldquoli-censed by a linguistic antecedentrdquo (Dryer 2014 e236) whereas a non-anaphoricdefinite relies instead on shared knowledge between speaker and addressee anexample of the latter would be the sun (in a context where there are not multi-ple suns) These notions of definiteness have much in common with prior un-derstandings (e g Hawkins 1978 Lyons 1999) that definiteness is a matter ofencoding lsquoidentifiabilityrsquo andor lsquoinclusivityrsquo (more on these ideas below) It isuseful for our purposes however that Dryerrsquos hierarchy also extends to charac-terization of the semantics of indefinites

For Dryer semantically specific indefinites are those where there is an entail-ment of existence (e g I went to a movie last night) Within this type Dryer dis-tinguishes between pragmatically specific indefinites which indicate a discourseparticipant that ldquonormally hellip is referred to again in the subsequent discourserdquo(Dryer 2014 e236) and pragmatically nonspecific indefinites (an NP whose ref-erent is not mentioned again even though there is an entailment of existence)

Finally a semantically nonspecific indefinite NP (which necessarily is alsopragmatically nonspecific) does not entail existence of the referent e g Johnis looking for a new house12

In the following we document the distribution of the Mopan forms describedabove across each of the positions of Dryerrsquos hierarchy One of our principal

11Dryer (2014 e235) states that his hierarchy is based on Givoacutenrsquos (1978) lsquowheel of referencersquo butDryer uses some different terminology and omits generics and predicate nominals from hishierarchy

12Dryer (2014 e237) acknowledges that a semantically nonspecific referent can be mentionedagain (i e could fit his definition of lsquopragmatically specificrsquo) as in John is looking for a newhouse It must be in the city He also states however that ldquoarticles that code pragmatic speci-ficity appear never to occur with semantically nonspecific noun phrasesrdquo (ibid) He does notinclude the category of semantically nonspecific but pragmatically specific in his hierarchy

90


findings is the fact that the lsquobare nominalrsquo option is allowable across all posi-tions in the hierarchy This means that even if other forms can be said (basedon their distribution across the hierarchy) to encode definite or indefinite seman-tics these forms are never obligatory in the relevant semantic contexts In manycases therefore it seems that distinctions of referential anchoring in Mopan aremade pragmatically based on context

We also make special note of the fact that while it is never obligatory MopanART is allowable in all positions on the hierarchy ART therefore cannot be saidto encode any sort of distinction between the semantic positions in the hierarchy(that is it does not encode any semantics of definiteness)

We now consider each position on Dryerrsquos (2014) hierarchy in turn describingthe central Mopan possibilities in each case

31 Anaphoric definites

311 ART

InMopan anaphoric definites are frequently preceded byART In (9) the referenthas been mentioned in the immediately preceding context and is known to boththe storyteller and the addressee

(9) ART in contexts consistent with anaphoric definiteness[Authorrsquos data Ix Chersquoil etel Baumlkrsquo lsquoWild Womanrsquo J S]


aART

winikman


aumltan=awife=EV


We will show however that ART does not explicitly encode anaphoric defi-niteness since it can also be found in nonanaphoric and non-definite contexts(see Sections sect32-sect35 below)

312 ART + deictic predicate

More explicit indication of anaphoric definiteness may also be accomplishedthrough the use of ART to create a relative clause from the deictic predicate brsquoersquolsquonear neither speaker nor hearer and known through non-visual meansrsquo The non-visual means in question are commonly understood to include prior mention indiscourse (Danziger 1994) This construction therefore yields an expression thatis equivalent to an anaphoric deictic demonstrative This was shown in example(4) repeated as (10) for convenience

91


(10) Deictic expression for anaphoric definite[Ventur (1976) 507 Aj Marsquo Narsquooorsquo lsquoThe Orphansrsquo J I]

peroDISC

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A

karsquoagain


u3A

laakrsquoother

uy3A(prevocalic)

aumltanwife

lsquoSo that [ART] man known through non-visual means he looked againfor another wifersquo

The predicate brsquoersquo can itself occur alone with ART yielding a referential ex-pression translatable as lsquoone which is near neither speaker nor hearer and whichis known through non-visual meansrsquo as in (11)

(11) Anaphoric definite with relativized deictic predicate a brsquoersquo lsquodeictic stative3rd person non-visiblersquo used alone[Ventur (1976) 311 Uj y krsquoin lsquoMoon and Sunrsquo E S]

topvery

kichrsquopan-emptybebeautiful-3B

tiPREP

in1A

wicheye

kutrsquoan3qUOT

brsquoinHSY

aART

brsquoersquo=eD3NV=EV

lsquo ldquoI like it very muchrdquo said that one known through non-visual meansrsquo

Example (11) comes in the middle of a story in which a young woman (theMoon) has been speaking to her father In the preceding context her quotationsare interspersedwith the expression krsquou trsquoan brsquoin lsquoapparently [that is] what [she]saidrsquo which is very common for quotations in Mopan narrative and completelylacks overt identification of the speaker This example comes at the end of herconversational turn just before her fatherrsquos reply Although it has been clear allalong who the speaker is here the narrator makes the anaphoric reference moreexplicit by means of the deictic perhaps to mark the transition to a new speakerIn any case no lexical specification is needed and the deictic is used alone

3121 Optionality of relativized deictic for explicit marking of anaphoric defi-niteness

Recall that in the context immediately preceding example (11) above there areseveral non-explicit allusions to the woman being quoted in contrast with the

92


deictic expression that appears in the cited example This example thus illustratesanother characteristic of referential anchoring of anaphoric definites in Mopaneven though this information can be conveyed by a deictic expression a deicticis not obligatory with anaphoric definites This is shown in (12) in which thereare two anaphoric NPs but only the second one is marked by a deictic

(12) Anaphoric definites with and without relativized deictic predicate[Authorrsquos data Ix Chersquoil etel Baumlkrsquo lsquoWild Woman and Meatrsquo J S]

marsquoNEG

patal-emptybeable-3B

u3A

chrsquouy-t-ersquohang-T-TRIRR3B

aART

brsquoaumlkrsquo=aumlmeat=EV

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

lsquoThat [ART] man known through non-visual means couldnrsquot hoist upthe [ART] meatrsquo

In example (12) the protagonist has been mentioned several times and hasencountered a supernatural forest woman who has brought him a large quantityof game The game is so heavy that theman canrsquot lift it to take it home Here thereare two anaphoric NPs a brsquoaumlkrsquo lsquothe meatrsquo and a winik a brsquoersquo lsquothat manrsquo The firstis marked only by ART and the second by both ART and a relativized deictic

One could ask why the deictic is used in (12) at all since this is the only manmentioned in the story so far Why not just use ART + nominal as is done withthe reference to the meat (also previously mentioned in the story) In this casethe deictic appears to add emphasis in contrast with the woman who had notrouble carrying the meat and in contrast to other possible men who might alsobe able to carry it that particular man was unable to lift it13

When referring to anaphoric definites then a relativized deictic can be usedbut is not obligatory It is also allowable and far from unusual for ART aloneto occur in such contexts There may be a tendency for relativized deictics to beassociated with contrast or extra emphasis but further research would be neededto confirm this

313 The emphatic pronoun lersquoek

Lersquoek lsquobe itbe the onersquo is appropriately used for anaphoric mention as in (13)

13This interpretation is also consistent with the use of the deictic in example (11) where thedeictic marks a transition between speakers

93


(13) Lersquoek for anaphoric mention[Ventur (1976) 315 Siete Kolor lsquoSeven Colorsrsquo E S]

kaumlkaumljcacao

iand

kafecoffee

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

walak-emptybehabitual-3B

u3A

jan-t-ik-emptyeat-T-TRIPFV-3B

in1A

kabayoj=ohorse=EV

lsquoCacao and coffee it is that which my horse eatsrsquo

Relativized deictics including brsquoersquo lsquoassociated with neither speaker nor hearerand known through non-visual meansrsquo can occur with lersquoek as shown in (14)

(14) Lersquoek with relativized deictic a brsquoersquo[Ventur (1976) 315 Siete Kolor lsquoSeven Colorsrsquo E S]

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

u3A

prsquoorsquo-aj-empty=adolaundry-TRPFV-3B=EV

lsquoIt is he known through non-visual means who washed the clothesrsquo

In this story the hero has been secretly out winning the competition to marrythe princess but now returns home to the humble identity of a hard-workingyounger brother assigned to menial domestic tasks

Finally lersquoek can also co-occur in anaphoric use with a nominal phrase withART plus a relativized deictic as shown in (15)14

(15) Lersquoek + ART + nominal + relativized deictic[Ventur (1976) 506 Kompadre etel a Komadre lsquoThe Compadre and the Co-madrersquo J I]

tzrsquoarsquo-brsquo-ijgive-PASS-3BINTRPFV

u3A

meyajwork

ichilinside

jumone

prsquoeelCLFINAN

jardingarden

buenowell

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

meyajwork

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

u3A

brsquoet-aj-empty=ado-TRPFV-3B=EV

lsquoHe was given work in a garden well that work is what he didrsquo[Lit Well it is that which is work which is known through non-visualmeans (that) he did]

14This construction applied to each of the deictic predicates in turn is cognate with the currentYukatek demonstrative series (Hanks 1990)

94


In addition to serving as a stative predicate the emphatic pronoun then mayalso appear with nominals and it is an important resource in Mopan for indicat-ing reference to a previously mentioned referent As we have shown howeverlersquoek is not obligatory for anaphoric reference

314 Bare nominal

In Mopan it is possible for a bare nominal to be used for anaphoric definitereference as shown in (8) repeated for convenience as (16)

(16) Bare nominal for anaphoric definite referent[Authorrsquos data Ix Chersquoil etel Baumlkrsquo lsquoWild Womanrsquo J S]

ooh

inen=e1EMPH=EV

wayersquoDLOC1


wayersquoDLOC1

yan-emptyexist-3B

in1A

kaalhometown

kutrsquoan3qUOT

winik=iman=EV


Here the man is the main protagonist in the story and has been mentionedseveral times before As mentioned earlier use of a bare referring expressionoccurs only when its lexical semantics support argument construal (see Contini-Morava amp Danziger forthcoming for details)

32 Nonanaphoric definites

321 ART for nonanaphoric definites

Dryer (2014 e236) defines nonanaphoric definites as definite noun phraseswhoseuse ldquois based only on shared knowledge of the speaker and hearerrdquo unlike ana-phoric definites whose use is ldquolicensed by linguistic antecedentsrdquo (ibid) Withregard to prior mention Dryer further states that ldquoin English one would notnormally refer to the sun with the noun phrase the aforementioned sun even ifthere were a previous reference to itrdquo (ibid) presumably because the sun has aunique referent so does not require re-identification Mopan ART occurs readilyin such contexts as shown in example (17)

95


(17) ART for unique individuals[Ulrich amp Ulrich (1982) lsquoMopan Maya Concept of Earth and Heavenrsquo JoseacuteMariacutea Cowoj interviewed by Matthew Ulrich line 41]15

aART

uj=umoon=EV

tan-emptybecontinuing-3B

ilikINT

u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

jabrsquoixlike

tiPREP


u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

aART

krsquoinsun

lsquoThe [ART] moon goes along just like the [ART] sun goesrsquo

In (17) the moon and the sun could be construed as definite because each hasa unique referent16

322 Relativized deictic for nonanaphoric reference

Although the relativized deictic a brsquoersquo is most often used for anaphoric referenceit can also occur with unique referents as in example (18)

(18) Relativized deictic for nonanaphoric definite[Ventur (1976) 307 U Kweentojil aj Peedro lsquoThe Story of Pedrorsquo E S]

ok-ijenter-3BINTRIPFV

brsquoinHSY

ichilinside

aART

karsquoansky

aART


lsquoHe went inside that skyrsquo

Example (18) is from a story in which a man wants to enter the sky in orderto see God and he is finally allowed in after a series of negotiations with SaintPeter Like the sun and moon in (17) the sky is unique so even though the skyhas beenmentioned before in this story according to Dryerrsquos definition example(18) would not constitute anaphoric reference The relativized deictic is not beingused in order to remind the hearer that we are talking about the same sky thathas been mentioned before In this example it seems merely to add emphasis (cfexample (12) discussed earlier)

15For all examples from this source we regularize the orthography to that recommended by theALMG (see supra note 3) and provide our own glossing

16Loumlbner (2011 282) treats e g moon as an lsquoindividual nounrsquo marked by the feature [+Unique]i e as lsquosemantically definitersquo and inherently unique By contrast a noun like man is a lsquosortalnounrsquo i e [minusUnique] but it can be coerced into an individual reading by contextual infor-mation that identifies a particular individual which can make it lsquopragmatically definitersquo in agiven context (pp 307-308) We will see below (examples (30) and (32)) that Mopan ART doesnot coerce an individual reading for the associated nominal

96


323 Emphatic pronoun lersquoek lsquobe a 3rd personrsquo for nonanaphoric reference

The independent pronoun lersquoek lsquobe a third personrsquomay also be used for inherentlyunique referents In example (19) from a legend in which Jesus is hunted downby evil pursuers first mention of this very familiar and unique protagonist ismade using lersquoek17 This usage helps to specify that we are talking about a uniquereferent rather than just one man among others who bears this name

(19) Lersquoek for nonanaphoric definite[Ventur (1976) 509 U Alkabrsquoeebrsquo Jesus lsquoThe Chasing of Jesusrsquo J I]

buenowell

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

jesus=uJesus=EV

tiPREP

kaj-ijbegin-3BINTRIPFV

alkarsquo-brsquo-aumllrun-PASS-INTRIPFV

lsquoWell he who is Jesus when he was beginning to be chased rsquo

324 Bare nominal for nonanaphoric reference

It is also possible for a bare nominal to be used for nonanaphoric definite refer-ence as in (20)

(20) Bare nominal for nonanaphoric definite reference[Ulrich amp Ulrich (1982) lsquoLittle Brotherrsquo Genoveva Bol]

u3A

tzrsquo-aj-emptyput-TRPFV-3B

brsquoinHSY

ichin

krsquoaakrsquofire

lsquoShe put it on (the) firersquo

Although the term lsquofirersquo does not inherently identify a unique individual inthe context of a Mopan house where cooking has been mentioned only one firecan be intended (see e g Loumlbner 2011 285)

33 Pragmatically (and also semantically) specific indefinites

Recall that in Dryerrsquos hierarchy semantically specific indefinites presuppose theexistence of a referent (I went to a movie last night) as opposed to semantically

17Jesus is also introduced with ART rather than with the masculine gender marker which wouldnormally be expected with the name of an ordinary human man (Contini-Morava amp Danziger2018)

97


nonspecific indefinites which do not make this presupposition (John is look-ing for a new house) Semantically specific indefinites come in two pragmatictypes Pragmatically specific indefinites are those which will remain topical i eare mentioned again in the discourse after they are introduced Pragmaticallynon-specific indefinites are not mentioned again in the subsequent discourse18

By Dryerrsquos definition (2014 e237) semantically nonspecific reference cannot bepragmatically specific

331 ART alone for pragmatically specific indefinites

Although new referents that will remain topical are typically introduced withthe jun + classifier construction (sect334) it is also possible for such a referent tobe marked only with ART This is illustrated in (21)

(21) Pragmatically specific new referent introduced with ART alone[Authorrsquos data lsquoThe Ring and the Fishrsquo P C]

puesso

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A

chaan-t-aj-emptygaze-T-TRPFV-3B

t-uPREP-3A

tzeel=eside=EV

uy(prevocalic)3A

il-aj-empty=asee-TRPFV-3B=EV

yan-emptyexist-3B

aART

brsquoak=abone=EV

lsquoSo the mentioned man looked next to him he saw there were [ART]bone[s]rsquo

Example (21) is from a story in which an ogre disguised as a woman has lureda manrsquos brothers into the forest and killed them The bones mentioned here forthe first time are evidence that the brothers have been killed As such they areextremely important to the storyline and they are mentioned again as the storycontinues Here the jun lsquoonersquo + classifier construction would be less felicitoussince more than one bone is involved (pluralization is optional in Mopan) butother numbers would be over-specific in this context

332 Relativized deictic predicates for introducing an unfamiliar referent

Though rare for first mention a relativized deictic can also occur in this contextas shown in (22)

18We note that a category that is based on subsequent mention in the discourse is weightedtoward connected discourse such as narrative

98


(22) Relativized deictic for first mention of pragmatically specific referent[Ventur (1976) 303 A ayin etel aj Konejo lsquoThe Story of the Alligator andthe Rabbitrsquo E S]

puesso

junone

tuulCLFANIM

brsquoinHSY

aART

winikman

aART



brsquoinHSY

u3A

man-aumllwalk-INTRIPFV

lsquoSo this man he was wandering alongrsquo

This is the first mention of the protagonist in a story The effect of combiningthe numeral + classifier + ART construction commonly used for first mentionof a referent that will continue to be topical (sect334 below) with the relativizeddeictic a brsquoersquo lsquoassociated with neither speaker nor hearer and known throughnon-visual meansrsquo more often used for anaphoric reference is similar to whatPrince (1981) calls ldquoindefinite thisrdquo in English

333 Emphatic pronoun for pragmatically specific reference

The 3rd person emphatic pronoun lersquoek may also appear at first mention of areferent Example (23) occurs in the first line of the story and the referent in-troduced with lersquoek is presented as syntactically equivalent to the one which isintroduced with the numeral + classifier construction very frequently used forfirst mentions

(23) Lersquoek for first mention[Ventur (1976) 708 A Brsquoaalumoorsquoo lsquoThe Jaguarsrsquo A T]

jumone

prsquoeelCLFINAN

krsquoinday

brsquoinHSY

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

brsquoaalumjaguar

uy3A(prevocalic)

etrsquookcompanion

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ajGMM

leon=olion=EV

uy3A(prevocalic)

adrsquo-aj-empty-oorsquosay-TRPFV-3B-3PL

brsquoinHSY

tiPREP

u3A

brsquoajilself

lsquoOne day that which is (a) jaguar together with a [NUM + CLF] lion19

they said to each other rsquo

19The word leon lsquolion jaguarrsquo belongs to a subset of Mopan vocabulary that is lexically specifiedfor gender For such nouns a gender marker is essentially obligatory and has no relationshipto definiteness (see Contini-Morava amp Danziger 2018 for more on the Mopan gender markers)

99


In this case both the jaguar introduced with lersquoek and the lsquolionrsquo (also after-wards called brsquoaalum lsquojaguarrsquo) are highly salient and are mentioned multipletimes in the discourse that follows

In light of (23) and other examples of first mention lersquoek lsquobe itbe the onersquo musttherefore be understood as an indicator of emphasis rather than primarily oneof definiteness

334 Numeral classifier construction for pragmatically specific reference

The most common way in Mopan to introduce new referents that will remaintopical in subsequent discourse is by means of the numeral jun lsquoonersquo (or othernumeral where appropriate) followed by a numeral classifier and the nominalThe nominal may or may not also be preceded by ART This is shown in (24)

(24) Jun lsquoonersquo + classifier with and without ART for pragmatically specific newreferenta Jun lsquoonersquo + CLF with ART

[Ventur (1976) 509 U Alkarsquobrsquoeebrsquo Jesus lsquoThe Chasing of Jesusrsquo J I]puesso

krsquooch-ijarrive-3BINTRPFV

tubrsquoawhere

yan-emptyexist-3B

junone

teekCLFplant

aART

maumlp=aumlcocoyol_palm=EV

lsquoSo he arrived at [a place] where there was a [NUM + CLF + ART]cocoyol palmrsquo

b Jun lsquoonersquo + CLF without ART[Ventur (1976) 402 U Kwentojil aj Konejo manyoso lsquoThe Story of theClever Rabbitrsquo A Krsquo]entonsesthen

brsquoin-ijgo-3BINTRPFV

u3A

karsquoagain

kaumlx-aumlrsquoseek-3BTRIRR

kersquoen-emptybelocated-3B

yalamunder

junone

teekCLFplant

maumlpcocoyol_palm

lsquoSo he [puma] went off to look for him [rabbit] again He [rabbit] waslocated under a [NUM + CLF no ART] cocoyol palmrsquo

100


Even though each example introduces a (single) cocoyol palm that is referredto again in subsequent discourse one includes ART and the other does not20

We propose a pragmatic explanation for presenceabsence of ART in such casesWhen a lexeme due to its meaning is likely to be construed as an entity thearticle can be omitted if the referent has lower discourse salience than it wouldif it were marked by ART21

We note however that lack of discourse salience in this sense does not cor-respond precisely to Dryerrsquos lsquopragmatic nonspecificityrsquo since in both of the ex-amples in (24) the referent is mentioned again in later discourse Difference indiscourse salience is rather a question of degree of importance of the referentas a protagonist in the discourse in question To illustrate in (24a) above Jesusis fleeing from persecution and hides at the top of a cocoyol palm In the ensuingnarrative when the pursuers ask the tree what it is hiding it responds in a mis-leading way so as to protect Jesus The tree is a salient protagonist in the storyIn (24b) the cocoyol palm never speaks or takes on animacy and is eventuallybroken up and offered as food losing its quality as an (individually identifiable)entity The word maumlp lsquococoyol palmrsquo in this second case is determinerless whenfirst mentioned and mdashalthough it qualifies for Dryerrsquos lsquopragmatic specificityrsquo be-cause it is mentioned again in the same textmdash it is not an important character inthe story (Further indication of the difference in discourse salience between thetrees in these examples is the fact that the first one is introduced as the main ar-gument of its clause whereas the second is introduced in a prepositional phrase)

335 Bare nominal for pragmatically specific reference

It is also possible for a bare nominal to introduce a new referent that will bementioned again in the discourse as shown in (25)

20A referee asks whether jun lsquoonersquo in (24b) is perhaps a type of indefinite determiner rather thanthe numeral lsquoonersquo Although the numeral + classifier construction illustrated here is often trans-latable with an indefinite article in English this translation does not depend on presence vsabsence of ART The cocoyol palms in (24a) and (24b) are both new discourse referents and inneither case is their singularity being contrasted with other possible numbers (Note also thatother numerals can occur both with and without ART in a numeral + classifier constructionin Mopan)

21At the 2018 Workshop on Specificity Definiteness and Article Systems across Languages (40thAnnual Meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft fuumlr Sprachwissenschaft) we provided some quan-titative evidence in support of differential discourse salience of presenceabsence of ART seeContini-Morava amp Danziger (forthcoming) for those data

101


(25) Bare nominal for pragmatically specific referent[Ulrich amp Ulrich (1982) lsquoTrip to Belizersquo Joseacute Mariacutea Chowoj]

pweswell

kirsquogood

keen-oorsquo1qUOT-3PL

tirsquoi3OBL

iand

jok-eenexit-1B

tojalready

ichin

najhouse

lsquo ldquoWell goodrdquo I said to them and went out of (the) housersquo

brsquoin-orsquoongo-1BPL

pachbehind

najhouse

lsquoWe went behind (the) housersquo

pueswell

tersquo=iDLOC3NV=SCOPE

in1A

jok-s-aj-oorsquoexit-CAUS-TRPFV-3PL

u3A

fotophoto

tiPREP


aART

soldadoj=osoldier=EV

lsquoWell I had taken their picture(s) when a policeman arrivedrsquo

uch-ijhappen-3BINTRPFV

u3A

charsquoangaze

ichin

najhouse

lsquoHe looked around in (the) housersquo

In (25) the narrator describes a visit to an acquaintance whose house is anexample of a referent whose specificity and uniqueness are given by the contextThe house is introduced with the bare nominal naj and is mentioned two moretimes again with a bare nominal Despite its specificity and despite the fact thatit is mentioned more than once the house is not an important participant in thisnarrative it is mentioned merely in its capacity as location22

34 Semantically specific but pragmatically nonspecific referents

Recall once again that for Dryer (2014) a semantically specific referent involvesan entailment of existence but that such referents can be either pragmaticallyspecific (recurs in discourse mdashMopan examples of such cases were treated in theprevious section) or pragmatically nonspecific A semantically specific but prag-matically nonspecific referent in Dryerrsquos terminology does not remain topical inthe discourse it is never mentioned again In narrative at least referents that re-ceive only onemention are unlikely to be important protagonists in the discoursein which they occur Dryerrsquos pragmatic nonspecificity therefore coincides to agreat extent with our lsquolow discourse saliencersquo (although we have seen that the

22Note that the preposition ich lsquoinsidersquo may also occur with an ART-marked nominal i e it isnot obligatorily followed by a bare nominal

102


converse is not the case Dryerrsquos pragmatic specificity can cover instances bothof low and of high discourse salience see examples (24a-b))

341 ART for semantically specific pragmatically nonspecific referents

ART by itself is rarely used for referents which will not be mentioned again inthe discourse (pragmatically nonspecific indefinites) This is not surprising giventhat such expressions are by definition not salient in the ensuing discourse andgiven that use of ART correlates with discourse salience While not common itis nevertheless possible for ART to appear with a semantically specific NP thatis not mentioned again as in example (26)

(26) ART for semantically specific pragmatically nonspecific referent[Ventur (1976) 204 U Kwentojil ix Pulyarsquoaj lsquoThe Story of the Witchrsquo A Krsquo]


brsquoinHSY

u3A

tzaumlj-ik-emptyfry-TRIPFV-3B

aART

jarsquoas=abanana=EV


brsquoinHSY

u3A


aART

kamut=usweetpotato=EV

lsquoShe was frying plantain(s) She was frying sweet potato(es)rsquo

Example (26) is from a story in which two children abandoned by their fatherin the forest come upon a house where an old blind woman is cooking plantainand sweet potato (recall that plural specification is optional in Mopan) Theyeventually steal the plantains but sweet potato is not mentioned again in thestory

342 Relativized deictic for semantically specific pragmatically nonspecificindefinites

Though rare it is also possible for the relativized deictic a brsquoersquo to introduce a newdiscourse referent that is not mentioned again as shown in example (27)

(27) Relativized deictic for pragmatically nonspecific referent[Ventur (1976) 103 Jun tuul Winik etel Marsquoax lsquoA Man and a Monkeyrsquo E S]

entonsesthen

tiPREP

karsquoagain

brsquoinHSY

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ilikjust

brsquoinHSY

aART

kochlastone

prsquoat-alabandon-INTRPFV

tiPREP

ukrsquo-uldrink-INTRIPFV

103


ichilinside

aART

tunichrock

aART

brsquoersquo=eD3_NV=EV

entonsesthen

puesso

tersquo=ij=iLOC3NV=SCOPE=EV


brsquoinHSY

u3A

chiit-t-ejspeakto-T-3BTRIRR

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

aart

marsquoax=amonkey=EV

lsquoThen when there was just one last (monkey) left behind drinking fromthat rock then at that point he (hero) went and spoke to that monkeyrsquo

The hero of this story a hunter who is thirsty has spotted some monkeysdrinking at a location that is not specified Fearing the monkeys he hides untilmost of them depart leaving one behind In (27) the narrator mentions for thefirst time a rock that the monkey was drinking from Although the hero even-tually befriends the monkey the rock is not mentioned again This would notbe an example of uniqueness being given by the context like the household firein example (20) because drinking at a stream in the forest does not presupposedrinking from a rock Possibly the demonstrative in (27) is meant to suggest thatthis monkey is in the same place where the others had been even though thatplace was not explicitly described

343 Emphatic pronoun for semantically specific pragmatically nonspecificindefinites

The independent pronoun lersquoek can be used for semantically specific but prag-matically nonspecific indefinites In example (28) a trickster rabbit convinces apuma that a large rock is in danger of falling over But in fact the rock is firm mdashacloud passing overhead has created the illusion of instability

(28) Lersquoek for semantically specific pragmatically nonspecific indefinite[Ventur (1976) 601 Aj Koj etel aj konejo lsquoThe Puma and the Rabbitrsquo M X]

peroDISC

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

muyalcloud

aART


u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

tiPREP

u3A

wich=iface=EV

lsquoBut it was that which is a cloud that was passing over its facersquo

104


This sentence constitutes the first and only mention of the cloud Here empha-sis on its identity (as a cloud) contrasts with the appearance of instability of therock Although the cloud is not mentioned again use of the emphatic pronounhighlights its role in the trick being played on the puma

344 Bare nominal for pragmatically nonspecific referents

Pragmatically nonspecific referents are typically referred to with bare nominalsin Mopan as shown in example (29)

(29) Bare nominal for semantically specific but pragmatically nonspecific ref-erent[Ventur (1976) 101 Aj Jookrsquo lsquoThe Fishermanrsquo R Krsquo]

puesthen

jakrsquo-s-abrsquo-ijfrighten-CAUS-PASS-3BINTRPFV

brsquoinHSY

uy(prevocalic)3A

oolfeeling

u_menby

kansnake

lsquoThen he was startled by (a) snakersquo

The snake referred to here is never mentioned again in the story It does notcontrast with any previously established expectation (as the cloud does in exam-ple (28)) nor does it play an important role in the plot

We have already noted that a notion of discourse salience mdashimportance of thereferent as a participant in the surrounding narrativemdash governs the distributionof bare nominals and of ART inMopan narratives and that this is not necessarilycoterminous with Dryerrsquos contrast between pragmatic specificity and pragmaticnonspecificity (whether a referent is or is not mentioned again in subsequentdiscourse) The examples in this and the previous section show once again thatrepeated mention or lack of it is at best an indirect marker of discourse saliencea referent may be mentioned only once but play a significant role (example (28)the cloud) and a referentmay bementionedmore than once but play a peripheralrole (example (25) the house)

35 Semantically nonspecific indefinites

Semantically nonspecific indefinites make no claim as to the actual existence ofthe referent

105


351 ART for semantically nonspecific reference

Even though the category of semantically nonspecific is at the least definite endof Dryerrsquos reference hierarchy it is possible for ART to occur in this context inMopan as shown in example (30)

(30) Use of ART for semantically nonspecific indefinite[Verbeeck (1999 11) U Kwentajil a Santo Krsquoin lsquoThe Story of the Holy Sunrsquonarrated by Alejandro Chiac]

sansamaldaily

tatzrsquofar


brsquoinHSY

u3A

brsquoelgoIPFV

u3A

tzrsquoon-orsquoshoot-3BTRIRR

aART

yuk=uantelope=EV

lsquoEvery day he went far [into the woods] to shoot an [ART] antelopersquo

In (30) there is no entailment of existence of an antelope The fact that noparticular antelope is being referred to (despite use of ART) can be inferred fromthe imperfective marking on the action of hunting along with the time refer-ence lsquoevery dayrsquo which make it highly unlikely that the same antelope would beinvolved on each occasion of hunting

352 Relativized deictic for semantically nonspecific reference

Given the strong association of a brsquoersquo lsquodeictic stative 3rd person known throughother than visual meansrsquo with anaphoric reference (sect312 above) and its high-lighting effect elsewhere we would not expect it to be used for nonspecific ref-erents and indeed we did not find any examples of a brsquoersquo used for this purposein our data

353 Independent pronoun lersquoek

We have found no examples of the independent pronoun lersquoek being used forsemantically nonspecific referents The semantics of this form (lsquothat which is3rd personrsquo) perhaps categorically preclude such usage

354 Numeral classifier construction

It is possible though rare for a numeral + classifier construction to be foundwith semantically nonspecific referents as shown in (31)

106


(31) Numeral + classifier construction for semantically nonspecific indefinite[Ventur (1976) 105 U kwentojil Santo Krsquoin y Santo Uj lsquoThe Story of the HolySun and the Holy Moonrsquo R Krsquo]

in1A

tat=afather=EV

u3A

krsquoatiwant

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ixGMF

chrsquoup=uwoman=EV

lsquoMy father he wants a womanwifersquo

Example (31) is uttered by a vulture to a womanwhom he hopes to persuade tomarry his father The father does not know this woman so the woman referredto here is nonspecific

355 Bare nominal for semantically nonspecific indefinite

In our discussion of examples (24a-b) above we mentioned that use of ART vs abare nominal correlates with discourse salience in the case of semantically spe-cific referents This contrast also applies to semantically nonspecific referentsas shown in example (32) In (32) the speaker lists several hypothetical animalsthat he wants to hunt Some are marked by ART and some are bare nominals

(32) Semantically nonspecific indefinite reference[Authorrsquos data Ix Chersquoil etel Baumlkrsquo lsquoWild Womanrsquo J S]

ixGMF

koloolpartridge

krsquoaumlnbrsquoulpheasant

koxcojolito (type of game bird)

etelwith

aART

kekrsquoenchersquowildpig

etelwith

aART

yuk=uantelope=EV

lersquoek3EMPH

kuchiDISC

in1A

krsquoatiwant

tzrsquoon-oorsquoshoot-3PL

perebut

marsquoNEG

yan-emptyexist-3B

kutrsquoan3qUOT

lsquo ldquo[GM] Partridge23 [no ART] pheasant [no ART] cojolito [type of gamebird] and [ART] wild pig and [ART] antelope those are what I reallywant to hunt but they arenrsquot thererdquo he saidrsquo

Even a hypothetical or non-existent referent can figure more or less centrallyin discourse Recall that in example (30) (sect351 above) the protagonist repeatedlyhunts for an antelope because he wants to impress a young woman with hisprowess as a hunter Even though no specific antelope is being referred to inthat example a hypothetical antelope is important to the plot the protagonist

23The word kolool lsquopartridgersquo is a feminine noun Recall (supra note 19) that for this subset ofnouns a gender marker is essentially obligatory

107


eventually tries to trick the woman by carrying a stuffed antelope skin past herhouse In (32) all the animal terms have equal status from the point of view ofnonspecificity and all play the same syntactic role but the referents differ indiscourse salience ART is omitted before the names of the birds and retainedbefore the names of the larger mammals that are more desirable as game Thewild pig and antelope are also treated differently from the birds in that they areeach introduced with the conjunction etel lsquoandwithrsquo

4 Summary and conclusions

Table 1 is a summary according to Dryerrsquos hierarchy of the distribution of ex-pressions that contribute to referential anchoring in Mopan narratives as dis-cussed in this chapter The table is not intended to make comprehensive quanti-tative claims The double pluses mean that certain types of examples are easilyfound via investigation of multiple Mopan texts the single pluses require morediligent searching Minus signs mean that we have not found any such examplesdespite diligent searching

The forms that have the most consistent connection to messages of definite-ness are the relativized deictic predicate brsquoersquo and the emphatic pronoun lersquoekfound primarily at the most definite end of the hierarchy (and not found at theleast definite end) and the jun lsquoonersquo + classifier construction which is found pri-marily at the less definite end of the hierarchy with a preference for contexts ofspecificity

Both ART and the bare nominal option appear all across the hierarchy fromthe maximally identifiable end (highly predictable anaphoric definites) to theleast identifiable end (semantically and pragmatically nonspecific) Their distri-bution is not compatible with a semantics of (in)definiteness24 Instead ART isrequired in order to entitize lexical content that would not otherwise be con-strued as an entityargument (see sect21 and Contini-Morava amp Danziger forth-coming) With lexical content that lends itself to construal as an entity ARTis optional and we have argued that its presenceabsence is sensitive to the dis-course salience of the referent ARTrsquos tendency to occurmost often at the definiteend of Dryerrsquos hierarchy follows from the fact that entities that are part of com-mon ground between speaker and addressee tend also to be relatively salient indiscourse But local contexts or nonlinguistic knowledge can lend salience even

24For further discussion of Mopan in this connection see Contini-Morava amp Danziger (forth-coming)

108


Table1

Summary

ofreferentialan

chor

ing

inMop

anin

relatio

nto

Dry

errsquos

(2014)

referenc

ehierarch

y(w

ithsu

bdivisions

forrelativ

edis-

cour

sepr

ominen

cead

ded)

Ana

phor

icde

finite

sNon

-ana

phor

icde

finite

s

Seman

tically

andpr

agmatically

spec

ificinde

finite

s

Seman

tically

spec

ific

prag

matically

nons

pecific

inde

finite

s

Seman

tically

nons

pecific

inde

finite

s

ART

++++

+a+

+

Relativ

ized

deictic

brsquoersquo

+++

++

minus

Emph

atic

pron

oun

lersquoek

+++

++

minus

NUM

+CLF

+ART

minusminus

+minus

minus

NUM

+CLF

minusminus

++

+

Bare

nominal

++

++

+

a Mos

tlikelyto

occu

rwith

high

discou

rsesalie

nce

109


to nonspecific indefinites ART in short is not a form that is dedicated to signal-ing contrasts on the definiteness dimension Nevertheless ART alone (withoutrelativized deictic or numeral classifier construction) is one of the most commonconstructions with which arguments occur in Mopan

Meanwhile the fact that the bare nominal construction is also allowable acrossall of the positions in the hierarchy makes clear that although dedicated meansfor indicating definiteness or indefiniteness exist in Mopan they are always op-tional We conclude then that the status of a discourse referent with regard torelative familiarity referentiality specificity and related notions normally con-sidered as aspects of lsquodefinitenessrsquo may be left unspecified inMopan If it is foundnecessary to make such determination in a given case this must frequently be ac-complished through pragmatic inference rather than via information explicitlysignaled by particular grammatical forms

Acknowledgments

We thank the people of San Antonio village Belize and the National Institute forCulture and History Belmopan Belize Many of the narratives fromwhich exam-ples are drawn were collected under a grant from the Wenner-Gren Foundationfor Anthropological Research Grant (4850) and a Social Sciences and Humani-ties Research Grant of Canada Fellowship (452-87-1337) others with the supportof the Cognitive Anthropology Research Group of the Max Planck Institute forPsycholinguistics and of the University of Virginia USA

Abbreviations and glosses

A set A case-role marker(Actor or Possessor)

ANIM animateB set B case-role marker

(Undergoer)D deicticDISC discourse particleEMPH emphatic pronounEV prosodic echo vowelGM gender marker

HSY hearsay particleINAN inanimateINCH inchoativeINT intensifierNV non visiblePOSS PossessivePREP general prepositionSCOPE scope cliticT transitivizerV visible

110


References

Alexiadou Artemis 2005 Possessors and (in)definiteness Lingua 115(6) 787ndash819Bricker Victoria Reifler 1981 The source of the ergative split in Yucatec Maya

Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2 83ndash117Contini-Morava Ellen amp Eve Danziger 2018 Non-canonical gender in Mopan

Maya In Sebastian Fedden amp Jenny Audring (eds) Non-canonical gender sys-tems 129ndash146 Oxford Oxford University Press

Contini-Morava Ellen amp Eve Danziger Forthcoming Determination bare argu-ments and discourse salience in Mopan Maya

Danziger Eve 1994 Out of sight out of mind Person perception and functionin Mopan Maya spatial deixis Linguistics 32(45) 885ndash907

Danziger Eve 1996 Split intransitivity and active-inactive patterning in MopanMaya International Journal of American Linguistics 62(4) 379ndash414

Danziger Eve 2008 A person a place or a thing Whorfian consequences ofsyntactic bootstrapping in Mopan Maya In Melissa Bowerman amp PenelopeBrown (eds) Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure Implicationsfor learnability 29ndash48 Mahwah NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Davis Henry Carrie Gillon amp Lisa Matthewson 2014 How to investigate linguis-tic diversity Lessons from the Pacific Northwest Language 90(4) e180ndashe226

Dryer Matthew S 2007 Noun phrase structure In Timothy Shopen (ed) Lan-guage typology and syntactic description Vol II Complex constructions 2nd Edi-tion 151ndash205 Cambridge Cambridge University Press


England Nora C amp Stephen R Elliott 1990 Lecturas sobre la linguumliacutestica MayaCentro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoameacuterica Guatemala

Gillon Carrie 2009 The semantic core of determiners In Jila Ghomeshi IleanaPaul amp Martina Wiltschko (eds) Determiners Universals and variation 178ndash213 Amsterdam John Benjamins

Gillon Carrie 2013 The semantics of determiners Domain restriction inSḵwxwuacute7mesh Newcastle upon Tyne Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Givoacuten Talmy 1978 Definiteness and referentiality In Joseph Greenberg CharlesFerguson amp Edith Moravcsik (eds) Universals of human language Vol 4 Syn-tax 291ndash330 Stanford CA Stanford University Press

Gundel Jeanette Nancy Hedberg amp Ron Zacharski 1993 Cognitive status andthe form of referring expressions in discourse Language 69(2) 274ndash307

111


Hanks William 1990 Referential practice Language and lived space among theMaya Chicago University of Chicago Press

Hawkins John A 1978 Definiteness and indefiniteness A study in reference andgrammaticality prediction London Croom Helm

Himmelmann Nikolaus 2008 Articles In Martin Haspelmath Ekkehard KoumlnigWulf Oesterreicher ampWolfgang Raible (eds) Language typology and languageuniversals Sprachtypologie und Sprachliche Universalien 831ndash841 Berlin Mou-ton De Gruyter

Hofling Charles A 2006 Juan Ceniza a Mopan Maya story Latin American In-dian Literatures Journal 22(1) 22ndash42

Jelinek Eloise 1995 Quantification in Straits Salish In Emmon Bach Eloise Je-linek Angelika Kratzer amp Barbara H Partee (eds) Quantification in naturallanguages vol 2 487ndash540 Dordrecht Kluwer


28 279ndash333Lois Ximena amp Valentina Vapnarsky 2006 Root indeterminacy and polyvalence

in Yukatekan Mayan languages In Ximena Lois amp Valentina Vapnarsky (eds)Lexical categories and root classes in Amerindian languages 69ndash116 Berlin PeterLang

Lucy John A 1994 The role of semantic value in lexical comparison Motion andposition roots in Yucatec Maya Linguistics 32 623ndash656

Lyon John 2015 Okanagan determiner phrases and domain restriction Interna-tional Journal of American Linguistics 81(2) 187ndash219

Lyons Christopher 1999 Definiteness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMatthewson Lisa 1998 Determiner systems and quantificational strategies Evi-

dence from Salish The Hague Holland Academic GraphicsPrince Ellen 1981 Toward a taxonomy of given-new information In Peter Cole

(ed) Radical pragmatics 223ndash255 New York Academic PressSasse Hans-Juumlrgen 1988 Der irokesische Sprachtyp Zeitschrift fuumlr Sprachwis-

senschaft 7(2) 173ndash213Shaw Mary 1971 Texts in Mopan In Mary Shaw (ed) According to our ances-

tors Folk texts from Guatemala and Honduras 410ndash430 Norman OK SummerInstitute of Linguistics

UlrichMatthewampRosemary Ulrich 1982 Stories of the sacred serious sensationaland silly from Mopan Maya texts Verano Guatemala Instituto Linguumliacutestico deVerano en Centroameacuterica

112


Ulrich Matthew Rosemary Ulrich amp Charles Peck 1986 Mopan Mayan verbsGuatemala City Summer Institute of Linguistics

Ventur Pierre 1976 Mopan Maya folklore texts (Accession 80-38) WashingtonDC Smithsonian Institution

Verbeeck Lieve 1999U kwentajil a Santo Krsquoin The story of the Holy Sun Narratedby Alejandro Chiac transcribed and translated by Lieve Verbeeck with theassistance of Valeria Sho Waddinxveen NL Mopan Maya Oral Literature

113

Chapter 5

The specificity marker -119890 with indefinitenoun phrases in Modern ColloquialPersianKlaus von HeusingerUniversitaumlt zu Koumlln

Roya SadeghpoorUniversitaumlt zu Koumlln

Persian has two indefinite markers the prenominal ye(k) and the suffixed -i Bothforms express particular kinds of indefiniteness as does their combination forModern Colloquial Persian indefinites ending in -i express a non-uniqueness oranti-definite implication and behave similarly to any in English Ye(k) on the otherhand expresses an at-issue existence implication and behaves similarly to the En-glish a(n) (Jasbi 2016) The combination of ye(k) and -i expresses an ignorance im-plication Modern Colloquial Persian has the specificity marker -e which can becombined with ye(k) NP as well as with the combined form of ye(k) NP-i but notwith (solitary) NP-i (Windfuhr 1979 Ghomeshi 2003) In this paper we investigatethe function of the indefinite form when combined with the specificity marker -enamely ye(k) NP-e and ye(k) NP-e-i We present two pilot studies that tested ourhypothesis which is that the contrast between these two specific forms dependson whether the specificity is speaker-anchored as for ye(k) NP-e or non-speakeranchored as for ye(k) NP-e-i The results of the two studies provide weak supportfor this hypothesis and provide additional evidence for the fine-grained structureof specificity as referential anchoring (von Heusinger 2002)

1 Introduction

Persian is a language with no definite marker and two indefinite markers InModern Colloquial Persian the prenominal indefinite article ye(k) lsquoa(n)rsquo marks

Klaus von Heusinger amp Roya Sadeghpoor 2020 The specificity marker -119890 with indefinite nounphrases in Modern Colloquial Persian In Kata Balogh Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr(eds) Nominal anchoring Specificity definiteness and article systems across languages 115ndash147Berlin Language Science Press DOI 105281zenodo4049685

Klaus von Heusinger amp Roya Sadeghpoor

an NP as indefinite and expresses an existential entailment lsquothere is at least oneNrsquo as in (1) similar to a noun phrase with the indefinite article in English InModern Colloquial Persian the suffixed (or enclitic) marker -i is interpreted asa negative polarity item (NPI) as in (2) similar to the English any (Jasbi 2014Lyons 1999 Windfuhr 1979) Both indefinite markers can be combined into acomplex indefinite consisting of ye(k) NP-i which is interpreted as a free-choiceitem as in (3) or with a certain lsquoflavorrsquo of referential ignorance as in (4) similarto some or other in English (Jasbi 2016)1

(1) Emruztoday

yeka

māšincar

tuat

xiābunstreet

didamsaw1SG

ye(k) NP (existential)

lsquoToday I saw a car on the streetrsquo

(2) Māšin-icar-i

rorā

emruztoday

tuat

xiābunstreet

didisaw2SG

NP-i (negative polarity item)

lsquoDid you see any cars on the street todayrsquo

(3) Context Ali wants to play the lottery Reza is explaining to him how it isplayed

Yeye

šomāreh-inumber-i

rorā

entexābchoose

kondo2SG

vaand

injāhere

alāmatmark

bezando2SG

ye(k) NP-i(free choice)

lsquoChoose a number and mark it herersquo

(4) Yekye

bače-ichild-i

tuat

xiābunstreet

gomlost

šodebecame3SG

budwas3SG

ye(k) NP-i (ref ignorance)

lsquoAsome child was lost in the streetrsquo

Modern Colloquial Persian has the optional suffix -e which we take to expressspecificity The literature assumes different functions of this suffix such as ademonstrative a definite or a referential function (Windfuhr 1979 40 Hincha1961 173-177 Lazard 1957 163 Ghomeshi 2003 67) or familiarity of the referent(Hedberg et al 2009) as in the anaphoric noun pesar-e in (5)

(5) Emruztoday

yea

pesarboy

vaand

yea

doxtargirl

rorā

did-amsaw-1SG

Pesar-(e)boy-e

tāsbald

budwas3SG

lsquoToday I saw a boy and a girl The boy was baldrsquo

1Persian has a differential object marker -ra-ro-a-o (generally glossed as -rā or as OM DOMor ACC) which is obligatory with definite and specific direct objects and optional with non-specific indefinite direct objects (Ghomeshi 2003 Karimi 2003 2018 Lazard 1957 1992 Wind-fuhr 1979)

116

5 The specificity marker -119890 in Persian

The suffix -e is typically used with demonstrative and definite noun phrasesbut it can also be combined with the indefinite constructions discussed abovewhich we take as evidence that it expresses specificity (or referential indefinite-ness) (i) its combination with the indefinite marker ye(k) i e ye(k) NP-e as in(6) yields a specific reading (ii) it cannot be combined with suffixed indefinite -iNP-e-i as in (7) due to the incompatibility of the specific function of -e and thefree-choice function of -i (iii) the specific marker -e however can be combinedwith the complex indefinite ye(k) NP-e-i yielding a specific reading in (8) whichis very similar to (6)

(6) Yea

pesar-eboy-e

injāhere

kārwork

mikonedo3SG

lsquoA specific boy works herersquo

(7) Diruzyesterday

māšin-icar-i

jolo-efrontof-E

daredoorof

xunehome

didisaw2SG

ndash Nano

manI

hičany

māšin-e-icar-e-i

nadidamnotsaw1SG

lsquoDid you see any cars in front of the house door yesterdayrsquoIntended reading lsquoNo I didnrsquot see any specific carrsquo

(8) Emruztoday

yea

māšin-e-icar-e-i

azfrom

poštbehind

behemtome

zadcollided3SG

lsquoToday a specific car collided into me from behindrsquo

These data then raises the following questions First what are the differencesin the meanings of the three forms expressing indefiniteness in (1) through (4) inModern Colloquial Persian Second what is the contribution of the marker -eDoes it express specificity or a different semantic pragmatic notion such as ref-erentiality demonstrativeness topicality or partitivity Third what is the func-tion of the marker -e with indefinite constructions and more specifically whatis the difference between the two (specific) indefinite constructions ye(k) NP-eand ye(k) NP-e-i We assume the following functions of the three indefinite con-structions (cf Jasbi 2014 Lyons 1999 Windfuhr 1979) (i) the indefinite markerye(k) signals a regular indefinite i e it expresses an existential entailment butdoes not encode specificity (like the English a(n)) (ii) the suffixed marker -i isa negative polarity item (like the English any) (iii) the combination of the twomarkers resulting in ye(k) NP-i shows an ignorance or free-choice implicature

Second we assume that the marker -e in Modern Colloquial Persian signalsspecificity in terms of ldquoreferential anchoringrdquo in accordance with von Heusinger

117


(2002) An indefinite is referentially anchored if the speaker or another promi-nent discourse referent can readily identify the referent This more fine-grainednotion of specificity allows us to formulate our Hypothesis 1 about the semanticdifference between the two indefinite constructions with the specificity markernamely ye(k) NP-e and ye(k) NP-e-i the specific indefinite construction ye(k) NP-eonly reflects the intention of the speaker (or speaker-oriented specificity) whilethe form ye(k) NP-e-i only expresses the intention of another salient discourseparticipant (i e non-speaker-oriented specificity)

In sect2 we provide a brief overview of the variety of indefinites found in dif-ferent languages as well as the ranges of different functions that indefinites cantake In particular we focus on the contrast between speaker-oriented specificityand non-speaker-oriented specificity In sect3 we discuss the different functions ofthe indefinite markers in Modern Colloquial Persian and modify the approachof Jasbi (2016) In sect4 we present some relevant data for the use of the marker -ein Modern Colloquial Persian and in sect5 we present the two pilot studies thataddressed our hypotheses about the speaker-oriented specificity of these formsFinally sect6 provides a discussion and a conclusion

2 Indefinites in the languages of the world

21 Indefinite articles

Languages differ as to whether or not they mark indefinite noun phrases withspecial morphological means such as indefinite articles In Dryerrsquos (2005) WALSsample 57 of the languages do not have indefinite articles

Among the 43 of languages that do have an indefinite marker we find somethat have more than one indefinite marker or article which often expresses the

Table 1 Types of article systems (Dryer 2005)

Type of article system Instances Percentages

Indefinite word distinct from numeral for lsquoonersquo 91 19Numeral for lsquoonersquo is used as indefinite article 90 19Indefinite affix on noun 23 5No indefinite article but definite article 81 17Neither indefinite nor definite marker 188 40

Total 473 100

118


contrast between a specific reading as in (9a) and a non-specific reading as in(9b) from Lakhota North America (Latrouite amp Van Valin 2014 405)2

(9) a Woacutewapibook

waƞa[+specific]

o⟨Oslash-waacute⟩lelookfor⟨INAN-1SGA⟩

[oleacute lsquolook forrsquo]

lsquoIrsquom looking for a [particular] bookrsquob Woacutewapi

bookwaƞžiacutea[minusspecific]


lsquoIrsquom looking for a book [any book will do]rsquo

Moroccan Arabic provides a three-way system of indefinite marking (i) barenouns are not marked for specificity as in (10a) (ii) a specific indefinite articlewahed-l composed of the numeral lsquoonersquo and the definite article as in (10b) (iii)a non-specific indefinite article shi derived from the word for lsquothingrsquo as in (10c)(from Fassi-Fehri 2006 see Brustad 2000 26-31 for other Arabic dialects)

(10) a MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F

te-t-zewwejto-F-marry

b-muhamiwith-lawyer

wa-layennibut

waldii-haaparents-her

manot

bghaw-eh-shwanted-him-neg

wa-layennibut

manot

lqa-t-u-shmet-her-him-NEG

lsquoMaryam wanted to marry a lawyer but her parents donrsquot likehimbut she has not met one yetrsquo

b MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F


b-wahedwith-one

r-rajelthe-man

wa-layennibut

manot


lsquoMaryam wanted to marry a (specific) man but she hasnrsquot foundhim(one)rsquo

c MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F


b-shiwith-some

rajelman

wa-layennibut

manot


lsquoMaryam wanted to marry a (non-spec) man but she hasnrsquot foundone(him)rsquo

2Abbreviations A lsquoactorrsquo INAN lsquoinanimatersquo

119


We will argue in this paper that Modern Colloquial Persian not only exhibitsthe specific vs non-specific contrast as in Lakhota andMoroccan but also allowsus to morphologically mark a more fine-grained structure of specificity namelywhether the specific indefinite is oriented to the speaker or to some other promi-nent discourse referent within the context

22 Speaker- vs non-speaker-oriented specificity

German like English and other languages has just one indefinite article (11a)However it has other means of marking the specificity or referentiality of anassociated noun phrase While the regular indefinite in (11a) allows for both awide- and a narrow-scope reading of the indefinite the indefinite demonstrativein (11b) clearly signals a referential reading and forces a wide-scope reading

(11) a Jeder Student sagte ein Gedicht von Pindar auflsquoEvery student recited a poem by Pindarrsquo

b Jeder Student sagte dieses Gedicht von Pindar auflsquoEvery student recited thisindef poem by Pindarrsquo

Many languages also have special adjectives that can induce different degreesof specificity Ebert et al (2013 31) discuss the differences between the Germanadjectives ein bestimmter and ein gewisser both of which the authors translate aslsquoa certainrsquo even though the English translation does not reflect the subtle differ-ences in meaning of the German adjectives Their main observation is that bothadjectives force the indefinite noun phrase to scope over the intentional verbsuchen lsquosearchrsquo (12a-b) while the regular indefinite also allows for the narrow-scope reading as in (12c)

(12) a Peter sucht eine bestimmte CD zwei bestimmte CDs bestimmte CDsPeter searches a BESTIMMT CD two BESTIMMT CDs BESTIMMT CDslsquoPeter is looking for a certain CD two certain CDs certain CDsrsquo

exist gt SEARCHb Peter sucht eine gewisse CD zwei gewisse CDs gewisse CDs

Peter searches a GEWISS CD two GEWISS CDs GEWISS CDslsquoPeter is looking for a certain CD two certain CDs certain CDsrsquo

exist gt SEARCHc Peter sucht eine CD zwei CDs CDs

Peter searches a CD two CDs CDslsquoPeter is looking for a CD two CDs CDsrsquo SEARCH gt exist exist gt SEARCH

120


The authors claim that the main difference between ein bestimmter and eingewisser has to do with the bearer of the referential intention of that indefiniteFor ein gewisser only the speaker of the sentence can have that referential inten-tion For ein bestimmter in contrast the speaker or some other salient discourseagent such as the subject of the sentence can have this intention This can beshown by the incompatibility of ein gewisser with speaker ignorance in (13b) Themost natural reading of (13a) is that Peter knows which CD but the speaker doesnot So the speaker only reports the assertion that there is some source (e g thesubject) that has this referential intention

(13) a Peter sucht eine bestimmte CD aber ich weiszlig nicht welchelsquoPeter is looking for a BESTIMMT CD but I do not know which onersquo

b Peter sucht eine gewisse CD aber ich weiszlig nicht welchelsquoPeter is looking for a GEWISS CD but I do not know which onersquo

We can rephrase Ebert et alrsquos observation in terms of ldquoreferential anchoringrdquoin von Heusinger (2002 2011 see also Onea ampGeist 2011) The idea is that specificindefinites are anchored to the discourse referent that holds the referential inten-tion about the identity of the referent In a default case indefinites are anchoredto the speaker of the utterance However they can also be anchored to someother salient discourse referent such as the subject of the sentence or other (im-plicit) referents (For more on the notion of salience or prominence in discoursesee von Heusinger amp Schumacher 2019) We use this notion of speaker-orientedspecificity vs non-speaker-oriented specificity to account for the differences be-tween the two specific indefinite constructions in Modern Colloquial PersianThat is we will draw parallels between the two specific indefinite constructionsin Modern Colloquial Persian and the contrast found for the German specificityadjectives ein gewisser vs ein bestimmter

3 Types of indefinites in Persian

Persian is a language with two dominant registers spoken and written Persianboth of which have informal and formal forms that are very distinct (Jasbi 2014Lazard 1957 1992 Modarresi 2018 Nikravan 2014 Windfuhr 1979) The languagethat we investigate in this paper is Standard Modern Colloquial Persian Thefunction of the indefinite marker varies with register the specificity marker -eis only used in Modern Colloquial Persian In this section we provide a briefoverview of the way definiteness is expressed the different indefinite forms inStandardWritten Persian and the use and function of indefinite forms inModernColloquial Persian

121


31 Definiteness in Persian

Persian does not have a definite article but it has two markers for indefiniteness(see the next section) To express definiteness then Persian typically uses barenoun phrases This holds for different kinds of definite noun phrases The definitein (14a) is a familiar definite (14b) is a typical bridging definite (14c) shows aunique definite and (14d) is an example of generic use

(14) a AnneAnne

yeka

xunehouse

xaridbought

Xunehouse

labeon

marzeedgeof

kešvarecountrybe3SG

lsquoAnne bought a house The house is at the border of the countryrsquob Anne

Anneraftewent3SG

budAUX3SG

yea

marāsemeceremony

arusimarriage

Arusbride

xeylivery

xošgelbeautiful

budwas3SG

lsquoAnne went to a wedding The bride was very beautifulrsquoc Māh

moonxeylivery

rošanbright

mideraxšePROGshine3SG

lsquoThe moon shines very brightlyrsquod Dianāsor

dinosaur6060

milionmillion

sāleyear

qablago

monqarezextinct

šodebecame3SG

lsquoDinosaurs became extinct 60 million years agorsquo

There is controversy among scholars as to whether in Persian bare nouns areinherently definite (Krifka amp Modarresi 2016) or underspecified with respect todefiniteness and genericity (Ghomeshi 2003) Although it is not clear whether ornot the non-specific indefinite nature of bare nouns can be detached from theirgeneric (kind) reading Dayal (2017) argues using Hindi as an example againstthe view that bare nouns are ambiguous and can have either a definite or an in-definite reading She concludes that bare singulars in articleless languages likeHindi are definite and not indefinite (specificnon-specific) and that their appar-ent indefiniteness is construction-specific or restricted to bare plurals Šimiacutek ampBurianovaacute (2020) claim that in Czech bare NPs where they are indefinite can-not be specific Rather bare NPs are either definite or indefinite non-specificwhich is in line with Dayalrsquos argument Šimiacutek amp Burianovaacute (2020) finally anno-tate bare nouns for (in)definiteness and their findings suggest that the definite-ness of a bare noun is affected by its absolute position in the clause and thatindefinite bare NPs are unlikely to occur in clause-initial position (see also Borik

122


et al 2020 [this volume]) Note that this is also applicable to Persian Persianbare nouns can express a non-definite reading as in (15a) with a kind-reading oflsquobookrsquo or a definite-reading of lsquobookrsquo as in (15b) Note that a bare noun in the pre-verbal direct object position is typically interpreted as pseudo-incorporated (inthe sense of Massam 2001) as in (15c) while a definite reading must be signaledby the object marker -rā as in (15d) (see Modarresi 2014 for an analysis of baredirect objects in Persian)

(15) a Rooon

miztable

ketābebookbe3SG

lsquoThere is asome book on the tablersquob Ketāb

bookrooon

mizetablebe3SG

lsquoThe book is on the tablersquoc Ali

Aliketābbook

xaridbought3SG

lsquoAli bought bookbooksrsquod Ali

Aliketāb-rābook-rā

xaridbought3SG

lsquoAli bought the bookrsquo

32 Indefiniteness in Standard Written Persian

Standard Written Persian has the suffixed3 indefinite marker -i which has quitea large range of functions and the independent lexeme ye(k) which derives fromthe numeral yek but behaves like a regular indefinite article4 Both forms can becombined yielding three different indefinite configurations ye(k) NP NP-i andye(k) NP-i For Standard Written Persian the suffixed -i has indefinite readings

3There is some controversy as to whether -i is suffixed or enclitic Herein we follow the worksof Ghomeshi (2003) Hincha (1961) Karimi (2003) Paul (2008) This does not affect our analysisin any way

4Ghomeshi (2003 64-65) shows that the indefinite article ye(k) is different from the numeralyek The former can appear without a classifier (i) which is obligatory for numerals as in (ii)(see also Bisang amp Quang 2020 [this volume] for Vietnamese) and the indefinite article canalso appear with plurals as in (iii)

(i) ye-(ta)a-(CL)

ketabbook

(ii) se-(ta)three-(CL)

ketabbook

(iii) yea

ketab-ha-ibook-PL-IND

lsquoa bookrsquo lsquothree booksrsquo lsquosome booksrsquo

123


including readings that undergo negation and other operators The use of ye(k) isthought to express the typical ldquocardinalrdquo reading of indefinites There is no cleardelimitation of the function of the combined form ye(k) NP-i

Windfuhr (1979) considers NP-i to have three functions (i) as -i of lsquounitrsquo theconstruction has similar functions as a(an) in English (ii) as -i of indefinitenessthe construction is very similar to what Jasbi (2016) describes as lsquoantidefinitersquosimilar to lsquoanyrsquo or lsquosomersquo (iii) as demonstrative -i the construction appears withrelative clauses5 Toosarvandani and Nasser (2017) report that some traditional(Lambton 1953) as well as contemporary linguists (Ghomeshi 2003) assume thatthe indefinite determiner yek+NP and the suffixed NP-i can be equivalent in pos-itive assertive contexts see example (16) (mainly in non-contemporary or moreliterary usages) however Toosarvandani and Nasser (2017) provide examplesthat show a difference in distribution and meaning between the two construc-tions mainly in negative non-assertive contexts see examples (17) and (18) Inthe following the two indefinitesrsquo similarities and differences are discussed

Since -i is a suffix it can occur with quantifiers In fact when universal quan-tifiers such as har (lsquoeveryrsquo) and hich (lsquonorsquo) are present the suffixed -i usually ac-companies the NP Lyons (1999 90) states that the ldquosuffix -i semantically marksthe noun phrase as non-specific or arbitrary in reference and is approximatelyequivalent to any in nonassertive contexts and somehellipor other in positive declar-ative contextsrdquo Ghomeshi (2003 64-65) argues that the two forms partly overlapbut that the suffixed -i has a wider range of application She does not discuss thecombined form however Paul (2008 325) argues that -i has the function of ldquopick-ing out and individuating entitiesrdquo He argues that this function should be keptseparate from specificity and referentiality Hincha (1961 169-170) assumes thatye(k) expresses an individualized entity while -i signals an arbitrarily chosen el-ement of a class Modarresi (2014 16-19) focuses on the differences between barenouns in an object position and ye(k) NP and NP-i objects The latter both intro-duce discourse referents and show scopal effects while the bare noun does notWe cannot do justice to the whole discussion on indefinites in written Persianbut we try to summarize the main and hopefully uncontroversial observationsin Table 2

Semantically yek NP-i can express existence and signals that the referent isarbitrarily chosen (Lyons 1999) Pragmatically it can show a speakerrsquos indiffer-ence or ignorance or a free-choice implication (Jasbi 2016) In written form thethree indefinites behave similarly in positive declarative contexts as shown in(16a-c)

5There is an ongoing discussion as to whether the use with relative clauses is a use of thesuffixed article or a different morpheme (see discussion in Ghomeshi 2003 65)

124


Table 2 Definite and indefinite constructions in Standard Written Per-sian

Function Form Positive context Negativecontext

definite NP uniqueness andfamiliarity

wide scope

indefinite ndash expressinglsquocardinalityrsquo orlsquoexistential entailmentrsquo

ye(k) NP cardinal readingexistential lsquoaone Nrsquo

variationbetweenwide andnarrow scope

indefinite existential NP-i existentiallsquoone of a classrsquolsquosome or otherrsquo

NPI-narrowscope-lsquoanyrsquo

indefinite ndash expressinglsquocardinalityrsquo orlsquoexistential entailmentrsquoand speakerrsquosindifference or ignorance

ye(k) NP-i existentialarbitrary inreferencespeakerrsquosindifference similar toGerman lsquo(irgend)jemandrsquo

wide scope

(16) Context There were three books Ali bought one of thema Ali

Aliketāb-ibook-i

xaridbought3SG

lsquoHe bought asome bookrsquob Ali

Aliyeka

ketābbook

xaridbought3SG

lsquoHe bought a bookrsquoc Ali

Aliyeka

ketāb-ibook-i

xaridbought3SG

lsquoAli bought asome bookrsquo

Considering negation ye(k) NP-i takes a wide scope over negatives and ques-tions while NP-i takes a narrow scope in the same context and ye(k) NP cantake variable scope (Toosarvandani amp Nasser 2017 8-9 Modarresi 2014 26-30)The acceptability of a wide scope under negation with different indefinites isillustrated in (17) and (18) Context (17) forces a narrow-scope reading for the in-

125


definites which is available for NP-i in (17a) and ye(k) NP in (17b) but not forye(k) NP-i in (17c) The context in (18) strongly suggests a wide-scope readingwhich is not available for NP-i in (18a) but possible for ye(k) NP in (18b) and forye(k) NP-i in (18c) (Note that the wide-scope reading goes hand in hand with theobject marker -rā)

(17) Context There were three possible books I could buy I didnrsquot buy any ofthema Man

Iketāb-ibook-i

naxaridamnotbought1SG

lsquoI didnrsquot buy any booksrsquo not gt existb Man

Ihattāeven

yea

ketābbook

hamalso


lsquoI didnrsquot buy any bookrsquo not gt existc Man

Iyea

ketāb-ibook-i

rorā


Intended lsquoI didnrsquot buy any bookrsquo not gt exist(18) Context There were three possible books that I could buy I bought two of

them but not the thirda Man

Iketāb-ibook-i


lsquoThere is a book I didnrsquot buyrsquo exist gt notb Man

Iyea

ketābbook

rorā


lsquoThere is a book I didnrsquot buyrsquo exist gt notc Man

Iyea

ketāb-ibook-i

rorā


Intended lsquoThere is a book I didnrsquot buyrsquo 6 exist gt notAs shown in (18a) NP-i takes wide scope neither under negation nor under

questions (similar to NPIs) However in positive contexts (written form) it be-haves similarly to simple indefinites and can have an existential or numericalimplication

6(18c) is felicitous in the written variety with DOM lsquorārsquo whereas it is not felicitous in ModernColloquial Persian

126


33 Indefiniteness marking in Modern Colloquial Persian

One of the main distinctions between the system of indefinite forms in the writ-ten vs spoken register is the semantic role of suffixed -i In the written register-i is a common way of marking an indefinite NP whereas in colloquial Persianyek NP is common and -i is very restricted as it is used as an NPI Jasbi (2016246) categorizes the indefinite markers in his native Tehrani colloquial Persianinto three main categories simple complex and antidefinite He illustrates theirdifference in the following table

Table 3 Definite and indefinite constructions in Modern ColloquialPersian (Jasbi 2016 246)

Type Form Example Translation

Definites Bare NP māshin the car

Simple ye NP ye māshin a carIndefinites Antidefinite NP-i māshin-i sim aany car

Complex ye NP-i ye-māshin-i sim some car or other

Jasbi calls ye(k) NP a simple indefinite because it behaves similarly to a(n) inEnglish and carries an existential inference (|JNPK|ge1) On the other hand NP-i entails an antidefinite interpretation meaning that it rejects any set that canhave a unique inference (|JNPK|ne1) and can have a non-existential implication(|JNPK|=0) Therefore the respective set either is empty or contains more thanone element Now the complex indefinite ye(k) NP-i has an anti-singleton impli-cation (|JNPK|gt1) which is compositionally derived from the existential inferenceand the anti-uniqueness condition The summary of the semantic differences pro-posed by Jasbi (2016 251) is provided in Table 4

Table 4 Cardinality implications for definites and indefinites in Mod-ern Colloquial Persian (Jasbi 2016 251)

Type Form Cardinality

Definite Bare NP |JNPK| = 1

Simple ye NP |JNPK| ge 1Indefinite Antidefinite NP-i |JNPK| ne 1

Complex ye NP-i |JNPK| gt 1

127


To summarize the function of the different indefinite markers in StandardWritten Persian is controversial and their function in Standard Colloquial Per-sian requires more investigation Based on Jasbirsquos (2016) semantic characteriza-tion (see Table 4) and the examples discussed above as well as in the subsequentsections we assume that the form ye(k) NP corresponds to the unmarked indefi-nite the form NP-i only appears with negation in conditionals and in questionsand the combined form ye(k) NP-i expresses a speakerrsquos ignorance or indiffer-ence

4 The specificity marker -e in Modern Colloquial Persian

Modern Colloquial Persian has the suffix -e which can optionally combine withbare i e definite noun phrases demonstrative noun phrases and indefinitenoun phrases With bare noun phrases -e is assumed to express a demonstrativeor definite function (Windfuhr 1979 40 Lazard 1957 163 Ghomeshi 2003 67Toosarvandani amp Nasser 2017 Jasbi 2020a) Hincha (1961 173-177) summarizesthe distributional properties of -e it is always optional mdash there are no conditionsthat makes its use obligatory If used it is always accented and attached directlyto the stem It stands in opposite distribution to the plural suffix -hā i e either-hā or -e can be used but not both which leads Hincha (1961 175) to assume thatboth suffixes share some features and express some contradictory features suchas number Ghomeshi (2003 68) adds that -e ldquocannot attach to anything alreadyof category Drdquo such as proper names pronouns and noun phrases containingpossessors It cannot combine with the suffixed marker -i but as we will discussbelow it can combine with the complex ye(k) NP-i With indefinite noun phrasesthe suffix signals specificity In the following we first provide an overview of spe-cific definite contexts that license the use of the marker and then provide dataon the possible combination of the marker with indefinite constructions

41 Specificity marker -e with definites

Modern Colloquial Persian can express (certain kinds of) definiteness by meansof the marker -e which is absent in Standard Written Persian (Windfuhr 197950 Ghomeshi 2003) The function of -e is described as demonstrative definitedeterminative or referential Hincha (1961 176) assumes that -e signals that theNP refers to one particular or individualized entity (ldquoEinzelgegenstandrdquo) Thereis no comprehensive study of this marker

128


There is an interesting distribution of -e with the unmarked bare noun Nikra-van (2014) argues that there is a functional difference between unmarked nounphrases on the one hand and noun phrases marked with -e on the other Theformer express weak definiteness and the latter strong definiteness as is foundin other languages with two definite articles (see Schwarz 2013) Strong formsare used in anaphoric and situational contexts while weak forms appear in en-cyclopedic unique and generic contexts This contrast is illustrated in (19)

(19) Emruztoday

yeka

pesarboy

vaand

yeka

doxtargirl

rorā

didamsaw1SG

Pesar(-e)boy(-e)

rorā

mišnāxtamknew1SG

lsquoToday I saw a boy and a girl I knew the boyrsquo

In (19) pesar lsquoboyrsquo is anaphoric and much more acceptable with the marker-e than without it Consequently it is argued that in contexts where an explicitantecedent is present the strong definite is used Other scholars propose that-e marks familiarity of the associated referent (Hedberg et al 2009) The resultsof a questionnaire presented in Nikravan (2014) seem to indicate that there is amarginal effect of -e towards a familiarity reading However it is unclear fromher presentation whether the effect is statistically reliable or not The results alsoshow that the use of -e is optional as in (19)

The use of -e with different types of definite noun phrases (see (14) above)provides further evidence that (i) the use of -e is optional and (ii) -e can onlybe used with referential definites i e anaphorically used definites as in (20a)and definites in bridging contexts as in (20b) The use of -e is ungrammatical forunique definites as in (20c) and generic uses as in (20d)

(20) a AnneAnne

yeka

xunehouse

xaridebought3SG

Xune(-he)house(-he)

labeon

marzeedgeof



Anneraftewent3SG

budAUX3SG

yea

marāsemeceremony

arusimarriage

Arus(-e)bride(-e)

xeylivery

xošgelbeautiful

budwas3SG

lsquoAnne went to a wedding The bride was very beautifulrsquoc Māh(-e)

moon(-e)xeylivery

rošanbright


lsquoThe moon shines very brightlyrsquo

129


d Dianāsor(-e)dinosaur(-e)

6060

milionmillion

sāleyear

qablago

monqarezextinct

šodebecame3SG


The referential function of -e can also be shown in the contrast between areferential and an attributive reading of a definite NP (Donnellan 1966 Keenanamp Ebert 1973) Sentence (21) strongly suggests an attributive or non-referentialreading of the noun barande-ye lsquothe winner whoever the winner will bersquo In thisreading the use of -e is ungrammatical which confirms the assumption that -esignals referentiality in the sense that the hearer as well as the speaker canuniquely identify the referent of the noun phrase

(21) Barandeye(-e)winner(-e)of

inthis

mosābeqecompetition

yeka

safartrip

beto

ālmānGermany

migiradget3SG

lsquoThe winner of this competition (whoever heshe is) will get a trip toGermanyrsquo

Therefore we can conclude that the function of -e is to mark referentiallystrong definites i e definites that refer to a discourse referent that was explicitlyor implicitly introduced into the linguistic context

42 The suffix -e with indefinites

The specificity marker -e can combine with two of the three indefinite configu-rations as in the examples (6)-(8) above repeated here as (22)-(24)

(22) Ye(k)a

pesar-eboy-e

injāhere

kārwork

mikonedo3SG

lsquoA (specific) boy works herersquo

(23) Diruzyesterday

māšin-icar-i

jolo-efrontof-E

daredoorof

xunehome

didisaw2SG

ndash Nano

manI

hičany

māšin-e-icar-e-i

nadidamnotsaw1SG

lsquoDid you see any cars in front of the house door yesterdayrsquoIntended lsquoNo I didnrsquot see any specific carrsquo

(24) EmruzToday

yea

māšin-e-icar-e-i

azfrom

poštbehind

behemtome

zadsmashed3SG

lsquoToday someother (specific) car smashed me from behindrsquo

130


The form NP-i cannot combine with -e We speculate that this is due to a con-flict of the referential meaning of -e and the NPI-meaning of NP-i in ModernColloquial Persian7

However both forms with the indefinite article ye(k) can combine with -eyielding ye(k) NP-e and ye(k) NP-e-i respectively With both indefinite construc-tions the marker -e signals referential and wide-scope readings of the indefinitesThe regular indefinites ye doxtar in (25a) and ye doxtar-i in (25c) allow for (i) awide-scope and (ii) a narrow-scope reading with respect to the universal quanti-fier However the forms ye doxtar-e in (25b) and ye doxtar-e-i in (25d) only allowfor a wide-scope referential or specific reading We find the same contrast forindefinites in sentences with verbs of propositional attitudes as in (26) The -emarked indefinites can only take a wide scope with respect to the intensionaloperator mixad lsquoto wantrsquo

(25) a Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtargirl

raqsidandanced3PL

(i) lsquoThere is a girl such that every boy danced with herrsquo(ii) lsquoFor every boy there is a different girl such that that boy danceswith herrsquo

b Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-egirl-e

raqsidandanced3PL

(i) lsquoThere is a girl such that every boy danced with herrsquoc Hame

allpesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-igirl-i

raqsidandanced3PL


d Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

raqsidandanced3PL

(i) lsquoThere is a girl such that every boy danced with herrsquo

(26) a AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtargirl

dustfriend

šebecome3SG

(i) lsquoAli wants to make friends with a specific girlrsquo(ii) lsquoAli wants to make friends with a girlwhoever she may bersquo

7The occurrence of -ewithNP-i is not possible with restrictive relative clauses (Ghomeshi 2003)

131


b AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-egirl

dustfriend

šebecome3SG

(i) lsquoAli wants to make friends with a specific girlrsquoc Ali

Alimixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-igirl-i

dustfriend

šebecome3SG


d AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

dustfriend

šebecome3SG

(i) lsquoAli wants to make friends with a specific girlrsquo

We take the distribution of -e discussed here as a good evidence that themarkerencodes a specific or referential reading of the indefinite8

43 Specificity marker and referential anchoring

Epistemic specific indefinites express the ldquoreferential intentionrdquo of the speakerThat is the speaker signals with these expressions that he or she has alreadydecided on the referent of the indefinite Non-specific indefinites on the otherhand assert the existence of an individual that falls under the descriptive con-tent of the indefinite but not a particular individual The concept of epistemicspecificity as speaker-oriented (or speaker-anchored) seems too narrow how-ever as we also find (epistemic) specific indefinites where the speaker cannotidentify the referent but can recognize some other salient discourse participantTherefore von Heusinger (2002 2019) proposes the concept of ldquoreferential an-choringrdquo modeling the dependency of the referent of the indefinite from someother salient discourse referent or participant (typically the speaker the subject

8Here we leave open what the exact semantics of the marker -e is Hincha (1961 176) describes itas ldquopunctualizationrdquo Jasbi (2020b) assumes that the marker -e creates a singleton set therebysimulating wide-scope behavior However this approach would not explain why it can be usedwith certain definites and why it can be combined with the complex form ye(k) NP-e-i as itwould include the combination of a singleton and an anti-uniqueness condition An alternativeapproach is to assume that the marker is interpreted as an indexed choice function (Egli amp vonHeusinger 1995 Winter 1997) that selects one element out of a set This would explain the usewith certain definites and also the complementary distribution with the plural suffix -hā Suchan account could provide an explanation for the definiteness effect on bare nouns (The valuefor the index of the choice function is provided by the local situation or the local discoursebut not by encyclopedic knowledge) In the form ye(k) NP-e the index is locally bound by thespeaker and for the form ye(k) NP-e-i the index can also be bound by other salient discoursereferents

132


of the sentence etc) The discussion of the contrast between the specificity ad-jectives ein gewisser and ein bestimmter in sect22 was explained along these linesein gewisser is speaker-oriented while ein bestimmter is not obligatorily speaker-oriented i e it can also be anchored to another salient agent in the discourse

The two indefinite forms ye(k) NP-e and ye(k) NP-e-i are interpreted as specificor referential indefinites We suggest that the difference between the two formslies in the specificity orientation in epistemic contexts It seems that the formye(k) NP-e-i is less acceptable in general however we still find examples such asthe following on Twitter9

(27) Tanhāialone

vasatemiddleof

pārkeparkof

MellatMellat

nešastamsitting1SG

yea

xānum-e-iwoman-e-i

dāreAUX3SG

kenāramnextme

QurānQuran

mixunereading3SG

lsquoI am sitting alone in the middle of Mellat Park and some woman isreading the Quran next to mersquo

(28) Yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

tuat

bašgāhamgymmy

hastbe3SG

ajabwhat

heykalibody-shape

dārehave3SG

lsquoThere is some girl at the gym I go to that has a perfect body-shapersquo

(29) ZoškZoshk

kethat

berimgo1PL

yea

sag-e-idog-e-i

hamalso

hastbe3SG

unjāthere

tāzerecently

āšnāfamiliar

šodegot3SG

bāhāmwithmelsquoIf we go to Zoshk there is some dog there that made friends with me lasttimersquo

(30) Yea

darscourse

dāštamhad1SG

bewith

esmename

ldquoRiāzildquoMath

Pišrafterdquoadvancedrdquo

Unjāthere

yea

pesar-e-iboy-e-i

budwas3SG

bewith

esmenameof

VahidVahid

yaor

HamidHamid

lsquoI had a course called ldquoAdvanced Mathematicsrdquo There was some boynamed Vahid or Hamidrsquo

9The first anonymous reviewer pointed out that all the Twitter examples (27)-(30) are speaker-oriented and would therefore contradict our hypothesis that the form ye(k) NP-e-i is non-speaker-oriented We think that it is difficult to judge this without more context Moreoverwe believe that in most of the examples the speaker signals that he or she is not able or will-ing to reveal the identity of the indefinite NP The main point of the Twitter examples is toshow that these forms are in current use which contradicts some assumptions made in theliterature

133


We propose that the basic function of the suffixed indefinite article -i in Mod-ern Colloquial Persian is to signal speaker ignorance or indifference Combiningspeaker ignorance with the epistemic specificity or referentiality might resultin a semantic-pragmatic condition which we have termed non-speaker-orientedspecificity (see discussion in sect22 above) Therefore we hypothesize that the dif-ference between these two forms is the orientation or anchoring of the specificityrelation For ye(k) NP-e we assume that the indefinite is referentially anchoredto the speaker i e the indefinite is speaker-oriented specific The form ye(k)NP-e-i in contrast is referentially anchored to a discourse referent other thanthe speaker i e it is non-speaker-oriented We summarize this hypothesis inTable 510

Table 5 Specificity marker -e with different indefinite markers in Mod-ern Colloquial Persian

CombinationIndefinite Cardinality Pragmatic with specificity

form (Jasbi 2016) difference marker -e Assumed function

ye(k)+NP |JNPK| gt 1 normal indefinite acceptable speaker-orientedmarker like a(n) specificity

NP-i |JNPK| ne 1 with negations ungrammatical ndashconditionalsand questions

ye(k)+NP-i |JNPK| gt 1 speakerrsquos less acceptable non-speakerindifference or -orientedignorance is specificitymore likely

Our hypothesis makes clear predictions about the acceptability of sentencescontaining these forms in contexts that express a speaker orientation vs a non-speaker orientation of the indefinite We assume that the indefinite ye ostād-eexpresses a speaker orientation which predicts that the continuation (31i) is co-herent while the continuation (31ii) is incoherent For the indefinite yek ostād-e-iin sentence (32) we assume a non-speaker-orientation which predicts that con-tinuation (32i) is not felicitous while continuation (32ii) is

10Our second reviewer askswhetherwe assume a compositional semantics whichwould providean independent function for each marker or whether we assume just one function for thewhole construction For a compositional approach see Jasbi (2016) for the indefinite formsand footnote 8 in this chapter on the choice function approach to the specificity marker -eHowever we have not yet developed full semantics for these configurations

134


(31) SārāSara

yea

ostād-eprofessor-e

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave

lsquoSara likes a specific professor very muchrsquo(i) Man

Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor

lsquoI know who he isrsquo(ii) Vali

butnemidunamnotknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor

lsquoBut I donrsquot know which professorrsquo

(32) SārāSara

yea

ostād-e-iprofessor-e-i

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave

lsquoSara likes some specific professor very muchrsquo(i) Man

Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor



kudumwhich

ostādprofessor


We can summarize this prediction in Table 6 with the expected acceptabilityof the continuation11

11The second reviewer also suggested that we test the examples (31)-(32) without the specificitymarker -e as in (31prime) and (32prime) The reviewer reported that his or her informants would acceptthe continuations (i) and (ii) for both sentences but that the informants expressed a preferencefor (31primeii) and (32primei) which would be the opposite of the expectation expressed for (31)-(32) Weagree that both continuations are good for both sentences but we do not share their prefer-ences We do not have any predictions with respect to (31prime) and (32prime) Note that both (31)(32)and (31prime)(32prime) have the direct object marker -rā which is assumed to express specificity byitself We cannot go into details about the difference between the function of -e and -rā herehowever our test items had examples with and without -rā

(31prime) SārāSara

yea

ostādprofessor

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave

(i) ManI

midunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor

lsquoSara likes a specific professor very muchrsquo lsquoI know who he isrsquo


yea

ostād-iprofessor-i

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave

(ii) Valibut

nemidunamnotknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor

lsquoSara likes some specific professor very muchrsquo lsquoBut I donrsquot know which professorrsquo

135


Table 6 Prediction of type of epistemic specificity of -e marked indefi-nites

Indefiniteform

Epistemic type Example Context Preditedacceptability

ye(k) NP-e speaker-specific (31) (i) speaker knowledge very goodye(k) NP-e speaker-specific (31) (ii) speaker ignorance ye(k) NP-e-i non-speaker-specific (32) (i) speaker knowledge ye(k) NP-e-i non-speaker-specific (32) (ii) speaker ignorance good

5 Empirical evidence for speaker orientation of specificnoun phrases

In this section we present two pilot acceptability studies that tested the predic-tions outlined above In the first pilot we used eight sentences which we con-tinued with either (i) a context that was only coherent with a speaker-orientedspecific reading or (ii) a context that was only coherent with a non-speaker-oriented specific reading The results show that simple indefinites with ye(k)NP-e regardless of their specificity orientation are more acceptable than com-plex indefinites but there were no clear effects of specificity orientation Weassume that our results might reflect a mix-up between different degrees of an-imacy in the included indefinites Therefore we conducted a second pilot studywith only human indefinites and a different design as well as simple sentencesand their speaker-oriented vs non-speaker-oriented continuations we also pre-sented sentences that clearly signaled speaker ignorance in order to test whetherinformants can distinguish between different specificity orientations The resultsof the second study not only confirm that speakers are capable of making thisdistinction but also provide some support for our claim that the simple indef-inite ye(k) NP-e is speaker-oriented and the complex indefinite ye(k) NP-e-i isnon-speaker-oriented

51 Experiment 1

Our hypothesis H1 is that in Modern Colloquial Persian ye(k) NP-e always func-tions as speaker-specific (lsquogewiss NPrsquo) while ye(k) NP-e-i can only function asnon-speaker-oriented In order to test this hypothesis we conducted a pilot ques-tionnairewith speakers ofModern Colloquial PersianWe used a simple sentence

136


as seen in (33) with simple indefinites with themarker -e (yek doktor-e) as well ascomplex indefinites with the marker -e (yek doktor-e-i) The first sentence withthe critical item (yek doktor-e or yek doktor-e-i) is continued with either (i) anassertion that the speaker had knowledge of the referent or (ii) a statement sig-naling the ignorance of the speaker That is continuation (i) strongly forces aspeaker-specific reading and continuation while (ii) forces a non-speaker-spe-cific reading Note that we did not test indefinites without the marker -e as weassume that there is ambiguity between a specific and non-specific interpreta-tion12

(33) a MonaMona

bāwith

yeka

doktor-edoctor-e

ezdevajmarriage

kardedid3SG

lsquoMona married a doctorrsquob Mona

Monabāwith

yeka

doktor-e-idoctor-e-i

ezdevajmarriage

kardedid3SG

lsquoMona married a doctorrsquo(i) Man

Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

doktordoctor

lsquoI know which doctor he isrsquo(ii) Vali

butmanI

nemidunamnotknow1SG

kudumwhich

doktordoctor

lsquoBut I do not know which doctor he isrsquo

511 Participants and experimental technique

Twenty male and female participants participated in the study Their native lan-guage was Persian and they had lived all or most of their lives in Iran Theirages varied between 25 and 67 In terms of educational level six participantshad high school diplomas ten had bachelorrsquos degrees and four had masterrsquos de-grees Participants read Persian written texts for at least one hour a day and theyspokeheard Persian all or most of the day

The study followed a 2x2 design with two different indefinite forms (a) ye(k)NP-e and (b) ye(k) NP-e-i and two continuations (i) ldquoI do know whowhichrdquo for

12In half of the examples the critical indefinite was the direct object as in (31) and a differentargument in the other half as in (33) We found that this alternation had no significant effecteven thoughwe added the differential casemarker -rā in the direct object instances It is unclearwhat additional function this marker performs (see the discussion in the last footnote) We alsobalanced for animacy see the discussion below and Figure 2

137


the speaker-oriented epistemic specificity and (ii) ldquoI do not know whowhichrdquofor the non-speaker-oriented epistemic specificity The assumption was that allforms are epistemically specific as in Table 6 above We had eight different sen-tences and created four lists using a Latin square design so that each participantheard one sentence and two conditions each Probable factors which might in-tervene with the evaluation such as animacy position of NP in the sentence(direct objectindirect object) and directindirect speech were equally presentin all items

As we were testing Modern Colloquial Persian i e spoken Persian we readout the sentences to our participants at least once and asked them to evaluatethe sentence on a scale from 1 for ldquocompletely acceptablerdquo to 7 for ldquocompletelyunacceptablerdquo on the answer sheet where they were also able to read the testsentence themselves

512 Results

We observed that participants complained (even verbally) about the appearanceof -e in ye(k) NP-e-i in both speaker-specific and non-speaker-specific readingsThis is also reflected in the acceptability scoresWe summarize the pilot question-naire with 20 participants in Table 7 together with the expected acceptability

Table 7 Effect of -e as specificity marker of indefinites on the kind ofepistemicity (1 = very good 7 = very bad)

Indefiniteform

Epistemictype

Meanvalue

Acceptability Predictedacceptability

ye(k) NP-e speaker-specific 2725 good very good

ye(k) NP-e non-speaker-specific

3025 good

ye(k) NP-e-i speaker-specific 4675 weak

ye(k) NP-e-i non-speaker-specific

4425 weak good

Overall we see that the form ye(k) NP-e was more acceptable than the formye(k) NP-e-i which confirms the intuition reported above However we also seethat ye(k) NP-e performed well in both conditions (speaker- and non-speaker-specific) which went against our hypothesis The judgment for the non-speaker-specificity condition is marginally weaker The form ye(k) NP-e-i was clearlyweak-er however there is only a marginal difference between speaker-oriented

138


speak-spec non-speak-spec speak-spec non-speak-spec01234567

27 3

47 44

ye(k) NP-e ye(k) NP-e-i

Figure 1 Acceptability (1 = very good 7 = very bad) of simple and com-plex indefinites in non-speaker and speaker-oriented specificity con-texts

ye(k) NP-e ye(k) NP-e-i ye(k) NP-e ye(k) NP-e-i01234567

19

4336

51

2439 37

5

human non-human

speak-specnon-speak-spec

Figure 2 Acceptability (1 = very good 7 = very bad) of simple andcomplex indefinites for human and non-human noun phrases in non-speaker and speaker-oriented specificity contexts

specificity (slightly weaker) and non-speaker-oriented specificity Interestinglywhen distinguishing between human and non-human indefinites as in Figure 2we see that the non-human indefinites were less acceptable than the human in-definites Furthermore when looking at the human indefinites we can see thatthe simple indefinites (ye(k) NP-e) were rated as slightly better in the speaker-specificity condition than in the non-speaker conditions (185 vs 235) Complexindefinites (ye(k) NP-e-i) on the other hand were slightly better in the non-speaker-specificity condition than in the speaker-oriented specificity condition(39 vs 43)

139


513 Discussion

Our first pilot study shows that complex indefinites with the marker -e are lessacceptable than simple indefinites with the marker -e Animacy is also an im-portant factor our study demonstrates that human indefinites were more ac-ceptable than non-human indefinites However the predicted contrast betweensimple and complex indefinites in speaker- vs non-speaker-oriented specificitycontexts was not shown to be significant We surmise that this contrast might bemore pronounced with human indefinites which led us to design a second pilotexperiment

52 Experiment 2

In order to test the hypothesis that the two specific indefinites in Modern Collo-quial Persian differ with respect to the referential anchoring of the indefinite i ein the specificity orientation in the second study we focused on human indefi-nites Additionally we included some examples that provided contexts that sig-naled speaker ignorance in the first sentence These examples were used to testwhether participants were sensitive to the speaker- vs non-speaker-orientation

521 Design

Experiment 2 was conducted to test for a feature which is only present in spo-ken colloquial Persian namely the -e marker with indefinite NPs It followedthe same 2x2 design with four lists as the first pilot study There were 24 itemsconsisting of 12 test and 12 filler items in each list The experimental stimuli con-sisted of two sentences for each item Since the feature under investigation wassimple vs complex indefinites with the marker -e the first sentence contained anindefinite noun phrase either with yek NP-e or yek NP-e-i The second sentenceforced either a speaker-specific reading of the indefinite in the first sentence ora non-speaker-specific reading

In the speaker-specific continuation we asserted the knowledge of the speakerabout the identity of the referent of the indefinite In the non-speaker-specificcontinuation we asserted the ignorance of the speaker about the identity of thereferent thus forcing a non-speaker-specific reading

(34) Critical items for Experiment 2a Simple indefinite (yek NP-e) + speaker-specific continuation

SaraSara

emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-elawyer-e

vaqteappointment

mošāvereconsulting

gereftetook3SG

140


ManI

hamalso

bawith

vakil-elawyer-e

čandinbarseveraltime

karwork

kardamdid1SG

Karešworkhis

xeylivery

xubegoodbe3SG

lsquoSara had a consultation appointment with a lawyer today I have alsoconsulted with the lawyer His work is very goodrsquo

b Simple indefinite (yek NP-e) + non-speaker-specific continuationSaraSara

emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-elawyer-e

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

Migansay3PL

vakil-elawyer-e

maroofeknownbe3SG

valibut

manI

čiz-ithing-INDEF

azašfromhim

nemidunamnotknow1SGlsquoSara had a consultation appointment with a lawyer today They saythat this lawyer is well known but I do not know anything abouthimrsquo

c Complex indefinite (yek NP-e-i) + speaker-specific continuationSaraSara

emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-e-ilawyer-e-i

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

ManI

hamalso

bawith

vakil-elawyer-e

čandinbārseveraltime

kārwork

kardamdid1SG

Karešworkhis

xeylivery

xubegoodbe3SG

lsquoSara had a consultation appointment with a lawyer today I have alsoconsulted with the lawyer several times His work is very goodrsquo

d Complex indefinite (yek NP-e-i) + non-speaker-specific continuationSaraSara

emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-e-ilawyer-e-i

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

MiganSay3PL

vakil-elawyer-e

maroofeknownbe3SG

valibut

manI

čiz-ithing-INDEF

azašfromhim


141


The test items also differed in their constructions eight items had a third per-son subject (proper name) as in (34) and four other items were constructionsthat showed a greater distance from the speaker namely two items of the typeldquoThey sayrdquo as in (35) and two items of the form ldquoI heardrdquo as in (36) Note thatwe provide only the a-condition with ye(k) NP-e and the specific continuationas in (34a)

(35) ldquoThey sayrdquo construction

Migansay3PL

yea

moalem-eteacher-e

tuin

madreseschool

TizhushānTizhushan

hastbe3SG

kethat

bečehastudentPL

azašfromher

xeylivery

mitarsanfrighten3PL

ManI

hamalso

bāhāshwithhim

4ta4CL

darscourse

daštamhad3SG

vaand

oftadamfailedlsquoThey say there is a teacher in Tizhushan school that every student isafraid of I also have had four courses with him and failed them allrsquo

(36) ldquoI heardrdquo construction

Šenidamheard1SG

yea

pesar-eboy-e

hastbe3SG

tuin

inthis

mahaleneighborhood

kewho

vasefor

doxtaragirlPL

mozāhematharassment

ijadmake

mikonedo3SG

ManI

mišnasamešknow1SG

azhimfrom

vaghtiwhen

bačechild

budwas3SG

lsquoI have heard that there is a boy in this neighborhood who harasses girlsI have known him since he was a childrsquo

522 Results of Experiment 2

There was strong agreement in relation to the fillercontrol items with marginaldifferences between participants (lt 08 points) The results of the test items canbe summarized as follows Firstly in contrast to Experiment 1 Figure 3 does notshow a clear preference for simple indefinites Rather both types were ratedvery similarly Secondly we clearly see that the contexts which signaled speakerignorance (ldquoThey say rdquo ldquoI heardrdquo) preferred non-speaker-oriented specificitycontinuations It shows that participants were aware of this contrast

A more detailed inspection of the neutral contexts in Figure 3 reveals a slightpreference for the simple indefinite ye(k) NP-e in speaker-oriented specificity

142


ye(k) NP-e ye(k) NP-e-i ye(k) NP-e ye(k) NP-e-i ye(k) NP-e ye(k) NP-e-i0

1

2

3

4

5

14 17

323

3 27

15 15 14 15 13 15

lsquoneutralrsquo lsquoI heardrsquo lsquoThey sayrsquo


Figure 3 Acceptability (1 = very good 5 = very bad) of simple and com-plex indefinites for human noun phrases in non-speaker and speaker-oriented specificity contexts across types of constructions

contexts (139) vs non-speaker-oriented specificity contexts (154) while the com-plex indefinite ye(k) NP-e-i was rated slightly better in non-speaker-orientedspecificity contexts (15) vs speaker-oriented specificity contexts (167)

In summary the direct comparison in neutral contexts between the simpleand the complex indefinite with the marker -e does not provide significant con-trasts It only suggests a preference of the simple indefinite for speaker-orientedspecificity while the complex indefinite prefers non-speaker-oriented specificityHowever constructions with ldquoThey sayrdquo or ldquoI heardrdquo which clearly encodenon-speaker-oriented specificity show a preference for the complex indefiniteThis supports our hypothesis for the difference between the two specific indefi-nites

6 Summary and open issues

Persian has two indefinite markers prenominal ye(k) and suffixed -i Both formsexpress particular kinds of indefiniteness as does their combination For ModernColloquial Persian indefinites with -i express a non-uniqueness or anti-definiteimplication and behave similarly to the English any Ye(k) on the other handexpresses an at-issue existence implication and behaves similarly to the Englisha(n) Finally the combination of ye(k) and NP-i expresses an ignorance implica-tion (Jasbi 2016) The specificity marker -e can be combined with ye(k) NP andwith the combined form ye(k) NP-i but not with (solitary) NP-i (Windfuhr 1979

143


Ghomeshi 2003) Based on these semantic functions and on the comparison of thetwo specificity adjectives ein gewisser and ein bestimmter in German we hypoth-esized that the difference between the interpretation of the two indefinites liesin the anchoring of the indefinite either to the speaker or to some other salientdiscourse referent the simple indefinite ye(k) NP-e is interpreted as a speaker-oriented-specific referent The complex indefinite ye(k) NP-e-i is interpreted as anon-speaker-specific referent

In two pilot acceptability tasks we tested these two indefinites in two con-texts one that suggested a speaker-specific interpretation of the indefinite and asecond that suggested a non-speaker-specific interpretation The first study pro-vided some support for our hypothesis but we also found that type of indefiniteand animacy had a significant effect on interpretation We therefore designed asecond pilot study with only human indefinites Additionally we inserted con-structions with ldquoI heardrdquo and ldquoThey sayrdquo which clearly suggest a non-speaker-oriented specificity The results of the second study do not show a preference forthe simple indefinite However they provide some evidence that in neutral con-texts the simple indefinite is more acceptable with speaker orientation and thecomplex with non-speaker orientation Still the evidence is very weak Finallyin contexts that encode speaker ignorance (ldquoThey sayrdquo ldquoI heardrdquo) the com-plex indefinite was slightly more acceptable than the simple indefinite whichsupports our original hypothesis

In summary we have seen that the complex system of indefinite marking inModern Standard Persian provides a fruitful research environment for learningmore about the formal marking of subtle semantic and pragmatic functions ofnoun phrases such as specificity and the referential anchoring of nominal ex-pressions

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the audience of the workshop ldquoSpecificity Definitenessand Article Systems across Languagesrdquo at the 40th Meeting of the German Lin-guistic Society Stuttgart March 7-9 2018 for their comments two anonymousreviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions and the editors ofthis volume Kata Balogh Anja Latrouite and Robert D Van Valin Jr for alltheir work and continuous support The research for this paper was funded bythe Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG German Research Foundation) ndashProject ID 281511265 ndash SFB ldquoProminence in Languagerdquo in the project C04 ldquoCon-ceptual and referential activation in discourserdquo at the University of Cologne De-partment of German Language and Literature I Linguistics

144


References

Bisang Walter amp Kim Ngoc Quang 2020 (In)definiteness and Vietnamese classi-fiers In Kata Balogh Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr (eds) Nominalanchoring Specificity definiteness and article systems across languages 15ndash49Berlin Language Science Press DOI 105281zenodo4049679

Borik Olga Joan Borragraves-Comes amp Daria Seres 2020 Preverbal (in)definites inRussian An experimental study In Kata Balogh Anja Latrouite amp RobertD Van Valinsbquo Jr (eds) Nominal anchoring Specificity definiteness and articlesystems across languages 51ndash80 Berlin Language Science Press DOI 105281zenodo4049681

Brustad Kristen E 2000 The syntax of spoken Arabic Washington DC George-town University Press

Dayal Veneeta 2017 Determining (in)definiteness in the absence of articles InVera Hohaus amp Wanda Rothe (eds) Proceedings of TripleA 3 Fieldwork per-spectives on the semantics of African Asian and Austronesian languages 85ndash89Tuumlbingen Universitaumltsbibliothek Tuumlbingen


Dryer Matthew S 2005 Indefinite articles In Martin Haspelmath Matthew SDryer David Gil amp Bernard Comrie (eds) The world atlas of language struc-tures Oxford Oxford University Press httpswalsinfochapter38

Ebert Christian Cornelia Ebert amp Stefan Hinterwimmer 2013 The interpreta-tion of the German specificity markers bestimmt and gewiss In Cornelia Ebertamp Stefan Hinterwimmer (eds) Different kinds of specificity across languages(Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 92) 31ndash74 HeidelbergBerlin Springer

Egli Urs amp Klaus von Heusinger 1995 The epsilon operator and e-type pro-nouns In Urs Egli Peter Pause Christoph Schwarze Arnim von Stechow ampGoumltzWienold (eds) Lexical knowledge in the organization of language 121ndash141AmsterdamPhiladelphia John Benjamins

Fassi-Fehri Abdelkader 2006 A short note on Moroccan specifics unpublishedGhomeshi Jila 2003 Plural marking indefiniteness and the noun phrase Studia

Linguistica 57(2) 47ndash74Hedberg Nancy Emrah Goumlrguumll amp Morgan Mameni 2009 On definiteness and

specificity in Turkish and Persian In Freacutedeacuteric Mailhot (ed) Proceedings of the2009 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association 1ndash15 OttawaCanadian Linguistic Association

145


Hincha Georg 1961 Beitraumlge zu einer Morphemlehre des Neupersischen DerIslam 37(1-3) 136ndash201

Jasbi Masoud 2014 Semantics of differential object marking in Persian Qualifi-cation Paper University of Stanford

Jasbi Masoud 2016 Three types of indefinites in Persian Simple complexand antidefinite In Mary Moroney Carol-Rose Little Jacob Collard amp DanBurgdorf (eds) Proceedings of SALT 26 244ndash263 Linguistic Society of Amer-ica

Jasbi Masoud 2020a Themeaning of the Persian object marker rāWhat it is notandwhat it (probably) is In Richard K Larson SedighehMoradi amp Vida Samiia(eds) Advances in Iranian linguistics 119ndash135 Amsterdam John Benjamins

Jasbi Masoud 2020b The suffix that makes Farsi nouns unique In Richard KLarson Sedigheh Moradi amp Vida Samiia (eds) Advances in Iranian linguistics107ndash118 Amsterdam John Benjamins

Karimi Simin 2003 On object positions specificity and scrambling in PersianIn Simin Karimi (ed) Word order and scrambling 91ndash124 Oxford Blackwell

Karimi Simin 2018 Generative approaches to syntax In Anousha Sedighi ampPouneh Shabani-Jadidi (eds) The Oxford handbook of Persian linguistics Ox-ford Oxford University Press DOI 101093oxfordhb97801987367450137

Keenan Edward L amp Karen Ebert 1973 A note on marking transparency andopacity Linguistic Inquiry 4(3) 421ndash424

Krifka Manfred amp Fereshteh Modarresi 2016 Number neutrality and anaphoricupdate of pseudo-incorporated nominals in Persian (and weak definites in En-glish) In Mary Moroney Carol-Rose Little Jacob Collard amp Dan Burgdorf(eds) Proceedings of SALT 26 874ndash891 Linguistic Society of America

Lambton Ann K S 1953 Persian grammar Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress

Latrouite Anja amp Robert D Van Valin Jr 2014 Referentiality and telicity inLakhota and Tagalog In Doris Gerland Christian Horn Anja Latrouite amp Al-bert Ortmann (eds) Meaning and grammar of nouns and verbs 401ndash426 Duumls-seldorf Duumlsseldorf University Press

Lazard Gilbert 1957 Grammaire du persan contemporain Paris KlincksieckLazard Gilbert 1992 A grammar of contemporary Persian English translation

Costa Meca CA Mazda PublishersLyons Christopher 1999 Definiteness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMassam Diane 2001 Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 19(1) 153ndash197

146


Modarresi Fereshteh 2014 Bare nouns in Persian Interpretation grammar andprosody Berlin Humboldt-Universitaumlt zu Berlin (Doctoral dissertation)

Modarresi Yahya 2018 Sociolinguistics In Anousha Sedighi amp Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi (eds) The Oxford handbook of Persian linguistics Oxford Oxford Uni-versity Press DOI 101093oxfordhb978019873674501313

Nikravan Pegah 2014 Semantics and processing of weak and strong definites incolloquial Persian Evidence from an offline questionnaire Ottawa Carleton Uni-versity (MA thesis)

Onea Edgar amp Ljudmila Geist 2011 Indefinite determiners and referential an-choring International Review of Pragmatics 3(2) 194ndash227

Paul Daniel 2008 The individuating function of the Persian ldquoindefinite suffixrdquoIn Simin Karimi (ed) Aspects of Iranian linguistics 309ndash328 Cambridge Cam-bridge Scholars Publishing

Schwarz Florian 2013 Two types of definites cross-linguistically Language andLinguistics Compass 7(10) 534ndash558


Toosarvandani Maziar amp Hayedeh Nasser 2017 Quantification in Persian InDenis Paperno amp Edward L Keenan (eds) Handbook of quantifiers in naturallanguage Volume II 665ndash696 Berlin Springer

von Heusinger Klaus 2002 Specificity and definiteness in sentence and dis-course structure Journal of Semantics 19(3) 245ndash274

von Heusinger Klaus 2011 Specificity In Klaus von Heusinger Claudia Maien-born amp Paul Portner (eds) Semantics An international handbook of naturallanguage meaning vol 2 (HSK 332) 1025ndash1058 Berlin Mouton De Gruyter


von Heusinger Klaus amp Petra B Schumacher 2019 Discourse prominence Def-inition and application Journal of Pragmatics 154 117ndash127

Windfuhr Gernot L 1979 Persian grammar History and state of its study TheHague Mouton Publishers

Winter Yoad 1997 Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites Lin-guistics and Philosophy 20(4) 399ndash467

147

Chapter 6

Accent on nouns and its referencecoding in Siwi Berber (Egypt)Valentina SchiattarellaUniversity of Naples LrsquoOrientale

The aim of this article is to investigate the position of the accent on nouns in Siwia Berber language spoken in the oasis of Siwa Egypt and to see how its alterna-tion on the last or penultimate syllable functions in terms of reference coding InSiwi the role of the accent placed on nouns goes beyond the field of phonologyan analysis of original data from both spontaneous discourse and elicitations willshow its functions in terms of attribution of (in)definiteness of nouns in differentenvironments In order to proceed with the analysis it is worth noting that Siwilike all other Berber languages does not have definite or indefinite articles

1 Introductory remarks

Siwi is part of the Berber language family (Afro-Asiatic phylum) spoken in Mo-rocco Algeria Tunisia Libya and Egypt as well as in Mauritania Mali Nigerand Burkina Faso It is the easternmost of the Berber languages as it is the onlyone spoken in Egypt in two oases Siwa and El Gaṛa These two oases are locatedin the Western Desert and are very close to the Libyan border The main oasisSiwa is inhabited by over 25000 people including Siwi Bedouins and Egyptianswho have come from other parts of the country and settled in the oasis mainlyfor work Siwi people are almost entirely bilingual as the vast majority of thepopulation speaks Bedouin andor Egyptian Arabic and Siwi

Data for this article were collected over the course of several fieldwork tripsbetween 2011 and 2018 collection methods mainly included recordings of sponta-neous data (monologues and dialogues of variable length) and elicitation sessionswith both male and female speakers of different ages All examples come from

Valentina Schiattarella 2020 Accent on nouns and its reference coding in Siwi Berber (Egypt)In Kata Balogh Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr (eds) Nominal anchoring Specificitydefiniteness and article systems across languages 149ndash170 Berlin Language Science Press DOI105281zenodo4049687

Valentina Schiattarella

my corpus which was transcribed and translated into English with the help ofmy consultants Accent will be marked with an acute accent (e g aacute) When theposition of the accent does not emerge clearly from the recording I refer to thetranscription sessions carried out with my consultants as they reproduce exactlywhat the speakers say in the original recordings

The aim of this article is to investigate the accent alternation on nouns asa marker of reference coding The paper will be organized as follows after anintroduction on accent in general and in some Berber languages in Sections sect11and sect12 respectively and an account of previous studies on Siwi in sect13 I will givean overview of the notions of definiteness and indefiniteness in sect14 In sect2 I willdiscuss the accent position when the noun is isolated (sect21) and when it is usedin discourse (Sections sect22 and sect23) I will then establish a hierarchy betweenaccent position and other means that the language has to convey definiteness tothe noun in sect24 and I will conclude in sect25 by presenting a construction thatshows clearly how speakers use the alternation of the position of the accent tomark a distinction between definite and indefinite reference

11 Some remarks on accent

Scholars usually agree on the fact that accent has the function of establishing acontrast between accented and unaccented syllables (Garde 1968 50) MoreoverldquoThe term stress is used here to refer to an abstract property of syllables within thedomain of lsquowordsrsquo (cf Dixon and Aikhenvald 2002 for discussions of the notionword) A stressed syllable is likely to be pronounced with more prominence thanunstressed syllablesrdquo (Goedemans amp van der Hulst 2013 Section 1) The positionof the accent is fixed in some languages (as in Czech and French) semifixed(Latin Polish) or free (as in Russian Italian and English) Its position is sometimespredictable at the phonological level (for example in light of syllable weight thepresence of non-accentuable morphemes etc) or at the morpho-syntactic level

Usually the features of the accent are ldquogreater loudness higher pitch greaterduration and greater accuracy of articulation (most notably in vowels)rdquo (Goede-mans amp van der Hulst 2013 Section 1) but sometimes these features are not spe-cific to accent and this makes its definition complicated The F0 rise for exampleis also found in other prosodic phenomena as well as vocalic length which islinked not only to accentuation but also to the vowelrsquos quantity

12 Some remarks on accent in Berber

Scholars unanimously agree that the accent has never been properly described inBerber This was in fact pointed out by A Basset over sixty years ago (Basset 1952

150

6 Accent on nouns and its reference coding in Siwi Berber (Egypt)

10) The situation has not changed much since then even though there has beena rise in interest in this issue over the last few years especially by virtue of thetendency to study lesser-described Berber languages like those of the easternpart of the Berber area (Tunisia Libya and Egypt) where the accent seems tohave a more relevant role when compared to the other Berber languages

An overview of the accent in the domain of Berber studies was carried outby Vycichl and Chaker (1984 103-106) In the first part of this study Vycichl andChaker (1984 103-105) remark that in Guellala (Jerba Tunisia) accent plays apeculiar role The locative is accented on the last syllable as it is in TamezreṭTunisia əlmaacuteɣrəb lsquoeveningrsquo əlmaɣrəb lsquoin the eveningrsquo Adjectives like aməllallsquowhitersquo distinguish a determined form aacuteməllal lsquothe whitersquo with the accent onthe ancient definite article (the initial a- according to Vycichl amp Chaker 1984)while aməllal means lsquowhitersquo or lsquoa whitersquo The authors add that in the past accentprobably played an important role as in the Semitic languages

Vycichl amp Chaker (1984) also noticed that with the genitive preposition n theaccent moves back one syllable agbən lsquohousersquo elbacircb n aacutegbən lsquothe door of thehousersquo This is found with other prepositions too amacircn lsquowaterrsquo y acircman lsquointothe waterrsquo (Vycichl 1981 180-181)1 Other studies on the use of accent are thoseby Louali (2003) and Louali amp Philippson (2004) for Siwi Louali amp Philippson(2005) for Siwi and Tuareg and Lux amp Philippson (2010) for a comparison of theaccent in Tetserret and Tamasheq (Niger)

These studies show that the positioning of the accent in these Berber varietiesis different from that found in Siwi which in contrast shares some characteris-tics with other varieties spoken in Tunisia and Libya There is a dearth of studiesand oral data concerning the latter with the exception of those produced by Brug-natelli (1986 2005) who compared the situation found in Nafusi (Libya) wherethe location of the accent changes when the noun is preceded by a preposition(Beguinot 1942 12) with the one found in Jerba (Tunisia) or Siwa (according toVycichl amp Chaker 1984)

uraacuteġ lsquofoxrsquoyefkucirc n uacuteraġ lsquohe gave to the foxrsquo

This ldquomovementrdquo of the accent on nouns was found by Brugnatelli in the Na-fusi texts after the prepositions n di in s ded af denneg and with the excla-mation particles aai ya (Brugnatelli 1986 64-65) The author remarks that inBeguinotrsquos texts the movement of the accent also takes place when the subjectfollows the verb (Brugnatelli 1986 66) where other Berber languages have the

1The English translation is mine Vycichl (1981 180-181) uses the circumflex (ˆ) to mark accenton long vowels

151


annexed state That is why the author concludes that there could be a relation-ship between accent and state distinction (free and annexed) which is no longerattested in Siwi and in other Berber varieties spoken in Libya (Brugnatelli 198668) In Nafusi it seems that the position of the accent is important in distinguish-ing two different interpretations in the case of kinship nouns such as

rucircmmu lsquomy brotherrsquorūmmucirc lsquothe brother brotherrsquo (Beguinot 1942 28-29)

13 Previous studies on accent in Siwi

Accent on nouns in Siwi is insensitive to quantity as it can fall on the last orpenultimate syllable of the same noun Several authors agree that the accent onthe last syllable codes indefiniteness and the accent on the penultimate sylla-ble codes definiteness While Louali does not recognize the function of markinglocatives previously diagnosed by Vycichl she confirms the possibility of codingthe distinction between definite and indefinite forms through accent alternation(Louali 2003 68-69) According to Louali amp Philippson (2004 2005) the functionof the accent in Siwi is morpho-syntactic because it allows the distinction of thecategory of the verb (accent on the first syllable of the theme) and the categoryof the noun (when it is isolated it has its accent on the last syllable)

Other factors that should be taken into consideration for the prediction of theposition of the accent are the presence of prepositions (i lsquotorsquo s lsquowith by meansofrsquo n lsquoofrsquo af lsquoonrsquo d lsquowith comitativersquo) which has the consequence of moving theaccent one or two syllables back (Louali amp Philippson 2005) and of possessiveclitics where the accent is always on the penultimate syllable The authors alsoadd that the position of the accent is linked to pragmatic factors (2005 13) Toconclude Souag returns to the hypothesis formulated by Vycichl ldquoIn generalultimate stress marks the indefinite penultimate the definiterdquo (Souag 2013 80)

This overview leads us into the discussion of the corpus of data whose anal-ysis illustrates the position that the accent can take on the noun in differentcontexts and functions The corpus is composed of a wordlist (highlighting theposition of the accent when the noun is isolated) and spontaneous texts Eventhough different factors can influence the elements that are at the base of accentformation (such as factors linked to the speaker context intonation and posi-tion of the word in relation to the end of the prosodic unit) I decided to use thiskind of sample in order to ascertain whether the accent has functions linked tomorpho-syntax and pragmatics

152


The position of the accent was determined through the use of PRAAT2 and theanalysis confirms what has already been discovered by Louali and Philippson in2004 namely that from a phonological point of view in Siwi the accented syllablefeatures higher pitch as its only consistent cue (Figure 1) Higher pitch on the lastsyllable is not linked to the fact that the noun is at the end of an intonation unitThe same goes for higher pitch on the penultimate syllable which can be presenteven when a noun is at the end of an intonation unit

Figure 1 In this picture from PRAAT the first mention of azidi lsquojackalrsquoshows a higher pitch on the last syllable (azidiacute) while the second men-tion shows a higher pitch on the penultimate syllable (aziacutedi) Intensityis indicated by the lower and lighter line

14 Definiteness and indefiniteness

There are several ways definiteness and indefiniteness can be described authorsoften use terms like uniqueness familiarity specificity identifiability and refer-entiality to try to explain the properties of definite nouns While indefinites areindeed associated with the fact that the referents are generic non-specific andnon-identifiable by both hearer and speaker definiteness is linked to conceptslike familiarity which refers to the possibility of a referent being recognized be-cause it wasmentioned previously (anaphora) or because it refers to the situationwhere it is immediately recognized by both the hearer and the speaker Christo-phersen (1939 28) adds to the concept of familiarity the feature of being based

2Paul Boersma amp David Weenink Praat doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]Version 61 retrieved 13 July 2019 from httpwwwpraatorg

153


on shared knowledge between the speaker and the hearer Referents thus do notneed to be mentioned before being considered as definite Following this ana-phora is not be interpreted only in a strict sense (the referent is definite after itis first mentioned) as the definite noun can also solely be semantically linked toa previous referent such as lsquothe doorrsquo after talking about lsquoa housersquo

Another feature of definite nouns is uniqueness which is when there is onlyone possible referent the speaker could be referring to Some nouns are morelikely to be considered as definite because they are unique such as individualnouns (sun Pope proper nouns) or nouns which are inherently relational likesome body parts and kinship terms (like brother leg etc) Among inherently re-lational nouns there are also the so-called lsquofunctional nounsrsquo where in additionthe referent is unique (like nose mother father etc Loumlbner 2011 307) That iswhy in many languages in these specific cases definiteness is not additionallymarked by a definite marker as this could be considered redundant

There are also some syntactic constructions that help restrict the noun in orderfor it to be considered definite such as relative clauses adnominal possessiveconstructions and to a lesser extent adjective modification Not all languageshave definite or indefinite articles (Dryer 2013ab) Nevertheless there is usuallya way for the speaker to express whether the noun is definite or not For examplesome languages use demonstratives which act as definite articles Possessivescan also function as definite markers

Definiteness can be strongly determined by pragmatics in many languages es-pecially those without articles Indeed information structure and how informa-tion is conveyed is crucial and interacts with word order and with the possibilityof determining whether a noun is a topic or a focus Topic is related to what theinformation is about as well as to the shared knowledge between the hearer andthe speaker In contrast focus is ldquothat portion of a proposition which cannot betaken for granted at the time of speech It is the unpredictable or pragmaticallynon-recoverable element in an utterance The focus is what makes an utteranceinto an assertionrdquo (Lambrecht 1994 207) That is why topic is usually associatedwith definiteness and focus with indefiniteness even if this is not always thecase

A study on Polish definiteness (Czardybon 2017) has shown that topics areusually definite and in the preverbal position When indefinites precede the verbit is because they have to be considered to be the focus in thetic constructionswhere the whole sentence is in focus (Lambrecht 1994 144) The possibility ofinterpreting nouns as definite or indefinite is then not linked to the position (pre-or post-verbal) but to their information structure status Information structure

154


also interacts with other morpho-syntactic means which determine whether anoun is definite or not

2 The function of the accent in Siwi

The aim of this second part is to show that the possibility of coding definitenessand indefiniteness can be conveyed by accent alternation but also to highlighthow other factors can interact in giving a definiteindefinite interpretation to thenoun Definiteness is indeed conveyed through a series of factors that interactwith one another position of the accent semantics of the noun informationstructure and other morpho-syntactic elements

21 The position of the accent on nouns when isolated

Nouns when isolated carry the accent on the last syllable and when precededby a preposition they carry it on the penultimate syllable In order to illustratethis in this first section I have used data from elicitations because there areother factors to consider in discourse My data confirm those presented by Loualiamp Philippson (2005) who state that the accent on the noun (except for kinshipterms) falls on the last syllable

(1) aggʷiacutedmanSGM

aggʷidaacutenmanPLM

(2) taltiacutewomanSGF

təltaweacutenwomanPLF

However as already noted byVycichl (1981 181 2005 207) and Louali amp Philipp-son (2005 12) if the noun is preceded by a preposition the accent is on the penul-timate syllable

(3) agbənhouseSGM

gin

aacutegbənhouseSGM

(4) amaacutenwaterPLM

ito

aacutemanwaterPLM

(5) uliacuteheartSGM

sgfrom

uacuteliheartSGM

155


22 The position of the accent in discourse accent on the last syllable

As mentioned in sect13 it is usually assumed that the accent on the last syllablecodes indefiniteness and the accent on the penultimate syllable codes definite-ness In this section I will start by analyzing nouns where the accent is placed onthe last syllable In existential predicative constructions the noun after di lsquothereisrsquo has the accent on the last syllable when this structure is used to introducenew referents into the discourse and they appear for the first time

(6) diEXIST

aggʷiacutedmanSGM

lsquoThere was a manrsquo

(7) diEXIST

taltiacutewomanSGF

dand

aggʷiacutedmanSGM

lsquoThere were a woman and a manrsquo

This is also the case for the preposition ɣuṛ lsquoatrsquo + pronoun when it expressespossession and the referent is generic

(8) šaltownSGM

nof

isiacutewansiwa

ɣuacuteṛ-əsat-3SG

iǧəḅḅaṛənpalm_treePLM

dabbmany

lsquoSiwa has a lot of palm treesrsquo

In the following example both di and ɣuṛ are used to present all the maincharacters of the story

(9) maacuteṛṛaonce

diEXIST

aggʷiacutedmanSGM

dand


tləččaacutegirlSGF

dand

akəḅḅiacuteboySGM

abbaacute-nnəsfatherSGM-POSS3SG

nof

tləččagirlSGF

lsquoOnce upon a time there was a man he had a daughter and a son Thefather of the girlrsquo

At the end of the narrations to recapitulate the topic Siwi uses a non-verbalpredication with a pronominal demonstrative and a juxtaposed noun This nom-inal predicate has the accent on the last syllable because it is not taking up aspecific referent but is intended to recapitulate the subject of the narration

(10) w-omDEM-2SGF

šahiacutenteaSGM

lsquoThis is (about) the tearsquo

156


When something is non-specific and generic and at the same time the speakerdoes not need to refer to a particular category in which the referent ought to beincluded we see the use of the accent on the last syllable

(11) əssn-iacutem-aknowPFV-2PL-PRAGM

aacutenniCOMP

aziacutedijackalSGM

l-iacute-ʕəṃṃaṛNEG-3SGM-doIPFV


ankaacutenplaceSGM

agbənhouseSGM

diacutemaalways

i-ʕəṃṃaṛ3SGM-doIPFV

taṃɣaacuteṛtcaveSGF

gin

idrarənmountainPLM

lsquoDo you know that the jackal doesnrsquot have a place or a house he isalways in a cave in [the] mountainsrsquo

Later in the narration the protagonist (a hyena) finds a cave (accent on thelast syllable) and when the same cave is mentioned again the accent is placedon the penultimate syllable This opposition will be analyzed in more detail insect25

Sometimes a referent appears after the first mention with the accent on thelast syllable this is the case when the referent does not need to be reactivated(through anaphora) but just to be mentioned again because for example thespeaker needs to add new information as in the following example where then + adjective construction highlights the beauty of the girl (whose birth wasunexpected) even if she has just been mentioned in the previous intonation unitThe fact that it is taken up again is not intended as a strategy to mark it as knownbut to qualify it

(12) əntaacutetətIDP3SGF

t-iraacutew3SGF-give_birthPFV



nof

tkwaacuteyəstbeautifulSGF

lsquo(After she gave birth only to boys we wanted a girl) She gave birth to agirlrsquo A beautiful girlrsquo

If the noun is indefinite the accent falls on the last syllable even if it is pre-ceded by a preposition It is therefore worth noting here that the presence ofthe preposition does not obligatorily trigger the presence of the accent on thepenultimate syllable contrary to the discussion in sect21 with regard to nouns inisolation In this case the speaker is referring to a generic place

157


(13) kanif

xsi-ṭwantPFV-2SG

aẓəṛṛaacuteseeVN

šaltownSGM

sfrom

ənniǧup

g-uacuteni-ṭIRR-climbAOR-2SG

ito

adraacutermountainSGMlsquoIf you want to see the town from the top you will (have) to climb amountainrsquo

(14) yə-mraacuteq3SGM-reachPFV

gin

ankaacutenplaceSGM

y-ifaacute3SGM-findPFV

aṭiacutelgardenSGM

lsquoHe arrived in a place he found a gardenrsquo

In the following example the author is not referring to any specific palm treebut he is asking the hearer to imagine a generic palm tree

(15) ga-nə-bduIRR-1PL-startAOR

sgfrom

aǧəḅḅaacuteṛpalm_treeSGM

lsquoLetrsquos start from a palm treersquo

If we look at the cases listed here we can see that nouns where the accent isplaced on the last syllable are not necessarily linked to first mention ndash see forexample nouns with the accent on the last syllable used when the speaker needsto recapitulate the topic of the narration or when an already mentioned referentreappears but is not crucial to the continuation of the narration The accent onthe last syllable is then linked to the fact that the speaker needs to present thereferent comment on it or recapitulate

23 The position of the accent in discourse accent on the penultimatesyllable

In this section examples from spontaneous discourse are presented in order toshow how placing the accent on the penultimate syllable sometimes indicatesthat a noun is definite For each example an explanation of the kind of definite-ness expressed will be given

The accent on the penultimate syllable can be used with nouns mentionedfor the first time but which are identifiable the hearer knows who or what thereferents that the speaker is talking about are by virtue of information providedearlier by the speaker In the following example the speaker is talking abouttraditions in Siwa and the hearer understands immediately that he is talkingabout women from the oasis The speaker is not referring to specific women butrather to a category of people

158


(16) təččiacutewengirlPLF

tə-ṛṭaacute-ya3SGF-coverPFV-PRAGM

təltaacutewenwomanPLF


lsquoGirls are covered women are coveredrsquo

The speaker is only referring to women in Siwa and the fact of them beingcovered is considered as shared knowledge for both hearer and speaker The sameapplies to the following example where the sheikhs are mentioned for the firsttime

(17) baʕdeacutenthen

yə-ʕṃṛ-iacuten-a3-doPFV-PL-PRAGM

albaacutebdoorSGM

i-təṃṃaacute-n-as3-sayIPFV-PL-3SGDAT

albaacutebdoorSGM

nof

šaltownSGM

ləmšaacuteyəxchiefPLM

yə-ʕʕənʕən-ən3-sit_downPFV-PL

əgd-əsin-3SG

lsquoThen they made a door they call it ldquodoor of the townrdquo The chiefs sat initrsquo

Usually when a noun appears again after a first mention it is considered to beanaphoric but this anaphora can be also be associative a noun is definite becauseit has a semantic relationship with what precedes it In the following examplethe oven is inferred from the fact that the speaker is talking about how to cooksome dishes

(18) kanif

əṭṭaacuteḅəntovenSGF

tə-ḥmaacute-ya3SGF-be_hotPFV-PRAGM

lsquowhen the oven was hotrsquo

In the next example the window ismentioned for the first time but the story isabout a girl who has been kidnapped and is being held in a castle so the presenceof a window is retrievable from the situation


tə-ẓṛ-aacute3SGF-seePFV-3SGMDO

sgfrom

aacutellonwindowSGM

lsquoThen (Jmila) saw him from the windowrsquo

159


In the following example the well is mentioned for the first time but it iscoded as definite by virtue of it being clear that it is the only well that is presentand perceivable by the characters in the castle of the sultan (visible situation useHawkins 1978 110)

(20) t-uṭaacute3SGF-fallPFV

ito

aacutenuwellSGM

nof

aacutemanwaterPLM

lsquo(The ball) fell into the well of waterrsquo

Similarly in the following example the pot is mentioned for the first time butthe storyteller is asking the hearer to imagine that the woman is taking the onlypot visible in the kitchen in order to cook the chicken

(21) t-ṛaḥ3SGF-goPFV

tə-ṣṣaacutey3SGF-takePFV

əṭṭaacutenǧṛətpotSGF

tə-ɣṛəṣ3SGF-slaughterPFV

tyaẓəṭchickenSGF

lsquoShe took the pot she slaughtered a chickenrsquo

Proper nouns kinship terms and toponyms which already have a high degreeof referentiality are usually accented on the penultimate syllable as in the fol-lowing examples

isiacutewan Siwa or the people from Siwašaacuteli the citadel in the oasis of Siwaaacutebba fatherwəltma sister

Placement of the accent on the penultimate syllable is therefore linked to theneed to present a referent as identifiable or unique The uniqueness of a referentcan be linked both to its semantics and to its pragmatics (unique referent in thecontext of use) It also codes anaphora as we will see in more detail in sect25

24 Interaction between accent position and other strategies to markdefiniteness and indefiniteness

The examples discussed in sect22 and sect23 already seem to confirm the hypothesisregarding the variation in position of the accent as a means of coding definite-ness or indefiniteness Nevertheless in this section I will show that the position

160


of the accent interacts with other devices in order to convey a definite or indef-inite interpretation to the noun These elements sometimes override the accentalternation itself If the noun is determined by a possessive clitic the accent isalways on the penultimate syllable

(22) agbən-nəkhouseSGM-POSS2SGMlsquoyour housersquo

(23) abbaacute-nnəsfatherSGM-POSS3SGlsquohis fatherrsquo

Adnominal possessive constructions (N + n lsquoofrsquo + N) are definite most of thetime as the construction is a way to delimit the head noun In the followingexample the definite interpretation is conveyed by the entire construction sothe accent on the head noun can be on the last syllable

(24) əddhaacutenoilSGM

nof

isiacutewanSiwa

lsquothe oil of Siwarsquo

There are nevertheless cases where the interpretation of these constructionsis indefinite especially when they express partwhole relations where the con-struction is used to refer to any generic part of the whole In this case both nounshave the accent on the last syllable

(25) tḥəbbətgrainSGF

nof

təṃẓeacutenbarleyPLF

lsquoa grain of barleyrsquo

In general when a noun is followed by a demonstrative and is therefore defi-nite it does not always have the accent on the penultimate syllable as one wouldexpect The adnominal demonstrative already codes definiteness so most of thetime the noun has the accent on the last syllable

(26) t-qad3SGM-takePFV


tat-oacutekDEMF-2SGM

tə-mraacuteq3SGF-reachPFV

gin

təṭspringSGF

lsquoShe took this girl she arrived at the springrsquo

161


Cases where nouns followed by demonstratives have the accent on the penul-timate syllable are nevertheless attested especially (but not exclusively) whenthey appear in left-detached constructions3

(27) i-ʕəṃṃaacuteṛ-ən3-doIPFV-PL

naknaacutefnaknafSGM

naacuteknafnaknafSGM

daw-eacuterwənDEM-2PL

smiyət-ənnəsnameSGF-POSS3SG

lsquoThey prepared the naknaf This naknaf was called (tqaqish)rsquo

When there is a preposition + N + demonstrative the accent is on the penulti-mate syllable of the noun

(28) sgfrom

əlwoqttimeSGF

tat-eacuterwənDEMF-2PL

lsquofrom that momentrsquo

(29) aacutenniCOMP

gaacute-ḥḥ-axIRR-goAOR-1SG

dand

iṣəṛɣeacutenənbedouinPLM

daw-i-(y)oacutemDEM-PL-2SGF

lsquoSo I (can) go with these Bedouinsrsquo

We often find the noun in right-detached constructions which have the func-tion of reactivating a referent (Mettouchi amp Schiattarella 2018 280) with theaccent on the last syllable In this case the fact that the noun is in a differentintonation unit is sufficient to indicate that the referent has already been men-tioned and it needs to be reactivated It is then the construction itself not theposition of the accent that codes this function

(30) i-ləhhu-n3-be_happyIPFV-PL

təṛwaweacutenchildPLF

lsquoThey were happy the childrenrsquo

However if a noun is inherently referential (proper nouns) the accent is onthe penultimate syllable

(31) əǧǧənoneM

nof

aacuteddoṛtimeSGM

y-uṭən3SGM-get_sickPFV

Ḥaacutessninḥassnin

yə-ngər3SGM-stayPFV

yə-ṭṭiacutes-a3SGM-restPFV-PRAGM

gin

aacutegbənhouseSGM

lsquoOnce he got sick Hassnin He stayed resting at homersquo3This construction will be discussed in detail in sect25

162


Most of the time the referent in this right-detached construction is followed bya demonstrative and in this case as mentioned in reference to examples (26) and(27) the position of the accent has no function in determining the definitenessof the noun

(32) g-uacuteɣi-xIRR-buyAOR-1SG

əǧǧətoneF

gəd-sənfrom-3PL

amẓaacuteogreSGM

daw-oacutemDEM-2SGF

lsquoHe thought ldquoI will marry one of themrdquo this ogrersquo

Contrary to descriptive relative clauses where the relative marker is not oblig-atory restrictive relative clauses are introduced by (n) wən (lsquoSGMPLrsquo and some-times lsquoSGFrsquo) or tən (lsquoSGFrsquo) (Schiattarella 2014) Head nouns in these kinds of rel-ative clauses must usually be considered definite and have the accent on thepenultimate syllable

(33) taacuteltiwomanSGF

wәnREL

aggʷid-ənnәsmanSGM-POSS3SG

yә-ṃṃuacutet3SGM-diePFV

lsquothe woman whose husband diedrsquo

This does not mean that the definite interpretation is only given by the accentbecause the restrictive relative clause is already a way to restrict a head noungiving it a definite interpretation

(34) yə-ṭləb3SGM-askPFV

sfrom



nof

wənREL

yə-xs-eacutet3SGM-wantPFV-3SGFDO

lsquoHe asked for the girl he wantedrsquo

Of course not all head nouns of restrictive relative clauses should be consid-ered as definite such as in the following example where the head is an indefinitepronoun

(35) kullevery

əǧǧənoneM

wənREL



lsquoeveryone who has a gardenrsquo

163


In general when əǧǧən lsquoonersquo is used alone as an indefinite pronoun and not asa numeral the accent is always on the penultimate syllable When it is a numeralthe accent can also be on the last syllable

(36) makwhen

əǧǧənoneM

yə-xsaacute3SGM-wantPFV

anǧaacutefmarryVN

lsquowhen someone wants to get marriedrsquo

The accent falls on the last syllable when it expresses the locative In the intro-duction I mentioned that according to Louali (2003) the locative is not expressedby the position of the accent but this form is in fact present in our corpus Thisstructure is only used when the place is referential and identifiable (so it is onlypossible with a toponym or ankaacuten lsquoplacersquo + n lsquoofrsquo + name of the place or whenthe name of the place is followed by a possessive) In this case the referentialityof the noun is hierarchically more important than the fact that the accent is onthe last syllable

(37) gaacute-ḥḥ-aṭIRR-goAOR-2SG

ankaacutenplaceSGM

nof

aacuteʕṛusweddingSGM

lsquoYou will go to the wedding placersquo

(38) yə-ččaacute3SGM-eatPFV

əlgaṛaacuteel_gara

lsquoHe ate in El Gararsquo

(39) ənnəgr-axliveIPFV-1SG

šaliacuteshali

lsquoI live in Shalirsquo

Indeed a generic noun indicating a place cannot mark a locative solely byplacing the accent on the last syllable (without the preposition)

(40) i-nəddum3SGM-sleepIPFV

timədraacutestschoolSGF

Intended lsquoHe sleeps at schoolrsquo

Locatives with the accent on the last syllable are also attested with nouns fol-lowed by a possessive In this case the accent is on the last syllable (which isunusual because the accent of nouns with the possessive is always on the penul-timate syllable see examples (22) and (23))

164


(41) i-təčč3SGM-eatIPFV

aksuacutemmeatSGM

timədrast-ənnəsschoolSGF-POSS3SG

lsquoHe eats meat in his schoolrsquo

25 Same referent in close intonation units

In this section I will analyze examples of structures where the opposition be-tween the same noun with the accent on the last syllable and on the penultimatesyllable is more visible Indeed in many cases in the corpus analyzed here anoun is introduced for the first time mostly with an existential predication (dilsquothere isrsquo) and then taken up again with the accent on the penultimate syllablein the following intonation units

(42) diEXIST


tkwayəstbeautifulSGF

t-ṛaacutewad-as3SGF-lookIPFV-3SGDAT

sgfrom

aacutellonwindowSGM

tləččagirlSGF

t-nəddum3SGF-sleepIPFV

lsquoThere was a beautiful girl who was watching him from the window(Afterwards) the girl was sleepingrsquo

(43) g-iacute-ftəkIRR-3SGM-openAOR

taliacutestankSGF

g-i-sə-ssuIRR-3SGM-CAUS-drinkAOR

amaacutenwaterPLM

kanif

laacute-diNEG-EXIST

taacutelistankSGF

lsquoHe opens a tank and he drinks water If there is no tankrsquo

(44) maacuteṛṛatime

diEXIST

azidiacutejackalSGM

dand

tɣaacutettgoatSGF

aziacutedijackalSGM

kullevery

yomday

g-iacute-ffaɣIRR-3SGM-go_outAOR

lsquoOnce upon a time there was a jackal and a goat Every day the jackalwould go outrsquo

Left-detached constructions used to mark a subtopic shift to what is intro-duced in the preceding discourse (Mettouchi amp Schiattarella 2018 278) are alsocharacterized by this alternation First the referent is introduced with the accenton the last syllable it is then taken up again in a subsequent intonation unit with

165


the accent on the penultimate syllable In this case too the function of the accentis anaphora

(45) əlmanẓaacuterviewSGM

aməllaacutelwhiteSGM

aməllalwhiteSGM

daacutew-omDEM-2SGF

w-omDEM-2SGF

tisəntsaltSGF

tiacutesəntsaltSGF

ənšniacuteIDP1PL

n-xəddam-et1PL-workIPFV-3SGFDO

lsquoA white view this white it is the salt The salt we work itrsquo

(46) sad_əlḥaacutenaksad_əlḥanak

swith

tiniacutedateSGF

dand

arənflourPLM

bassbut

tiacutenidateSGF

dand

aacuterənflourPLM

l-iacute-ḥaṭṭu-n-asənNEG-3-putIPFV-PL-3PLDAT

amaacutenwaterPLM

lsquoSad əlḥanak (is made) of dates and flour but (to) the dates and flour theydonrsquot add waterrsquo

It seems that in these constructions the placement of the accent to mark firstmention and anaphora is strictly linked to the spatial proximity of the same ref-erent probably because the alternation is more easily audible when the nounsare pronounced in a very short period of time while it seems that other de-vices are needed to mark the anaphoric function of a noun that has already beenmentioned when the two instances of the noun being mentioned are far fromeach other Moreover in the constructions discussed in this paragraph the nounwhen taken up again becomes the topic of the discourse which is not always thecase when referents that have already been mentioned reappear in a discourse

3 Discussion and conclusions

This paper has analyzed different morpho-syntactic semantic and pragmatic fac-tors which all contribute to the definiteness or indefiniteness of the noun specifi-cally when they interact with the position of the accent on the last or penultimatesyllable It appears that the assumption that the accent on the last syllable codesindefiniteness and the accent on the penultimate syllable codes definiteness istoo simplistic when other factors intervene the situation can be different Afterdescribing the pattern of the accent position when a noun is isolated whether or

166


not it is preceded by a preposition I described the environments where it is morelikely that the accent will be placed on the last and on the penultimate syllable

The accent is on the last syllable when nouns are mentioned for the first timeespecially through existential and possessive predications Moreover a noun thatdoes not need to be reactivated has the accent on the last syllable as the speaker isonly mentioning it to allow the continuation of the narration sometimes addingnew information The accent is on the penultimate syllable when a noun is ana-phoric and the referent is taken up a few intonation units after the first mentionThe proximity here is crucial as the anaphoric function could also be coded bydemonstratives The same happens with left-detached constructions where thenoun is first introduced into an intonation unit and is then taken up again in thefollowing intonation unit (with the accent on the penultimate syllable) and thenreappears again in the form of a resumptive pronoun in the following intona-tion unit Anaphora can also be associative with the referent only semanticallylinked to a previous noun The accent is also placed on the penultimate syllablewhen the noun is identifiable and belongs to a recognizable category for bothhearer and speaker or when it refers to something which is clearly recognizableor perceivable as unique in the particular context of use

Some syntactic constructions allow for the restriction and consequently thedefiniteness of the head noun namely adnominal possessive constructions andrestrictive relative clauses In the first case the second noun of the constructionusually has the accent on the penultimate syllable Finally some nouns are se-mantically referential (proper nouns toponyms kinship terms) so they all havethe accent on the penultimate syllable

Nevertheless we can observe that there are some factors that interact andoverride the function of the accent position when conveying (in)definitenesssuch as right- and left-detached constructions or when a noun is followed by ademonstrative or a possessive when it is a toponym for locatives or when itis followed by a relative clause Definiteness and indefiniteness in Siwi are thuscoded in a complex way and they are only achieved through the interaction ofdifferent elements at different levels The full range of aspects of interactionamong all these means still needs to be studied in detail

Further to what has been said so far I will conclude by adding that Siwi allowsall orders when only one argument (A S or O) is present When there are twoarguments only AVO is possible (Mettouchi amp Schiattarella 2018 288-289) Sub-ject affixes on the verb are obligatory in Berber and the presence of a co-referentlexical noun is rare OV is quite a rare order as is VA and hence most of the timenouns before the verb are subjects and nouns after the verb are objects As nouns

167


can be both subject and object and can have the accent on the last or penultimatesyllable in preverbal or post-verbal positions there is no relationship synchroni-cally between the coding of grammatical relation and the position of the accent

In the corpus analyzed for this study most of the nouns in preverbal positionhave the accent on the penultimate syllable while most of the nouns in post-verbal position have the accent on the last syllable One possible explanation isthat nouns in preverbal position are topics thus conveying known informationwhile post-verbal nouns are focus thus conveying unpredictable or additionalinformation This hypothesis still needs to be fully analyzed

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank here all the men and women consulted for this study who ac-cepted to collaborate with me during my stays in Siwa I also wish to thank theeditors of the volume the reviewers for their valuable comments and AminaMettouchi who gave me feedback on earlier versions of the paper

AbbreviationsA agentAOR aoristCAUS causativeCOMP complementizerDAT dativeindirect objectDEM demonstrativeDO direct objectEXIST existentialF feminineIDP independent pronounIPFV imperfectiveIRR irrealisM masculineO objectPFV perfectivePL pluralPOSS possessive

PRAGM pragmatic relevancemarker

N nounNEG negativeREL relative markerS subjectSG singularV verbVN verbal noun1 first person2 second person3 third person end of a minor prosodic

unit end of a major prosodic

unit

168


References

Basset Andreacute 1952 La langue berbegravere London Oxford University PressBeguinot Francesco 1942 Il Berbero Nefucircsi di Fassacircto Grammatica testi raccolti

dalla viva voce vocabolarietti Rome Istituto per lrsquoOrienteBrugnatelli Vermondo 1986 Alternanze accentuali e morfo-sintassi nominale

nel berbero orientale In Istituto di glottologia e lingue orientali (ed) Con-tributi di orientalistica glottologia e dialettologia (Quaderni di Acme 7) 61ndash72Milano Cisalpino-Goliardica

Brugnatelli Vermondo 2005 Voyelles et accents dans lrsquohistoire du berbegravere InPelio Fronzaroli amp Paolo Marrassini (eds) Proceedings of the 10th meeting ofHamito-Semitic (Afroasiatic) linguistics (Quaderni di Semitistica 25) 371ndash380Firenze Universitagrave di Firenze


Czardybon Adrian 2017 Definiteness in a language without articles ndash A studyon Polish (Dissertations in Language and Cognition 3) Duumlsseldorf DuumlsseldorfUniversity Press

Dryer Matthew S 2013a Definite articles In Matthew S Dryer amp Martin Haspel-math (eds) The world atlas of language structures online Leipzig Max PlanckInstitute for Evolutionary Anthropology http wals info chapter 37(25 November 2018)

Dryer Matthew S 2013b Indefinite articles In Matthew S Dryer amp MartinHaspelmath (eds) The world atlas of language structures online Leipzig MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology httpwalsinfochapter38(25 November 2018)

Garde Paul 1968 Lrsquoaccent (Collection SUP) Paris Presses universitaires deFrance

Goedemans Rob ampHarry van der Hulst 2013 Fixed Stress Locations InMatthewS Dryer amp Martin Haspelmath (eds) The world atlas of language structuresonline Leipzig Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology httpwalsinfochapter14 (25 November 2018)



169


Loumlbner Sebastian 2011 Concept types and determination Journal of Semantics28 279ndash333

Louali Naiumlma 2003 Lrsquoaccent en berbegravere Cateacutegorie grammaticale et deacutemarcationsyntaxique In Kamal Naiumlt-Zerrad Rainer Voszligen amp Dymitr Ibriszimow (eds)Nouvelles eacutetudes berbegraveres Le verbe et autres articles (Berber Studies 8) 67ndash77Koumlln Ruumldiger Koumlppe Verlag

Louali Naiumlma amp Geacuterard Philippson 2004 Lrsquoaccent en Siwi (Berbegravere drsquoEgypte)In Bernard Bel amp Isabelle Marlien (eds) Actes des XXVes Journeacutees drsquoEacutetude surla Parole (JEP 2004) 325ndash328 Fegraves Association Francophone de la Communi-cation Parleacutee

Louali Naiumlma amp Geacuterard Philippson 2005 Deux systegravemes accentuels berbegraveres LeSiwi et le touareg Faits de langues 26 11ndash22

Lux Ceacutecile amp Geacuterard Philippson 2010 Lrsquoaccent en tetserret et en tamacheq Con-tacts et contrastes In Harry J Stroomer (ed) Etudes Berbegraveres v (Berber StudiesVol 28) 133ndash164 Koumlln Ruumldiger Koumlppe Verlag

Mettouchi AminaampValentina Schiattarella 2018 The influence of state-markingon word order and information structure in Kabyle and Siwi (Berber) In Evan-gelia Adamou Katharina HaudeampMartine Vanhove (eds) Studies in LanguageCompanion Series 265ndash295 AmsterdamPhiladelphia John Benjamins

Schiattarella Valentina 2014 Relativization in Siwi In Aicha Belkadi Kakia Chat-siou amp Kirsty Rowan (eds) Proceedings of Conference on Language Documen-tation and Linguistic Theory 4 London SOAS

Souag Lameen 2013 Berber and Arabic in Siwa (Egypt) A study in linguistic con-tact (Berber Studies Vol 37) Koumlln Ruumldiger Koumlppe Verlag

Vycichl Werner 1981 Die Konstruktion des Genitivs im Berberischen der OaseSiwa In Inge Hofmann (ed) Festschrift zum 60 Geburtstag von P Anton Vor-bichler 175ndash183 Vienna Afro-Pub

Vycichl Werner 2005 Berberstudien amp A Sketch of Siwi Berber (Egypt) (BerberStudies Vol 10) Koumlln Ruumldiger Koumlppe Verlag

Vycichl Werner amp Salem Chaker 1984 Accent Encyclopeacutedie berbegravere I Abadir ndashAcridophagie 103ndash106

170

Chapter 7

Indirect anaphora in a diachronicperspective The case of Danish andSwedishDominika SkrzypekAdam Mickiewicz University Poznań

In this paper I offer a diachronic analysis of indirect anaphora (associative ana-phora) paying particular attention to the anchoring of the anaphor and the vari-ation between definite and possessive NPs which appear in this type of bridgingin Danish and Swedish between 1220 and 1550 The study is based on a corpus ofauthentic texts evenly distributed across languages and genres I argue that theexpression of indirect anaphora is a crucial stage in the grammaticalization of thedefinite article and that the study of the spread of the incipient definite articlethrough this context can be described in terms of strong and weak definiteness


Anaphora is one of the more widely studied discourse phenomena The termitself is derived from Greek (lsquocarrying backrsquo e g Huang 2000 1) and is used todescribe a relationship between two linguistic elements an antecedent and ananaphor as in the following example

(1) I came into a spacious room It was sparsely decorated and rather gloomy

The example given in (1) includes what is often considered a typical antecedent(indefNP) and a typical anaphor (a pronoun) The simplicity of the examplehowever is misleading for anaphora is a complex linguistic and cognitive phe-nomenon which has duly received a great deal of attention both within linguis-tic paradigms and in other fields such as (language) philosophy psychology cog-

Dominika Skrzypek 2020 Indirect anaphora in a diachronic perspective The case of Danishand Swedish In Kata Balogh Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr (eds) Nominal anchoringSpecificity definiteness and article systems across languages 171ndash193 Berlin Language SciencePress DOI 105281zenodo4049689

Dominika Skrzypek

nitive science and artificial intelligence studies Each is partly interested in dif-ferent aspects of anaphora and some studies subsume anaphora under a broaderstudy of reference in discourse (e g Kibrik 2011) Anaphora is the central ele-ment of such theoretical proposals as Relevance Theory (Sperber ampWilson 2012)and Centering Theory (Grosz et al 1995)

In historical linguistics anaphora is singled out as the first stage of the gram-maticalization of the definite article What is originally a deictic element usuallya demonstrative pronoun (see Lyons 1999) begins to be used to point not onlyin a physical context but also in text (anaphora)

(2) I came into a spacious room (hellip)The room was fully decorated but rather gloomy

The use of a demonstrative to point within text involves a shift from situationalto textual deixis (Lyons 1975) As the grammaticalization progresses new uses arefound for the original pronoun as it gradually transforms into a definite article(de Mulder amp Carlier 2011)

The first article-like use of the demonstrative (i e a use in which in articlelanguages the definite article would be used) is what could more precisely betermed direct anaphora In this type of reference the antecedent and the anaphorco-refer A different type of anaphora is found in (3)

(3) My watch is dead The battery is flat (after Schwarz 2000)

Even though a co-referring antecedent for the battery is lacking the NP is defi-nite Definite marking (such as a definite article) is normally a signal to the hearerthat the referent of the definite NP (defNP) is known identifiable or possible tolocate and here it seems to serve the same purpose Moreover it is clear that thetwo sentences in (3) form a coherent text and the definite marking can be inter-preted accordingly in relation to another NP namely my watch The element ofthe preceding discourse which makes the identification of the anaphor possiblewill be referred to as the anchor (after Fraurud 1990 see sect2) The relationshipbetween the battery and my watch is anaphoric and the defNP the battery is ananaphor but since the two do not co-refer I will use the term indirect anaphor tohighlight the difference between this type of relation and the direct anaphora de-scribed above In the literature this type of relation is also known as associativeanaphora or bridging

In this paper I shall focus on this particular type of textual relation diachron-ically In particular I follow the typology of indirect anaphors in terms of their

172

7 Indirect anaphora in a diachronic perspective

type of anchoring as presented by Schwarz (2000) and address the question ofthe diachronic development from demonstrative pronoun through an anaphoricmarker to definite article and its relation to the proposed typology of direct andindirect anaphors For the purpose of my study I have chosen two closely relatedlanguages Danish and Swedish representing the eastern branch of North Ger-manic I base my study on a corpus of historical texts in each language spanning330 years from 1220 until 1550 (see sect3) The corpus includes the oldest extanttexts in each language in which there are only sporadic instances of the incipi-ent definite article by 1550 the article systems of both languages have reachedmore or less the modern form (Stroh-Wollin 2016 Skafte Jensen 2007) I am par-ticularly interested in how indirect anaphora is expressed throughout the timeof the formation of the definite article

The aim of the paper is to fine-grain indirect anaphors and place them in adiachronic context of article grammaticalization More specifically I argue thatnot all indirect anaphors are marked as definites simultaneously and that in thiscontext the grammaticalizing definite article competes against two forms barenouns and possessives in particular reflexive possessives

The paper is organized as follows I begin by defining indirect anaphora in sect2presenting this context in detail ndash the aim of the section is to show how hetero-geneous a context indirect anaphora is In sect3 I present my sources and taggingprinciples together with a brief overview of definiteness and its expressions inmodern North Germanic languages Section sect4 presents the results with partic-ular focus on the forms used as indirect anaphors and on the subtypes of theseanaphors In sect5 I discuss the possible relevance of the results for the grammat-icalization of the definite article I close with conclusions and ideas for furtherresearch in sect6

2 Indirect anaphora

Indirect anaphora has been studied mainly synchronically and in the context ofdefiniteness it is therefore not surprising that it has been customary to focus ondefNPs as indirect anaphors The purpose of the studies has been to establish thelink between the anaphor and its anchor or to identify the anchor This approachis not entirely fruitful in diachronic studies In the context of article growth thereare few examples of definite articles in the oldest texts while many NPs are usedas indirect anaphors Although it is interesting to see in what contexts the incip-ient definite article may be found this does not give us a complete picture of itsgrammaticalization

173

Dominika Skrzypek

For the purpose of a diachronic study it is more useful to consider the contextitself irrespective of the form of the indirect anaphor Indirect anaphora is a typeof bridging reference which following a long tradition I take to be a relationshipbetween two objects or events introduced in a text or by a text a relationshipthat is not spelled out and yet constitutes an essential part of the content of thetext in the sense that without this information the lack of connection betweenthe objects or events would make the text incoherent (Asher amp Lascarides 1998)This is illustrated by the following examples

(4) I met two interesting people last night at a party The womanwas amemberof Clintonrsquos Cabinet

(5) In the groups there was one person missing It was Mary who left

(6) John partied all night yesterday Hersquos going to get drunk again today

(7) Jack was going to commit suicide He got a rope

(8) Jack locked himself out again He had left his keys on the kitchen table(examples (4)ndash(7) after Asher amp Lascarides 1998 83)

It may be noted that there is a variety of expressions treated as bridging hereincluding but not limited to defNPs In (8) it would be possible to use a defNPinstead of the possessive and most likely it would also be possible to replace theindefNP in (7) with a defNP lsquothe ropersquo The variation in form of indirect anaphorshas not been given due attention in studies thus far while it is of fundamentalimportance in a diachronic study I wish to argue for a widening of the scope ofstudy to include other expressions first and foremost possessive NPs (possNPs)

For indirect anaphors although there is no antecedent we are (mostly) able toidentify some connected entity eventactivity or scenarioframe in the precedingdiscourse as serving a similar function (lsquomy watchrsquo for lsquothe batteryrsquo) If nominalthe lsquoantecedentrsquo has been termed a trigger (Hawkins 1978) or an anchor (Frau-rud 1990) for the anaphor The two notions differ in terms of how they paint theprocess of referent identification Trigger implies that with its articulation a num-ber of stereotypically connected entities are activated in the hearerrsquos mind fromamong which heshe is then free to choose when the anaphor appears Thus

(9) We chose a quiet restaurant The menus were modest yet the food wasgreat

The utterance of the indefNP lsquoa quiet restaurantrsquo triggers a series of connectedentities such as menus waiters food other guests cloakrooms etc In other

174


words it opens up a new reference frame or reference domain (Referenz-domaumlneSchwarz 2000) within which these can be found On hearing defNPs such as lsquothewaiterrsquo or lsquothe tablersquo the hearer will automatically interpret them as belongingto the restaurant mentioned earlier (though the restaurant itself may not be afamiliar one since it is presented with an indefNP) Were the speaker to choosea referent from outside this frame and mark it as definite the hearer would prob-ably have more trouble interpreting it correctly

(10) We chose a quiet restaurant The hairdresser was rather heavy-handed andhe pulled my hair with unnecessary force

And yet it seems unlikely that on hearing the phrase lsquoa quiet restaurantrsquo thehearer automatically sees in hisher mindrsquos eye a series of entities connectedwith it In fact were heshe to do so it would be a very uneconomical proceduresince only some of the potential indirect anaphors will be used in the followingdiscourse For the most part only some of the potential triggers become actualtriggers and when they do only some of the wide range of possible indirectanaphors are used Consider the following examples

(11) a Hanna hatHans erschossenDer Knall war bis nachGladbach zu houmlrenlsquoHanna has shot Hans dead The bang could be heard all the way toGladbachrsquo

b Hanna hat Hans erschossen Die Wunde blutet furchtbarlsquoHanna has shot Hans dead The wound is bleeding awfullyrsquo

c Hanna hat Hans erschossen Das Motiv war EifersuchtlsquoHanna has shot Hans dead The motive was jealousyrsquo

d Hanna hat Hans erschossen Die Polizei fand die Waffe im Kuumlchen-schranklsquoHanna has shotHans dead The police found theweapon in the kitchencabinetrsquo

(Schwarz 2000 38 she calls the collection of entitiesprocesses activatedwith the use of a trigger ldquokonzeptueller Skopusrdquo)

Another term for the antecedent-like entity in preceding discourse is anchor to my knowledge first introduced by Fraurud (1990) In contrast to the term trig-ger it takes into account the actual anaphor and the process of accessing thereferent by searching for an lsquoanchorrsquo in the previous discourse This term alsohas the value of being equally applicable to indirect and direct anaphors (themost obvious anchor would be the co-referring entity)

175

Dominika Skrzypek

The examples quoted above show how heterogeneous indirect anaphora isThere are a number of relations between the anchor and the anaphor Authorsdiffer in their typologies of indirect anaphors however all of them distinguishbetween at least two major types Following Schwarz (2000) I will refer to thefirst type as semantic (based on lexical knowledge) and the second as conceptual(based on knowledge of the world) The former can be further subdivided intomeronymic (part-whole relations) and lexicalthematic (other semantic roles)and the latter into scheme-based and inference-based The types are illustratedwith examples below

(12) Semantic types

a meronymic relationsA new book by Galbraith is in bookstores now On the cover there is apicture of the author

b lexicalthematic relations A new book on climate change is inbookstores now The author claims that mankind has only twentyyears in which to make changes

(13) Conceptual types

a scheme-basedA charge of negligent homicide against Daw Bauk Ja could bewithdrawn at the request of the plaintiff

b inference-basedWussten Sie [hellip] dass der Schrei in Hitchcocks bdquoPsycholdquo deshalb soecht wirkt weil der Regisseur genau in dem Moment der Aufnahmeeiskaltes Wasser durch die Leitung pumpen lieszligDid you know () that the scream in Hitchcockrsquos Psycho seems soreal because at the moment of filming the director let cold water to bepumped through the pipe

(Consten 2004 102 own translation)

To successfully interpret an anaphor of the conceptual type a degree of knowl-edge of the world is necessary The interpretation of the defNP die Leitung lsquothepipersquo relies on familiarity with the Hitchcock film and the fact that the famousscene with the scream takes place in a shower

There are a number of other typologies of indirect anaphors (notably Irmer2011 see also Zhao 2014 for an overview of studies of indirect anaphora) though

176


most make similar divisions I follow M Schwarzrsquos (2000) typology since un-like the majority of other studies it is grounded in authentic texts and not con-structed examples and therefore seems best suited for a study of authentic exam-ples which is the subject of this paper It should be noted however as Schwarzherself frequently does that when studying authentic texts one is often forced toclassify examples that may fit more than one category depending on what seemsto be the anchor or what type of relation between the anchor and the anaphoris identified It is also possible that in authentic texts the anaphor is accessiblethrough more than one anchor

Finally a note on the form of the indirect anaphor is necessary here Tradi-tionally the point of departure for all classifications has been defNPs without aco-referring antecedent The aim of studies has been to explain their definitenessin the absence of an antecedent However in recent years when the concept ofbridging has become more established more and more authors have appreciatedthat bridging can also occur in the absence of definites (Asher amp Lascarides 1998107) In his discussion of totality (exhaustivity completeness) Hawkins (1978)shows that the definite can only occur in bridging when it refers uniquely e gcar ndash the engine but car ndash a tyre yet the underlying relationship between engineand car seems to be the same as that between tyre and car It has also been demon-strated that possessives may introduce new anchored referents (Willemse et al2009) Those authors found that in a considerable number of cases PM (= posses-sum) referents of possessive NPs are first mentions with inferential relations tothe context (Willemse et al 2009 24) In the following I will concentrate on thecontext itself and study the variety of forms found in it in historical Danish andSwedish texts

3 Sources and tagging

The corpus used in this study consists of 29 texts in Danish and Swedish writtenbetween 1220 and 1550 in three genres representative of the period studied legalreligious and profane prose From each text I chose passages with ca 150 NPs ineach (if the text was long enough) preferably high narrativity passages The textswere divided into three periods Period I (1220ndash1350) Period II (1350ndash1450) andPeriod III (1450ndash1550) The proposed periodization has been used in previousstudies of article grammaticalization and other diachronic studies of Swedish(Delsing 2012) A total of 5822 NPs (nominal NPs only) were tagged and analyzedThe tool used for tagging and generating statistics is called DiaDef (see Figure 1)and was tailor-made for the project It enables us to tag each NP for all data we

177

Dominika Skrzypek

Figure 1 DiaDef print screen

assume to be in some way relevant for the choice of article such as function insentence (subject object etc) referential status (new unique generic anaphoricetc) and other information (case number gender animacy countability etc)

The languages considered are both North Germanic languages of the easternvariety The extant texts consist of Runic inscriptions from ca 200 AD onwardsthe oldest extant Danish and Swedish texts written in the Latin alphabet are legaltexts from ca 1220 For this project I look at texts from 1220 to 1550 which is atime of radical change in the grammars of both languages including loss of caseand the emergence of (in)definiteness (Table 1)

Table 1 An overview of the sources

language periodnumber of

texts taggednumber of nominal

NPs extracted

Danish Period I (1200ndash1350) 7 1097Period II (1350ndash1450) 5 1016Period III (1450ndash1550) 4 787

Swedish Period I (1200ndash1350) 5 1194Period II (1350ndash1450) 5 1093Period III (1450ndash1550) 3 635

29 5822

178


A detailed list of quoted source texts can be found in the Sources When quot-ing examples from the corpus I note the language (DA for Danish and SW forSwedish) the source text (e g SVT for Sju vise maumlstare the abbreviations arealso given in the Sources) and the date of its composition

A note on the definite article in North Germanic is necessary here The definitearticle is a suffix that is always attached to the noun (in the Insular Scandinavianlanguages Icelandic and Faroese to the case-inflected form of the noun) Its ori-gins are to be found in the distal demonstrative hinn lsquoyonrsquo (e g Perridon 1989)Apart from the suffixed article there are other exponents of definiteness i ethe weak form of the adjective (in the continental languages Danish Swedishand Norwegian and in Faroese merely an agreement phenomenon in Icelandicpossibly retaining an original meaning of definiteness see Naert 1969) and a pre-posed determiner originally a demonstrative saacute (in younger texts den) lsquothisrsquo Boththe suffixed article and the preposed determiner can be combined within one NPin Swedish Norwegian and Faroese (so-called double definiteness) but are exclu-sive in Danish and Icelandic The variety of NPs is illustrated below using theexample of the noun lsquohousersquo (neuter in all languages) in the singular

(14) hus-et (Danish Norwegian Swedish)huacutes-ieth (Faroese Icelandic)house-DEF

(15) det store huset (Norwegian)det stora huset (Swedish)det store hus (Danish)mdash stoacutera huacutes-ieth (Icelandic)hiethtaeth stoacutera huacutes-ieth (Faroese)DEF large-DEF house-DEF

(16) et hus (Danish Norwegian)ett hus (Swedish)eitt huacutes (Faroese)mdash huacutes (Icelandic)INDEF house

For excerption I define bridging as widely as possible Direct anaphora (co-reference) is tagged as DIR-A uniques as U generics as G new discourse refer-ents as NEW (when there is no connection to previous discourse whatsoever)and non-referential uses as NON-REF For all other types of reference I use thetag INDIR-A

179

Dominika Skrzypek

The DiaDef program allows us to excerpt all NPs tagged as INDIR-A andsort them according to the form of the NP into BN (bare noun) -IN (incipientdefinite article) POSS (possessive) DEN (demonstrative den lsquothisrsquo) DEM (otherdemonstrative elements) and EN (incipient indefinite article) For the purpose ofthe present study the possessives are further subdivided into POSS-GEN (geni-tive e g Jans lsquoJan-GENrsquo) POSS-PRO (possessive pronoun e g hans lsquohisrsquo) andPOSS-REFL (reflexive possessive pronoun e g sin lsquohis-REFLrsquo)

I did not expect to find large discrepancies between texts in different languagesand from different periods with respect to the number of indirect anaphors ineach NPs tagged as indirect anaphors constitute ca 25 of all NPs in the ma-terial (Table 2) with only slight variation between languages and periods Thisconfirms an intuitive expectation that this type of textual relation does not de-pend on the period It may depend on the genre chosen I have therefore concen-trated on choosing passages of high narrativity1 from each genre including legalprose

Table 2 Percentage of indirect anaphors in the corpus

period Danish Swedish

1200ndash1350 2452 25801350ndash1450 2372 19671450ndash1550 2961 2362average 2595 2303

4 Results

I sorted all indirect anaphors according to the form of the NP Table 3 presentsan overview of the results for each language and period

First a comment on the presentation of the results is necessary I give per-centages for each NP form used in an indirect anaphoric context e g of all NPstagged as INDIR-A in Swedish Period I 3604 were BNs As can be seen fromthe totals (shown in italics) the forms I chose for the study cover the majority of

1Old Danish and Old Swedish texts include a number of passages that can best be termed casestudies leading to the establishment of a precedent These usually tell a short story with anumber of discourse referents I chose passages of this type over mere formulations of legalrules whenever possible

180


Table 3 Indirect anaphors in Old Danish and Old Swedish accordingto form

NP form Period I Period II Period III1200ndash1350 1350ndash1450 1450ndash1550

Danish BN 2185 539 472POSS-refl 1074 1245 1288POSS-pro 2630 3693 2446POSS-gen 926 1203 2189-IN 704 1079 1888DEM 222 166 172DEN 593 664 472EN 074 415 086

8408 9004 9013

Swedish BN 3604 930 800POSS-refl 422 2093 1533POSS-pro 1006 2279 2267POSS-gen 2078 1023 2067-IN 877 1767 1133DEM 390 558 667DEN 422 465 667EN 227 465 067

9026 8650 9201

indirect anaphors but not all There are other types of NPs that can be found inthe material including nouns with adjectival modifiers (adjectives in the weakor strong form) but without any other determiners However their frequencieswere low enough for them not to be reported

The general results show the expected patterns ndash a decreasing frequency ofBNs in bridging reference together with a rising frequency of -IN the incipi-ent definite article The high frequencies of BNs in Period I are to be expectedsince in both languages the process of article grammaticalization most likely be-gan some time before the oldest texts were written (see Skrzypek 2012 74 foran overview of proposed dating by different authors) The period 1220ndash1550 isthe time when the definite article grammaticalizes in both languages In manycontexts indirect anaphora being one of them it comes to be used instead of

181

Dominika Skrzypek

BNs We can further see that other NP types are on the rise in both languagesmost notably possNPs (with reflexive possessive in Swedish and pronominalnon-reflexive possessive in Danish) not only the incipient definite article Poss-NPs are the strongest competitor to defNPs in the material studied

The results reported in Table 3 above show indirect anaphora without subdi-viding the context into semantic and conceptual anaphors (see sect2) They showthat the context is by no means exclusively expressed by defNPs and that poss-NPs in particular show high frequencies

They also show that the major change taking place between Period I and Pe-riod II is the reduction of zero determination In thematerial chosen no BNswerefound in anaphoric uses of NPs (they were still found with uniques and genericssee also Skrzypek 2012) but since the definite article is not yet fully grammat-icalized it is not the default option for determination Speakers therefore makeuse of other elements most notably different types of possessives

In the following part of the paper I will focus on the variation between defNPsand possNPs in indirect anaphora

41 Semantic indirect anaphora ndash mereological relations

Although it may seem that I have already fine-grained the concept of indirectanaphora the first subtype mereological relations is by nomeans homogeneousWithin it we find such different relations between anchor and anaphor as objectndash material (bicycle ndash the steel) object ndash component (joke ndash the punchline) collec-tive ndash member (deck ndash the card) mass ndash portion (pie ndash the slice) etc There are anumber of examples of mereological relations found in thematerial With limitedmaterial at my disposal I was not able to find examples of each type of mereolog-ical relation in the Danish and Swedish texts to enable a systematic study of allsub-types for all periods in both languages Very well represented are examplesof inalienable possession i e body parts items of clothing or weaponryTheNPs found in semantic indirect anaphora include BNs possNPs and defNPs

although in Period I inalienables seem to be found only as BNs or possNPs andnot as defNPs

(17) (DA_VL 1300)AElignand

ofif

swaso

worthaeligrbe

atthat

manman

mistaeligrloses

allaeligall

sinaelighis

taeligndaeligrteeth

affrom

sinhisREFL

hoslashsheadlsquoIf it should happen that a man loses all his teethrsquo

182


(18) (DA_Mar 1325)iakI

komcame

thornathen

fuulfully

soslashrhilikasorrowful

tilto

miinmy

kaeligradear

sunson

okand

thornaharwhen

iakI

sasaw

hanumhim

slaa-sbeat-PASS

maeligthornwith

naeliguafists

()()

okand

spytta-sspit-PASS

iin

anlaeligtface

okand

krona-scrown-PASS

maeligthornwith

thornornathorns

lsquoI came full of sorrow to my dear son and as I saw he was beaten withfists and spat in the face and crowned with thornsrsquo

(19) (SW_Bur 1330)atthat

honshe

varthornbecame

hauandepregnant

maeligthornwith

guzGodGEN

sonson

iiin

sinoherREFL

liuewomb

lsquothat she carried Godrsquos son in her wombrsquo

(20) (SW_AVL 1225)Uaeligrthornaeligrbe

mathornerman

draeligpinkilled

()()

thornathen

skalshall

uighimurder

aon

thorningiting

lysaeligdeclare

lsquoIf a man is killed then the murder shall be made public on a tingrsquo

In Period II inalienables no longer appear as BNs but either with a (reflexive)possessive pronoun or the incipient definite article It should be noted here thatNorth Germanic languages have retained two possessive pronouns the regularpossessive corresponding to the English hisherits and the reflexive possessivesinsitt which is used when the possessor is the subject of the clause The defaultmarking of inalienables in Period II seems to be the possessive and the incipientdefinite article is at first only found with inalienables in direct anaphora (i esuch body parts or items of clothing that are not only connected with an ownerknown from previous discourse but have also been mentioned themselves)

(21) (SW_Jart 1385)Kwinna-nwoman-DEF

gikwent

bortaway

okand

faldadhefolded

hanhim

jin

sinomher

hwiffscarf

somwhich

honshe

hafdhehad

aon

sinoher

hofdhehead

lsquoThe woman went away and folded him in her scarf which she had on herheadrsquo

183

Dominika Skrzypek

(22) (SW_Jart 1385)Thathen

syntiswas-seen

quinno-n-nawoman-GEN-DEF

hwifwirscarf

allirall

blodhoghirbloody

okand

waterwet

affof

blodhblood

swaso

atthat

blodh-inblood-DEF

floumltflew

nidhirdown

vmabout


kindircheeks

Hulkitwhich

herra-nmaster-DEF

saasaw

ropadhescreamed

okand

sagdhesaid

hwarwho

slohit

thikyou

jin

thityour

aumlnliteface

aumlllaor

sarghadhehurt

Okand

quinnna-nwoman-DEF

lyptelifted

vpup

sinaher

handhand

okand

stroumlkstroked

sikherself

vmabout

aumlnliti-tface-DEF

okand

thawhen

honshe

toktook

nidhirdown

hand-in-ahand-ACC-DEF

thathen

warwas

honshe (= the hand)

alall

blodhoghbloody

lsquoThen the womanrsquos scarf seemed all bloodied and wet with blood so thatthe blood flew down the womanrsquos cheeks Which the master sawscreamed and said ldquoWho hit you in your face or hurt (you)rdquo And thewoman lifted her hand and stroked her face and when she took the handaway it was all bloodiedrsquo

Example (22) illustrates well the division of labour between the (reflexive) pos-sessive and the incipient definite article The possessive is used if the inalien-able is mentioned for the first time (indirect anaphora) The definite article isused only in further mentions i e in direct anaphora (thus your face ndash the faceher hand ndash the hand) Naturally we could simply treat such examples as directanaphors However it is clear that they are both co-referring with an antecedentand accessible via their anchors It seems that this double identity as direct andindirect anaphors constitutes a bridging context (in the sense of Heine 2002)for defNPs to spread to indirect anaphora with meronyms By the end of PeriodII and the beginning of Period III the definite article starts being used also inindirect anaphora (first mention of an inalienable possessum connected with aknown discourse referent) as shown in (23) and (24)

(23) (SW_ST 1420)ThaThen

barbore

keysari-nemperor-DEF

vpup

hand-enahand-DEF

ocand

sloghhit

honaher

widhat

kinben-itcheekbone-DEF

atthat

honshe

stoslashrtefell

tilto

iordh-innaearth-DEF

lsquoThen the emperor lifted his hand and hit her on the cheekbone so thatshe fell downrsquo

184


(24) (DA_Jer 1480)Thathen

begynthebegan

loslashffwe-nlion-DEF

somas

hwnshe

warwas

wanaccustomed

gladelighgladly

atto

loslashperun

iin

closterethmonastery-DEF

()(hellip)

elleror

roslashrdhewagged

stiaeligrth-entail-DEF

lsquoThen the lion began as she was accustomed to to gladly run in themonastery (hellip) or wagged her tailrsquo

It should be noted that BNs are found in indirect anaphora even in PeriodIII however as illustrated in examples (25) and (26) these occurrences may belexicalizations rather than indirect anaphors

(25) (DA_KM 1480)Jamwnd-zJamund-GEN

hoffui-thead-DEF

bloslashdebled

bodheboth

gioslashmmenthrough

mwnmouth

okand

oslashrenears

lsquoJamundrsquos head bled through both mouth and earsrsquo

(26) (DA_Kat 1480)badhprayed

methwith

mwndhmouth

ocand

hiaeligrtheheart

lsquo(She) prayed with mouth and heartrsquo

42 Semantic lexicalthematic

The lexicalthematic type is based on our lexical knowledge of certain elementsforming more or less stereotypical events or processes e g a court case involvesa judge one or more hearings a charge a plaintiff and so on In Period I we findmostly BNs in this type of indirect anaphora (example (27)) but a few instancesof the incipient definite article have been found as well (example (28))

(27) (SW_AVL 1225)Sitaeligrsits

konaeligwife

iin

bohouse

doumlrdies

bondehusband

lsquoIf a wife is alive and the husband diesrsquo

(28) (SW_OgL 1280)Nunow

draeligpaeligrkills

mathorn-aeligrman-NOM

manmanACC

komacome

tilto

aruaheir

man-zs-in-sman-GEN-DEF-GEN

okand

faget

drapar-a-nkiller-ACC-DEF

okand

huggacut

thornaeligrthere

nithornaeligrdown

aon

foumltaeligrfeet

thornaeligsthisGEN

doumlthorn-adead-GEN

lsquoIf a man kills another comes to the manrsquos heir and gets the killer andcuts (him) down at the feet of the deceasedrsquo

185

Dominika Skrzypek

This context allows defNPs as early as Period I I have not found possNPs inthis type of indirect anaphora In Period II the lexical type is regularly found withdefNPs in pairs such as tjuven lsquothe thiefrsquo ndash stoumllden lsquothe larcenyrsquo wighia lsquoordainrsquondash vixlenne lsquothe ordinationrsquo henger lsquohangsrsquo ndash galghan lsquothe gallowsrsquo rida lsquoridersquo ndashhaumlsten lsquothe horsersquo foumlrdes doumld lsquoa dead (man) was carriedrsquo ndash baren lsquothe stretcherrsquoTypical for this type of indirect anaphora is that the anchor need not be nominaland the anaphor may be accessible through a VP

43 Conceptual scheme-based anaphors

The conceptual types of indirect anaphora are resolved not (only) through lexicalknowledge but rather through familiarity with stereotypical relations betweenobjects or events and objects The NPs found in this type are either BNs (in PeriodI) or defNPs PossNPs on the other hand are seldom found in this type at allirrespective of the period I have located some examples of possNPs that may beconsidered indirect anaphors it should be noted that they such as example (31)sound natural with a reflexive possessive in Modern Swedish as well and thechoice between defNP and possNP may be a question of stylistics rather thangrammatical correctness

(29) (SW_HML 1385)Diaumlfwl-endevil-DEF

saasaw

hanshis

diruecourage

ocand

reedeprepared

hanomhim

snarutrap

()(hellip)

Ocand

bathornasked

munk-inmonk-DEF

sikhimself

inlaumltaallow

iin

sinhisREFL

cellacell

lsquoAnd he (the devil) asked the monk to let him in his (= the monkrsquos) cellrsquo

(30) (DA_Kat 1488)Therwhen

sanctasaint

katherinaCatherine

thettethis

fornamunderstood

thathen

luckthelocked

hwnshe

sikherself

hardelighfirmly

iin

synherREFL

cellaeligcell

ochand

badhprayed

jnderlighpassionately

tillto

gudhGod

lsquoWhen Saint Catherine understood this she locked herself away in hercell and prayed passionately to Godrsquo

However themost commonly foundNP forms in this type of indirect anaphoraare either BNs (in Period I) or defNPs (sporadically in Period I regularly in PeriodII and Period III) such as tjuvnad lsquolarcenyrsquo ndashmalseghanden lsquothe plaintiffrsquo (larcenyis prosecuted somebody sues this person is called a plaintiff) skuld krava lsquodebtdemandrsquo ndash guldit lsquothe goldrsquo (the debt is to be paid it is possible to pay it in gold)

186


44 Conceptual inference-based

This type of indirect anaphora is the least accessible To correctly identify thereferent the hearer must not only consider the textual information or stereo-typical knowledge of the world but also make inferences allowing himher toresolve the anaphor It should be noted that some authors do not consider thistype anaphoric at all e g Irmer (2011)

In the corpus this type is expressed either by BNs or by defNPs No possNPswere found here An interesting fact however is that defNPs may be found asearly as Period I

(31) (SW_AVL 1225)Mathornaeligrman

fargets

saeligrhimself

athornalkonowife

gaeligtaeligrbegets

uithornby

barnchild

doumlrdies

svthis

faeligrgets

athornraanother

gaeligtaeligrbegets

vithornby

barnchild

fargets

hinathat

thornriethiuthird

thornoumlrdies

bondepeasant

thornathan

konaeligwoman

eris

livaeligndialive

thornathan

skalshall

afof

takaeligtake

hemfylghdowry

sinaeligher

altall

thornetthat

aeligrwhich

vnoumltunused

aeligris

hunshe

aeligllaeligror

haelignaeligrher

boumlrnchildren

thornathan

skalshall

hinthat

aeliglstioldest

koldaeligrbrood

boskiptidivision

kraeligfiaeligdemand

takaeligrtake

afof

thornrithorniungthird-part

afof

bo-n-oestate-DAT-DEF

lsquoIf a man marries a woman and has a child with her after her deathmarries again and fathers a child and marries for the third time and diesleaving the widow she or her children should retrieve her dowry ndashall ofit that is unspoiltndash then the children of the first marriage demand a partin the estate and should be awarded a third of itrsquo

(32) (SW_Jart 1385)Nunow

jin

thethis

stund-in-nehour-DAT-DEF

fortravelled

therthere

framforward

vmabout

ena

praumlstirpriest

mzwith

gud-zGod-GEN

likamabody

tilto

ena

siukansick

manman

okand

klokka-nbell-DEF

ringderang

forfor

gud-zGod-GEN

likamabodylsquoAt this hour a priest was travelling to a sick man carrying the wafer andthe bell rang to announce himrsquo

I have not found a single example of indirect anaphora that could be classifiedas conceptual inference-based which would be expressed by a possNP In this

187

Dominika Skrzypek

type of anaphora defNPs occur early ndash they are found though only sporadicallyat the beginning of Period I (while the meronymic type is not expressed withdefNPs until the end of Period II) To begin with however BNs are prevalentGradually they are suppressed by defNPs without going through the possNPphase which the meronymic types seem to have done This type of indirect ana-phora may be seen as the one reserved for the definite article since no otherelement possessive or demonstrative can appear here

Table 4 NP forms of indirect anaphora in Old Danish and Old Swedish

BN POSS-REFL POSS-PRO -IN

Period I (1220ndash1350) + + + minusPeriod II (1350ndash1450) minus (+) + + (+)Period III (1450ndash1550) minus (+) + + +

5 Discussion indirect anaphora and grammaticalizationof the definite article

The grammaticalization of the definite article is a relatively well-studied develop-ment yet a number of questions remain unresolved The first models proposedin the literature show the path from (distal) demonstrative to definite article inone step (Greenberg 1978) or focus on the first stage of development i e textualdeixis and direct anaphora (J Lyons 1975) Diessel (1999) sees definite articles asderived from adnominal anaphoric demonstratives while C Lyons (1999) arguesthat the origins of the definite are to be found in exophoric use (when the referentis present and accessible in the physical context) and in anaphoric use (when thereferent is also easily accessible though through discourse rather than the phys-ical situation) Common to J Lyons (1975) Diessel (1999) and C Lyons (1999) isthe focus on the initial stages of grammaticalization as the shift from demonstra-tive to definite article However none of these proposals account for the fact thatwhat truly distinguishes a definite article from a demonstrative is the possibilityof being used in indirect rather than direct anaphora a context where the use ofdemonstratives is allowed only marginally if at all (see Charolles 1999 for a dis-cussion of demonstrative use in indirect anaphora) Demonstratives may on theother hand be used in direct anaphora without exhibiting any other propertiesof or grammaticalizing into definite articles It seems therefore that the critical

188


shift from a demonstrative to a definite article takes place where the demonstra-tiveincipient article appears in indirect anaphora (see also de Mulder amp Carlier2011 Skrzypek 2012)

(33) demonstrative rarr direct anaphora rarr indirect anaphora rarr unique (rarr generic)

What remains unclear is both the course of the development from direct toindirect anaphora and the course through indirect anaphora (which is not a ho-mogeneous context as demonstrated above) Also the variation between definitearticle and other elements such as possessive pronouns and incipient indefinitearticle has not been given enough attention

Recently Carlier amp Simonenko (2016) have proposed that the development ofthe definite article in French proceeds from strong to weak definiteness with thestrong-weak dichotomy as proposed by Schwarz (2009) basically correspondingto the long-debated origins of definite meaning in either familiarity (strong defi-niteness) or uniqueness (weak definiteness) Based on diachronic data from Latinand French Carlier and Simonenko suggest that the developments may be partlyindependent and that the weak and strong patterns unite in a single definite ar-ticle with time They note that in Classical Latin direct anaphoric relations areincreasingly marked by demonstratives among them the incipient definite arti-cle ille yet the indirect anaphoric relations remain unmarked in both Classicaland Late Latin and are marked with the l-article first in Old French As Carlierand Simonenko claim the original semantics of the l-articles involved an identityrelation with a context-given antecedent (strong definiteness) With time an al-ternative definite semantics emerged involving a presupposition of uniquenessrather than an identity relation (weak definiteness)

These two types of definiteness may be expressed by different definite arti-cles as has been noted for some German dialects (Austro-Bavarian German) andNorth Frisian (Ebert 1971) or they may correspond to different behaviours of theone definite article as in Standard German (Schwarz 2009)

In a diachronic context the division into strong and weak definiteness leavesindirect anaphora neither here nor there Its resolution depends on textual an-choring (familiarity) however it also depends on the uniqueness presuppositionConsider examples (34) and (35)

(34) I took a taxi to the airport The driver was a friendly elderly man

(35) He drove to the meeting but arrived late due to a problem with a tyre

The use of the defNP the driver is based on both familiarity (with the vehiclementioned earlier) and uniqueness (there only being one driver per car) The use

189

Dominika Skrzypek

of the indefNP a tyre is motivated by there being more than one in the givencontext the anchor being the verb drove suggesting a vehicle of which a tyre(the faulty tyre in this case) is a part (making the driver late) There is familiarity(we assume the existence of a vehicle) but no uniqueness It is therefore not easyto place indirect anaphora in the strong-weak definiteness dichotomy It may bethat some types of indirect anaphora showmore similarities with strong definiteswhile others have a closer affinity with weak definites

This would explain the relative discrepancy between inalienables and othertypes of indirect anaphora The inalienable relationship between the anchor andthe anaphor is based on familiarity (the anaphor being a part of the anchor) butnot necessarily uniqueness In this textual relation it is possible (and in mostcontexts most natural) to use the defNP benet lsquothe legrsquo referring to either of thetwo legs just as it is to say fickan lsquothe pocketrsquo irrespective of how many pocketsthere are in the outfit worn

6 Conclusions

The model of the grammaticalization of definiteness is imperfect as is our un-derstanding of the category itself It is a recurring problem in many linguisticdescriptions that definites are defined mainly as text-deictic (this also applies togrammars of article-languages) whereas corpus studies show that this is not the(whole) case While an extended deixis in the form of direct anaphora is under-standable it is by no means certain that it is the original function of the articleAlso it is present in many languages that cannot be claimed to have definitearticles like the Slavic languages and has not led (yet) to the formation of adefinite article Perhaps the origins of the article are to be sought among thebridging uses including in their widest sense (conceptual inferential)

The results of my study show that indirect anaphora is a heterogeneous con-text and that the incipient definite article does not spread through it uniformly inDanish and Swedish It appears relatively early in semantic lexical types (a bookndash the author) and in conceptual types in these contexts its main competitor is theoriginal BNs However it is late in appearing in semantic meronymic types inparticular those involving inalienable possession In this context there is strongcompetition from the reflexive possessive pronouns

As indirect anaphora constitutes a crucial element of the grammaticalizationof the definite article it should be addressed in any account of the developmentof that article

190


Acknowledgments

The research presented in this paper was financed by a research grant from thePolish National Science Centre (NCN) lsquoDiachrony of definiteness in Scandina-vian languagesrsquo number 201519BHS200143 The author gratefully acknowl-edges this support

SourcesDanish SourceDA_VL Valdemars lov ca 1300 httpmiddelalderteksterdkDA_Jer Af Jeronimi levned ca 1488 Gammeldansk laeligsebog 341-345DA_Kat Af Katherine legende ca 1488 Gammeldansk laeligsebog 346-347DA_KM Karl Magnus Kroslashnike ca 1480 Poul Lindegaringrd Hjorth Udg for

Universitets-Jubilaeligets DanskeSamfund J H Schultz

DA_Mar Mariaklagen efter et runeskrevet Haandskrift-Fragment i Stock-holms Kgl Bibliotek J Broslashndum-Nielsen amp A Rohmann (edi-tors) 1929 Copenhagen Manuscript Cod Holm A120

Swedish all texts downloaded from Fornsvenska textbankenSW_AVL Aumlldre Vaumlstgoumltalagen ca 1225SW_Bur Codex Bureanus ca 1330SW_Jart Jaumlrteckensbok ca 1385SW_ST Sjaumllens Troumlst ca 1420SW_OgL Oumlstgoumltalagen ca 1290SW_HML Helga manna leverne ca 1385

References

Asher Nicholas amp Alex Lascarides 1998 Bridging Journal of Semantics 15(1) 83ndash113

Carlier Anne ampAlexandra Simonenko 2016 The evolution of the French definitearticle From strong to weak Presentation at Going Romance

Charolles Michael 1999 Associative anaphora and its interpretation Journal ofPragmatics 31(3) 311ndash326

Consten Manfred 2004 Anaphorisch oder deiktisch Zu einem integrativen Mod-ell domaumlnengebundener Referenz (Linguistische Arbeiten Vol 484) TuumlbingenNiemeyer

191

Dominika Skrzypek

Delsing Lars-Olof 2012 Stora katastrofen ndash med foumlr- och efterskal Om kasus-sammanfallet i fornsvenska Studier i svensk spraringkhistoria 12 27ndash46

de Mulder Walter amp Anne Carlier 2011 The grammaticalization of definite arti-cles In Heiko Narrog amp Bernd Heine (eds) The Oxford handbook of grammat-icalization 522ndash534 Oxford Oxford University Press

Diessel Holger 1999 Demonstratives Form function and grammaticalization (Ty-pological Studies in Language 42) AmsterdamPhiladelphia John Benjamins


Fraurud Kari 1990 Definiteness and the processing of noun phrases in naturaldiscourse Journal of Semantics 7(4) 395ndash433

Greenberg Joseph 1978 How does a language acquire gendermarkers In JosephGreenberg (ed)Universals of human language 3 47ndash82 Stanford Stanford Uni-versity Press

Grosz Barbara J Aravind K Joshi amp Scott Weinstein 1995 Centering A frame-work for modeling the local coherence of discourse Computational Linguistics21(2) 203ndash225


Heine Bernd 2002 On the role of context in grammaticalization In Ilse Wis-cher amp Gabriele Diewald (eds) New reflections on grammaticalization 83ndash101AmsterdamPhiladelphia John Benjamins

Huang Yan 2000 Anaphora Cambridge Cambridge University PressIrmer Matthias 2011 Bridging inferences Constraining and resolving underspeci-

fication in discourse interpretation BerlinBoston Mouton De GruyterKibrik Anton 2011 Reference in discourse Oxford Oxford University PressLyons Christopher 1999 Definiteness Cambridge Cambridge University PressLyons John 1975 Deixis as the source of reference In Edward L Keenan (ed)

Formal semantics of natural language 61ndash83 Cambridge Cambridge Univer-sity Press

Naert Pierre 1969 Goacuteethur maethurinn En studie oumlver den syntaktiska kombinatio-nen obestaumlmt ndash bestaumlmt i islaumlndskan saumlrskilt den nyare islaumlndskan Arkiv foumlrnordisk filologi 84 115ndash130

Perridon Harry 1989 Reference definiteness and the noun phrase in Swedish Am-sterdam University of Amsterdam (Doctoral dissertation)

Schwarz Florian 2009 Two types of definites in natural language Amherst MAUniversity of Massachusetts (Doctoral dissertation)

192


Schwarz Monika 2000 Indirekte Anaphern in Texten Studien zur domaumlnengebun-denen Referenz und Kohaumlrenz im Deutschen Tuumlbingen Niemeyer

Skafte Jensen Eva 2007 Der var engang en mand ndash om markeret og umarkeretartikelbrug i moderne dansk og gammeldansk In Henrik Joslashrgensen amp PeterWidell (eds)Det bedre argument Festskrift til Ole Togeby 299ndash320 Aringrhus For-laget Wessel amp Huitfeldt Nordisk Institut

Skrzypek Dominika 2012Grammaticalization of (in)definiteness in Swedish Poz-nań Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM

Sperber Dan amp Deirdre Wilson 2012 Meaning and relevance Cambridge Cam-bridge University Press

Stroh-Wollin Ulla 2016 The emergence of definiteness marking in Scandinavianndash new answers to old questions Arkiv foumlr nordisk filologi 131 129ndash169

Willemse Peter Kristin Davids amp Liesbet Heyvaert 2009 English possessives asreference-point constructions and their function in the discourse InWilliam BMcGregor (ed) The expression of possession 13ndash50 Berlin Mouton De Gruyter

Zhao Wei 2014 A survey of studies of bridging anaphora Canadian Social Sci-ence 10(3) 130ndash139

193

Name index

Aissen Judith 21 44Alexiadou Artemis 85Asher Nicholas 174 177

Baker Mark C 57Basset Andreacute 150Baumann Stefan 68Beaver David 52Beguinot Francesco 151 152Bisang Walter 16 25 26 32 33 44

45 123Bodomo Adams 16Borik Olga 55 58 59 122Bornkessel-Schlesewsky Ina 20 44Bricker Victoria Reifler 84Brugnatelli Vermondo 151 152Brustad Kristen E 119Bryzgunova Elena A 64Burianovaacute Markeacuteta 62 63 122

Carlier Anne 172 189Chafe Wallace L 19Chaker Salem 151Charolles Michael 188Chen Ping 44Cheng Lisa 9 16 62Chesterman Andrew 2Chierchia Gennaro 54 55Christophersen Paul 3 4 52 153Chvany Catherine V 60Comrie Bernard 43 44 57 60Consten Manfred 176

Contini-Morava Ellen 82 84 89 9597 99 101 108

Coppock Elisabeth 52Croft William 20Czardybon Adrian 62 63 154

Danziger Eve 82ndash84 86 89 91 9597 99 101 108

Davis Henry 81Dayal Veneeta 55 122De Hoop Helen A 44de Mulder Walter 172 189Delsing Lars-Olof 177Diessel Holger 188Dimitrova-Vulchanova Mila 58Dixon Robert M W 20 43Donnellan Keith S 4 130Dryer Matthew S 60 81 82 85 89

90 95 102 118 154Du Bois John W 29 44Dyakonova Marina 11 73

Eacute Kiss Katalin 8Ebert Christian 120Ebert Karen 5 6 130 189Egli Urs 132Elbourne Paul D 56Elliott Stephen R 84Emeneau Murray B 41Enccedil Muumlrvet 7Endriss Cornelia 61England Nora C 84

Name index

Erteschik-Shir Nomi 61

Farkas Donka 6 7 52 74Fassi-Fehri Abdelkader 119Filip Hana 58Fraurud Kari 172 174 175Frege Gottlob 52Fursenko Diana I 60

Galkina-Fedoruk Evdokia M 54Garde Paul 150Gehrke Berit 55Geist Ljudmila 57 62 121Ghomeshi Jila 115 116 122ndash124 128

131 143Gillon Carrie 81Givoacuten Talmy 29 44Goedemans Rob 150Greenberg Joseph 16 188Grosz Barbara J 172

Hajičovaacute Eva 59Hanks William 94Hartmann Dietrich 5Haspelmath Martin 57Hawkins JohnA 81 90 160 174 177Hedberg Nancy 116 129Heim Irene 3 52 55Heine Bernd 184Heine Julia E 10Himmelmann Nikolaus 8 85Hincha Georg 116 123 124 128 132Hofling Charles A 85Huang Yan 171

Ionin Tania 57Irmer Matthias 176 187Isačenko Alexander V 59

Jasbi Masoud 115ndash118 121 124 127128 132 134 143

Jasinskaja Katja 60 64Jelinek Eloise 86Jiang L Julie 16

Kamp Hans 3 4 52Karimi Simin 116 123Karttunen Lauri 7Keenan Edward L 43 44 130Kibrik Anton 172King Tracy H 60Koumlnig Ekkehard 36Kraacutemskyacute Jiřiacute 60Krifka Manfred 36 58 74 122Krylov Sergei 54Kuroda Shichiro 38

Lambrecht Knud 44 154Lambton Ann K S 124LaPolla Randy J 44Lascarides Alex 174 177Latrouite Anja 119Lazard Gilbert 116 121 128Leiss Elisabeth 62Leonetti Manuel 61 73Lewis David 4Li Charles N 44Li XuPing 16 25 26 32 33 44 45Loumlbner Sebastian 5 6 10 24 32 45

81 96 97 154Lois Ximena 84Louali Naiumlma 151 152 155 164Lucy John A 84Lux Ceacutecile 151Lyon John 8 81Lyons Christopher 52 56 81 88 90

116 117 124 172 188Lyons John 172 188

195

Name index

Maclaran Rose 7Malchukov Andrej 44Massam Diane 123Mathesius Vileacutem 59Matthewson Lisa 81McCawley James D 4Mettouchi Amina 162 165 167Mithun Marianne 55Modarresi Fereshteh 122ndash125Modarresi Yahya 121

Naert Pierre 179Nasser Hayedeh 125 128Neale Stephen 4Nesset Tore 54Nguyen Kim Than 33Nguyen Tuong H 16 17Nikravan Pegah 121 129

Onea Edgar 121

Partee Barbara 55Paul Daniel 123 124Peng Danling 10Pereltsvaig Asya 57Perridon Harry 179Pesetsky David 11 73Philippson Geacuterard 151 152 155Portner Paul 61Pospelov Nikolaj S 54 60 64Prince Ellen 99

Quang Kim Ngoc 45 123

Reinhart Tanya 60 61Reyle Uwe 4Riester Arndt 68Rochemont Michael 74Russell Bertrand 3 52

Sasse Hans-Juumlrgen 38 39 81Schiattarella Valentina 162 163 165

167Schlesewsky Matthias 20 44Schoorlemmer Maaike 58Schumacher Petra B 121Schwarz Florian 5 45 129 189Schwarz Monika 172 173 175 176Sgall Petr 59Shaw Mary 85Silverstein Michael 20 43Šimiacutek Radek 62 63 74 122Simonenko Alexandra 189Simpson Andrew 10 16 45Skafte Jensen Eva 173Skrzypek Dominika 181 182 189Souag Lameen 152Sperber Dan 172Strawson Peter F 3 4 52Stroh-Wollin Ulla 173Sun Chao-Fen 44Sybesma Rint 9 16 62Szwedek Alexander 60

Tawa Wako 9Thompson Sandra A 44Toosarvandani Maziar 125 128Topolinjska Zuzanna 60Tran Jennie 16Trinh Tue 16

Ulrich Matthew 83 85 96 97 102Ulrich Rosemary 83 85 96 97 102

van der Hulst Harry 150Van Valin Jr Robert D 119Vapnarsky Valentina 84Ventur Pierre 83 85ndash88 92 94 96

97 99 100 103ndash105 107

196

Name index

Verbeeck Lieve 83 106Verkuyl Henk J 58von Heusinger Klaus 6 7 9 52 115

117 121 132Vycichl Werner 151

Wang Jian 25Wierzba Marta 74Wierzbicka Anna 58Willemse Peter 177Wilson Deirdre 172Windfuhr Gernot L 115ndash117 121

124 128 143Winter Yoad 132Wolter Lynsey 56Wu Yicheng 16

Xu Liejiong 44

Yabushita Katsuhiko 61Yanovich Igor 57Yokoyama Olga 60

Zhao Wei 176

197

Language index

Afro-Asiatic languages 2Arabic

Egyptian 149Moroccan 119 120

Bambara 3Bangla 10Basque 8910

Bedouin 149Berber languages 149ndash152 167Bulgarian 58

Chinese 2 4120

Cantonese 25 26 44Mandarin 25 26 44 62Wu 25 26 32 33 44 45

Chuj 2Czech 62 63 74 122 150

Danish 1 8 9 171ndash190

East Asian languages 16 17 45 46English 2 54 55 552 62 81 84

856 86 95 99 10120 115ndash117 120 124 127 143 150

Faroese 179French 150 189Frisian 5 189

German 5 120 121 144 189Austro-Bavarian 189

Germanic languages 2

North Germanic 173 178 179183

Greek 171Guellala 151

Hindi 122Hmong 10Hungarian 2 7

Icelandic 179Italian 61 150

Japanese 2

Lakhota 2 119 120Latin 150 189

Moksha 2Mopan (Mayan) 2 8 10 81ndash110

Nafusi 151 152Norwegian 179

Persian 1 2 8 10 575 115ndash144Modern Colloquial 9 115ndash144Standard Written 121 123 125

128Polish 62 63 150 154

Romance languages 2 61 73Romanian 2Russian 1 2 8 11 51ndash150

Sakha 575

Language index

Scandinavian languages 179Semitic languages 151Sinitic languages 16 161 25 44 4422

45 4522

Siwi (Berber) 2 3 8 10 149ndash168Slavic languages 2 58 62 63 74 190Southeast Asian languages 16 17 45

46Spanish 61 856

Straits Salish 86Swedish 1 8 9 171ndash190

Tagalog 2Tamasheq 151Tetserret 151Tuareg 151Turkish 7 575

Vietnamese 2 8 10 15ndash46 1234

Yucatecan languages 8 84 9414

200

Subject index

accent 3 10 11 64 128 149ndash168accent alternation 149 150 152

155 161 165 166Acceptability Judgement Test 64accessibility 51 72 75accessibility hierarchy 43anaphora

associative anaphora 9 171 172bridging anaphora 9 29 53 122

129 171 172 174 177 179181 184 190

direct anaphora 172 179 183184 188ndash190

discourse anaphora 4indirect anaphora 9 171ndash190

anaphoricity 11 74animacy 9 10 20 21 23 25 29 41

4120 43 4421 45 101 13613712 138 140 144 178

animacy hierarchy 20 43article systems 2 3 8 118 173aspect 57ndash59

imperfective aspect 58perfective aspect 58

associated referent 129

bare nominal 8 11 51ndash53 62 63 6770ndash73 75 81 83 88 89 9195 97 101 102 10222 105107 108 110 122

categorical statement 38 39

Centering Theory 172classifiers 2 9 10 15ndash46 1234

nominal classifiers 10numeral classifiers 9 10 15ndash

18 25 83 88 98ndash100 10120106ndash108 110

concept typefunctional concept 5

concept types 5 6 24functional concept 5relational concept 5

conditionals 128contrast 34 35 3619 51 54 61 73 93

definite descriptions 3 31 4 5 52definiteness 3ndash6

anaphoric 32 45 64 91 92pragmatic 10 15 32 45semantic 1 10 32 45strong 9 32 45 129 171 189 190weak 9 32 45 129 171 189 190

definiteness hierarchy 8definiteness scale 20definites

pragmatic definites 5semantic definites 5strong definites 129 130 190

deixis 172 188 190demonstratives 11 56 563 57 82 86

91 9414 104 116 117 120124 128 154 156 161ndash163

Subject index

167 172 173 179 180 188189

determinacy 521

determined reference 52differential object marking 20 21

4421 1161 1266

discourse linking (D-linking) 11 5153 63 72 73 75

discourse prominence 3 7 10ndash12 46109 121

Discourse Representation Theory 4discourse salience 3 9 11 521 81 101

10121 102 103 105 107ndash109121

emphatic pronoun 87 88 93 95 9799 104 105 108 109

exhaustivity 177existential sentences 10 15 17 38

40 41 4120 43 156

familiarity 3 4 11 52 64 69 74 82110 116 129 153 176 186189 190

File Change Semantics 4focus 18 25 32 35ndash37 4422 154 168

contrastive focus 10 15 20 3234 35 45

focus marker 37focus particles 10 15 20 32 36ndash

38 45frame-setter 3619

free-choicefree-choice function 117free-choice implication 117 124free-choice item 116

generic sentence 32 33 597 70 122129

genericity 122generics 9011 153 156 157 164 178

179 182 189givenness 68 69 74 7412 7413 75

821

lexical givenness 68referential givenness 68 72

grammaticalization 9 4422 171ndash173177 181 188 190

hyperonymy 73hyponymy 71 73

identifiability 2 8 10 18 20 32 3343 45 69 81 82 87 8910 90153

inclusivity 90information status 68 70 71information structure 10 15 17 18

20 25 31 32 43 4422 4546 59 60 154 155

intonation 61 64 74 152 153 157162 165 167

iota shift 55

kinship terms 5 154 155 160 167

Likert scale 66Linear Mixed Model 66locatives 40 151 152 164 167

mereological relations 182meronyms 184

negative polarity item 116 117nominal anchoring 10noteworthiness 7noun types 5

functional noun 5 24 154individual noun 24 9616 154

202

Subject index

relational noun 5 24 2413 154sortal noun 5 15 20 24 32 43

4421 45 9616

novelty 64 70

partitive interpretation 57 58partitivity 7 117perfectivity 58 59prominence 20 43 150propositional attitudes 131pseudo-incorporation 55 123

questions 125 126 128

reference hierarchy 81 83 855 898910 90 106 109

referential anchoring 2 8 9 81 82855 86 87 90 91 93 108109 115 117 121 132 140144

referential intention 7 121 132referential status 25 51 56 67 82

83 178referentiality 4 20 61 110 117 120

124 130 134 153 160 164RefLex scheme 68relationality 20 24 45 821

relativized deictics 86 87 92ndash94 9698 99 103 106 108ndash110

Relevance Theory 172Russian 75

specificity 1ndash3 6ndash12 57 574 81ndash8385 102 108 110 115ndash144153

epistemic 7 132 134 136ndash138pragmatic 9012 101 103 105

stage-level predicates 52 64stative predicates 82 84 86 95stress 61 64 658 74 75 150 152

thetic statements 10 15 17 38ndash4045 62 154

topic 8 9 34 39 40 4422 60ndash62 7375 154 156 158 166 168

aboutness topic 60 61contrastive topic 10 15 18 20

32 34 45internal topic 60

topic position 40 4422 61 73 75topicality 7 11 60ndash62 117toponym 160 164 167type-shifting 55 56

uniqueness 3ndash5 8 10 11 20 24 241432 45 52 74 81 82 8218910 102 104 153 154 160189 190

universal quantifiers 124 131

203

Nominal anchoring

The papers in this volume address to different degrees issues on the relationship of ar-ticles systems and the pragmatic notions of definiteness and specificity in typologicallydiverse languages Vietnamese Siwi (Berber) Russian Mopan (Mayan) Persian Danishand Swedish The main questions that motivate this volume are (1) How do languageswith and without an article system go about helping the hearer to recognize whether agiven noun phrase should be interpreted as definite specific or non-specific (2) Is thereclear-cut semantic definiteness without articles or do we find systematic ambiguity re-garding the interpretation of bare noun phrases (3) If there is ambiguity can we stillposit one reading as the default (4) What exactly do articles in languages encode thatare not analyzed as straightforwardly coding (in)definiteness (5) Do we find linguistictools in these languages that are similar to those found in languages without articlesMost contributions report on research on different corpora and elicited data or presentthe outcome of various experimental studies One paper presents a diachronic study ofthe emergence of article systems On the issue of how languages with and without arti-cles guide the hearer to the conclusion that a given noun phrase should be interpreted asdefinite specific or non-specific the studies in this paper argue for similar strategies Thelanguages investigated in this volume use constructions and linguistic tools that receivea final interpretation based on discourse prominence considerations and various aspectsof the syntax-semantics interface In case of ambiguity between these readings the de-fault interpretation is given by factors (e g familiarity uniqueness) that are known tocontribute to the salience of phrases but may be overridden by discourse prominenceArticles that do not straightforwardly mark (in)definiteness encode different kinds ofspecificity In the languages studied in this volume whether they have articles or donot have an article system we find similar factors and linguistic tools in the calculationprocess of interpretations The volume contains revised selected papers from the work-shop entitled Specificity definiteness and article systems across languages held at the40th Annual Conference of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS) 7-9 March 2018 at theUniversity of Stuttgart

9 783961 102846

ISBN 978-3-96110-284-6

Contents

1 Nominal anchoring Introduction Kata Balogh Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr


2 Article systemssbj]article systems and related notions

21 Basic notions definiteness and specificitysbj]specificity

211 Definitenesssbj]definiteness|(

212 Specificitysbj]specificity

3 Contributions



33 Summary

2 (In)definiteness and Vietnamese classifiers Walter Bisang amp Kim Ngoc Quang

1 Introduction

2 Methodology



32 The semantic features of uniquenesssbj]uniqueness and relationalitysbj]relationality

33 Word order definiteness and animacysbj]animacy

34 Discourse and information structuresbj]information structure

341 Definiteness identifiabilitysbj]identifiability and information structuresbj]information structure

342 Contrastive topicssbj]topiccontrastive topic

343 Focussbj]focus


41 Thetic statementssbj]thetic statements



5 Conclusion

3 Preverbal (in)definites in Russian An experimental study Olga Borik Joan Borragraves-Comes amp Daria Seres

1 Introduction


21 Expressing (in)definiteness in Russian lexical and grammatical means

22 The effects of word order on the interpretation of nominal arguments




33 General results





5 Conclusions

4 Referential anchoring without a definite article The case of Mopan (Mayan) Eve Danziger amp Ellen Contini-Morava

1 Introduction

11 Resources for referential anchoringsbj]referential anchoring in Mopan



211 ART with relativized deicticsbj]relativized deictics predicates

212 Emphatic pronounsbj]emphatic pronoun

213 Numeral + classifier constructionsbj]classifiersnumeral classifiers

214 Bare nominalsbj]bare nominal

3 Dryers (dryer14) reference hierarchysbj]reference hierarchy


311 ART


3121 Optionality of relativized deicticsbj]relativized deictics for explicit marking of anaphoric definitenesssbj]definitenessanaphoric

313 The emphatic pronounsbj]emphatic pronoun leek




322 Relativized deicticsbj]relativized deictics for nonanaphoric reference

323 Emphatic pronounsbj]emphatic pronoun leek `be a 3rd person for nonanaphoric reference

324 Bare nominalsbj]bare nominal for nonanaphoric reference



332 Relativized deicticsbj]relativized deictics predicates for introducing an unfamiliar referent

333 Emphatic pronounsbj]emphatic pronoun for pragmatically specific reference

334 Numeral classifiersbj]classifiersnumeral classifiers construction for pragmatically specific reference

335 Bare nominalsbj]bare nominal for pragmatically specific reference



342 Relativized deicticsbj]relativized deictics for semantically specific pragmatically nonspecific indefinites

343 Emphatic pronounsbj]emphatic pronoun for semantically specific pragmatically nonspecific indefinites

344 Bare nominalsbj]bare nominal for pragmatically nonspecific referents



352 Relativized deicticsbj]relativized deictics for semantically nonspecific reference

353 Independent pronoun leek

354 Numeral classifiersbj]classifiersnumeral classifiers construction

355 Bare nominalsbj]bare nominal for semantically nonspecific indefinite


5 The specificity marker -e with indefinite noun phrases in Modern Colloquial Persian Klaus von Heusinger amp Roya Sadeghpoor

1 Introduction











43 Specificity marker and referential anchoringsbj]referential anchoring

5 Empirical evidence for speaker orientation of specific noun phrases

51 Experiment 1


512 Results

513 Discussion

52 Experiment 2

521 Design



6 Accent on nouns and its reference coding in Siwi Berber (Egypt) Valentina Schiattarella









23 The position of the accent in discourse accent on the penultimate syllable

24 Interaction between accent position and other strategies to mark definiteness and indefiniteness

25 Same referent in close intonationsbj]intonation units


7 Indirect anaphora in a diachronic perspective The case of Danish and Swedish Dominika Skrzypek


2 Indirect anaphora


4 Results

41 Semantic indirect anaphora ndash mereological relationssbj]mereological relations




5 Discussion indirect anaphora and grammaticalizationsbj]grammaticalization of the definite article

6 Conclusions

Index

Name index

Language index

Subject index

Topics at the GrammarshyDiscourse Interface

Editors Philippa Cook (University of Goumlttingen) Anke Holler (University of Goumlttingen) Cathrine

FabriciusshyHansen (University of Oslo)

In this series

1 Song Sanghoun Modeling information structure in a crossshylinguistic perspective

2 Muumlller Sonja Distribution und Interpretation von ModalpartikelshyKombinationen

3 Bueno Holle Juan Joseacute Information structure in Isthmus Zapotec narrative and

conversation

4 Parikh Prashant Communication and content

5 Balogh Kata Anja Latrouite amp Robert D Van Valinsbquo Jr (eds) Nominal anchoring

Specificity definiteness and article systems across languages

ISSN 2567shy3335


Edited by


language

science

press



978-3-96110-285-3 (Hardcover)





Contents








Index 194

Chapter 1














2





211 Definiteness






3






4








5


(6) Germana Er

hemuszligmust


Krankenhaushospital


b Erhe

muszligmust

wiederagain


Krankenhaushospital

zuruumlckback

ausfrom

demtheDAT

erhe

schonalready

entlassendischarged

warwas



Iskalmust

deeldown

tuto

aditheWtheS

kuupmangrocer


Okiheehas

ana

hingsthorse

keeftbought

AditheWtheS

hingsthorse

haaltetlimps



212 Specificity




6



(9) a AliAli

birone

piyano-yupiano-ACC

kiralamakto-rent

istiyorwants


Alibirone

piyanopiano

kiralamakto-rent

istiyorwants





(11) Egya

diaacutekstudent


azthe



7



3 Contributions





8







9





10




33 Summary


11



Acknowledgments


References








12

















13














14

Chapter 2






1 Introduction




CLbogravecow

ăneat

luacuteapaddy

kigraveaSFP


bringcuocirc nCL

saacutechbook

raout

đacircyhere




16




cowăneat

luacuteapaddy

kigraveaSFP


bringsaacutechbook

raout

đacircyhere




17












2 Methodology



18









19










20












21










CậuCL

beacuteboy

thacirc ysee

thecirc that

tặngpresent

mỗieach

ngườiperson

mộtone

traacuteiCL

lecircpear

hellip



Coacutehave

mộtone

ngườiperson

dẫnlead

conCL

conCL

đoacuteDEM

chắc lagravemaybe

conCL

decircgoat

đigo

ngangpass

quaover



22




Sauafter

đoacutethat

ocircng acirc y3SG

lạiagain

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

thangladder

vagraveCONJ

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

cacircytree

haacuteipluck

tiecirc pcontinue




Cậu ta3SG

đatildePERF

đặtplace

caacuteiCL

xocircbucket

ngayright

giữabetween

bocirc father

vagraveand

mẹmother



Luacutectime

nagraveyDEM

ngườiCL


thứcwake

dậyup

lacirc ytake

caacuteiCL

bigravenhbottle

roacutetpour

nướcwater

vagraveoPREP

lyglass





23













24



BịPASS

noacutenghot

mocircngbuttock

anh ta3SG

mởopen


xịtspray

maacutetcool

chofor

caacuteiCL

mocircngbuttock

thigraveCONJ

luacutectime

đoacuteDEM

bạnfriend

anh ta3SG

chocirc mprance

từfrom

ngoagraveioutside

cửa sổwindow

vagraveoin

hocirc iurge

anh ta3SG


kẻootherwise

trễ giờlate




Lecircpear

đổpour

raout


higravenh nhưseems

noacute3SG

bịPASS

đauhurt

chacircnleg

nữamore

thacirc ysee

noacute3SG

sờtouch

sờtouch

caacuteiCL

chacircnleg






25



nagravethat

běnCL

shūbook

(ge)CL


mǎi-zǒubuy-away

lePF


penCL

cybook

keCL

iaʔsnstudent

mabuy

lePFV

tccedilhigo

dieSFP


bunCL

syubook

goCL

hoksaangstudent

maai-jobuy-PFV

laSFP




wǒI

mǎi-lebuy-PFV

liagravengCL

chēcar


NgeI

mabuy

lePFV

buCL

tsʰotsʰicar


Keuihhe

maai-zosell-PFV

gaaCL

cecar



26










ConCL

lừadonkey

cứalways

nhigravenlook

vagraveoinside

caacutecPL

cacirc nCL

xeacute lecircpear

nhưlike

muocirc nwant

đứng lạistop

vagraveCONJ

ăneat

lecircpear





27




anhCL

chocirc nghusband


cửadoor

khiecirc ncause

cocircCL

vợwife


rocirc iCONJ

bỏleave

vagraveoenter





Anh ta3SG

bướcstep

vagraveoPREP

nhagravehouse

thigraveCONJ

lạiEMPH

bịPASS

đứaCL

conson

chơiplay

chiecirc cCL

xe1car

đẩypush

truacutengRES

vagraveoPREP

chacircnleg

khiecirc ncause

anh ta3SG


vagraveoPREP

chiecirc cCL

xe2car




Coacuteexist

mộtone

ngườiCL


đangPROG

ởPREP

trecircntop

caacuteiCL

thangladder

bắcconnect

lecircnPREP

cacircyCL

lecircpear

vagraveCONJ

đangPROG

haacuteipluck

traacuteiCL

lecircpear



28





Subject Object





29




Subject Object



+def 978 34 8 78 176 256 114 1092minusdef 19 9 1 31 3 94 0 365

Total 997 43 9 109 179 350 114 1457


Subject Object



+def 262 55 0 12 133 230 3 324minusdef 0 2 1 0 0 62 0 46

Total 262 57 1 12 133 292 3 370




30


[Subj+CL+ani]

[Subj+CL-ani]

[Subj-CL+ani]

[Subj-CL-ani]

[Obj+CL+ani]

[Obj+CL-ani]

[Obj-CL+ani]

[Obj-CL-ani]

0

500

1000

15001240

89 8 90309

486

117

1416

19 11 2 31 3156

0

411

DefiniteIndefinite




31







32



Thinsky

zibe

lanblue

koSFP


BanCLpiece

thinsky

gintsɔtoday

manvery

lanblue



(18) a Trờisky

đacirc yfull

saostar


CLtrờisky

đecircm naytonight

đacirc yfull

saostar



33



trờisky

mơ ướcdream

củaPOSS

haitwo

chuacuteng ta2PL

đacircyhere

rocirc iSFP








ĐứaCL

con traison

thigraveTOP

đứngstand

lecircnup


vagraveCONJ

vẽdraw

bậydisorderly

lecircnon

tườngwall

cogravenwhile

bagraveCL

vợwife

thigraveTOP

nằmlie

ăneat


vớiPRE




34




Thacirc ysee


củaPOSS


ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband


vagraveand

bắt eacutepforce

ăneat

nhưngCONJ

bagraveCL

vợwife

vẫnstill

khocircngNEG

ăneat




ThằngCL

beacuteboy

tập tễnhlimping

dắtlead

xebike

đigo

vagraveifew

bướcstep

cogravenCONJ

bọnCL

trẻkid

thigraveTOP

đigo

theotoward

hướngdirection



343 Focus



35




Ổng3SG

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

mộtone

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đểso that

ổng3SG

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

mộtone

caacuteiCL

cacircytree

đểto

ổng3SG

haacuteipluck

Ổng3SG

haacuteipluck

xongRES

thigraveCONJ

ổng3SG

leoclimb

xuocirc ngdown

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đoacuteDEM

xuocirc ngdown

đoacuteDEM

Rocirc iCONJ

ổng3SG

dướidown

mặtCL

đacirc tground

sẽFUT

coacutehave

bathree

caacuteiCL

giỏbasket




ThigraveCONJ

coacutehave

bathree

sọtCL


dướiunder

đacirc tground

khocircngNEG

coacutehave

aiwho


hecirc tatall




36




Luacutectime

bacirc y giờthat

ngườiCL

chocirc nghusband

nghehear

thacirc yRES

begravenCONJ

trocirc irise

lecircnout

khỏiout of

mặtsurface

nướcwater

toagravenwhole

thacircnbody

ocircng3SG

lagraveCOP


chỉ cogravenonly

thacirc ysee

mỗionly

khuocircnCL

mặtface




Khiwhen


vigravebecause

bịPASS

tạtthrow

nướcwater

bagraveCL

vợwife



nhigravenlook

xung quanharound

xemsee

aiwho

lagravemdo

vagraveCONJ

chảNEG

coacutehave

aiwho

ngoagraveiexcept

ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband

củaPOSS

migravenhself



37




Ocircng acirc y3SG

bịPASS

bỏngburn

vagraveCONJ

đauhurt

quaacutevery

necircnCONJ

ocircmhold

chacircnfoot

lecircnRES

vagraveand

khocircngNEG

giữkeep

đượcRES


necircnCONJ

teacutefall

vagraveointo

chiecirc cCL

chảopan

đangPROG

chaacuteyburn

đoacuteDEM

caacuteiCL

mocircngbuttock

củaPOSS

ocircng acirc y3SG

đatildePERF

bịPASS

phỏngburn






38





Chiecirc cCL



reoring

lecircnup

luacutecat

8eight

giờorsquoclock

đuacutengexactly

NgườiCL


đangPROG

ngủsleep

thigraveCONJ

bịPASS

nướcwater


vagraveoPREP

mặtface



Chiecirc cCL



reoring

lecircnRES


đatildePERF

taacutemeight

giờorsquoclock

saacutengmorning

NgườiCL


mởopen

mắteye


sangtoward



39





Luacutectime

nagraveyDEM

coacutehave

viecircnCL


vagraveoenter

hỏiask

xemsee


vigravebecause

haitwo

vợwife

chocirc nghusband

catildeiargue

nhauRECIP





đoacuteDEM

lagraveCOP

caacuteiCL

kệshelf

nhỏsmall

caacuteiCL

bigravenhbottle

vagraveand

lyCL

nướcwater

đượcPASS

đặtplace

lecircnmoveup

trecircntop

noacute3SG




40




CacircuCL

chuyệnstory

đượcPASS


vagraveoin

mộtone

buổi sangmorning

tạiat

mộtone

caacutenhCL

đocirc ngfield

coacutehave

mộtone

ngườiCL


leoclimb

lecircnup

trecircnon

mộtone

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đangPROG

haacuteipluck

mộtone

loạikind


nagraveosome

đoacutecertain

giocirc nglike

traacuteiCL

lecircpear





coacutehave

xecar

cứusave

hỏafire

vagraveCONJ


đecirc narrive

xịtspray

nướcwater

vagraveointo

chữaextinguish

chaacuteyfire

nhưngCONJ

lagravem chocause


hỏng hecirc truin




41





NhưngCONJ

sauafter

đoacutethat

caacuteiCL


củaPOSS

ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband

bịPASS

lủngburst

lograveishow

raout

caacuteiCL


chứCONJemph

khocircng phảiNEG


coacute thểcan

gacircycause

nguy hiểmdanger





nhigravenlook

gaacuteigirl

necircnCONJ

noacute3SG

vacirc ptrip

phảiPASS

cụcCL

đaacutestone

vagraveCONJ

teacutefall

xuocirc ngdown

đườngroad



42


5 Conclusion











43






44






45




Acknowledgements


References




46



















47



















48






49

Chapter 3





1 Introduction









52







53



(1) a Vin

uglucornerLOC

spitsleeps

koškacatNOM

b KoškacatNOM

spitsleeps

vin

uglucornerLOC




(3) KoškacatNOM

spitsleep




54








55






(5) a VasjaVasja

znaetknows

ėtogothisACCM

studentastudentACCM



prixodilacame

včerayesterday

vto

gostiguests



kakaja-tosomeNOMF




kupilbought


erundunonsenseACCF



56




(6) a VasjaVasja

kupilbought

molokamilkGEN


Vasjakupilbought

molokomilkACC





57



(7) a VasjaVasja

risovalpaintedIPFV







(8) a IvanIvan

pidrankIPFV

vinowineACC


IvanizpidrankPFV





58



(9) PetjaPetja

razdelildividedPFV

ljudejpeopleACC

nain

dobryxkindACC

iand

zlyxmeanACC







59




(10) a TolyaTolya

včerayesterday


swith

AnejAnya



ToliTolya

tothat

onhe

včerayesterday


swith

AnejAnya


(11) a Varenjejam

jaI

včerayesterday

srsquoelatePFV



varenjajam

tothat

jaI

egoit

včerayesterday

srsquoelatePFV



60




(12) a Buenosgood

vinoswines

(los)(CLMPL)

hayhavePRS3SG

enin

CastillaCastile


booksinin

ingleseEnglish

(line)(CLMPLCLPART)

puogravecanPRS3SG

trovarefind

alonthe

secondosecond

pianofloor




61








62








63








64















65


33 General results







66





67










68





8333 2520


7750 2806


8833 2102


8418 2166


6863 3016


7583 2930


5972 3372


7306 3155




69











70










71







72







73









74



5 Conclusions



75


Acknowledgments


References













76

















77


















78

















79















80

Chapter 4




1 Introduction












82









83







inw1A(prevocalic)




3qUOTaART

winikman


aumltan=awife=EV





84






aART

nooch=obig=EV


aART

nenersquo=esmall=EV





85





brsquoinHSY

aART


yalanunder

kamaj=abed=EV






86



peroDISC

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A

karsquoagain


u3A

laakrsquoother

uy3A(prevocalic)

aumltanwife









karsquoagain



u3A


brsquoinHSY





87




lersquoek3EMPH

aART


in1A


lersquoek3EMPH

aART

santoholy

krsquoin=isun=EV





junone

tuulCLFANIM

brsquoinHSY

aART

winik=iman=EV

topvery


brsquoinHSY

t-uPREP-3A

wicheye

aART



214 Bare nominal



88



ooh

inen=e1EMPH=EV

wayersquoDLOC1


wayersquoDLOC1

yan-Oslashexist-3B

in1A

kaalhometown

kutrsquoan3qUOT

winik=iman=EV






marsquoNEG

yan-emptyexist-3B

aART



89











90






311 ART




aART

winikman


aumltan=awife=EV





91



peroDISC

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A

karsquoagain


u3A

laakrsquoother

uy3A(prevocalic)

aumltanwife




topvery


tiPREP

in1A

wicheye

kutrsquoan3qUOT

brsquoinHSY

aART






92




marsquoNEG


u3A


aART


aART

winikman

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV








93



kaumlkaumljcacao

iand

kafecoffee

lersquoek3EMPH

aART


u3A


in1A

kabayoj=ohorse=EV




lersquoek3EMPH

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

u3A







u3A

meyajwork

ichilinside

jumone

prsquoeelCLFINAN

jardingarden

buenowell

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

meyajwork

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

u3A




94



314 Bare nominal



ooh

inen=e1EMPH=EV

wayersquoDLOC1


wayersquoDLOC1

yan-emptyexist-3B

in1A

kaalhometown

kutrsquoan3qUOT

winik=iman=EV






95



aART

uj=umoon=EV


ilikINT

u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

jabrsquoixlike

tiPREP


u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

aART

krsquoinsun







brsquoinHSY

ichilinside

aART

karsquoansky

aART






96





buenowell

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

jesus=uJesus=EV

tiPREP







u3A


brsquoinHSY

ichin

krsquoaakrsquofire






97







puesso

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A


t-uPREP-3A

tzeel=eside=EV

uy(prevocalic)3A


yan-emptyexist-3B

aART

brsquoak=abone=EV






98



puesso

junone

tuulCLFANIM

brsquoinHSY

aART

winikman

aART



brsquoinHSY

u3A







jumone

prsquoeelCLFINAN

krsquoinday

brsquoinHSY

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

brsquoaalumjaguar

uy3A(prevocalic)

etrsquookcompanion

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ajGMM

leon=olion=EV

uy3A(prevocalic)


brsquoinHSY

tiPREP

u3A

brsquoajilself




99









tubrsquoawhere

yan-emptyexist-3B

junone

teekCLFplant

aART





u3A

karsquoagain



yalamunder

junone

teekCLFplant

maumlpcocoyol_palm


100









101



pweswell

kirsquogood


tirsquoi3OBL

iand

jok-eenexit-1B

tojalready

ichin

najhouse



pachbehind

najhouse


pueswell


in1A


u3A

fotophoto

tiPREP


aART




u3A

charsquoangaze

ichin

najhouse






102







brsquoinHSY

u3A


aART



brsquoinHSY

u3A


aART







entonsesthen

tiPREP

karsquoagain

brsquoinHSY

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ilikjust

brsquoinHSY

aART

kochlastone


tiPREP


103


ichilinside

aART

tunichrock

aART


entonsesthen

puesso



brsquoinHSY

u3A


aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

aart







peroDISC

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

muyalcloud

aART


u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

tiPREP

u3A

wich=iface=EV


104






puesthen


brsquoinHSY

uy(prevocalic)3A

oolfeeling

u_menby

kansnake






105





sansamaldaily

tatzrsquofar


brsquoinHSY

u3A

brsquoelgoIPFV

u3A


aART

yuk=uantelope=EV









106



in1A

tat=afather=EV

u3A

krsquoatiwant

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ixGMF

chrsquoup=uwoman=EV






ixGMF

koloolpartridge



etelwith

aART


etelwith

aART

yuk=uantelope=EV

lersquoek3EMPH

kuchiDISC

in1A

krsquoatiwant


perebut

marsquoNEG

yan-emptyexist-3B

kutrsquoan3qUOT




107








108


Table1

Summary

ofreferentialan

chor

ing

inMop

anin

relatio

nto

Dry

errsquos

(2014)

referenc

ehierarch

y(w

ithsu

bdivisions

forrelativ

edis-

cour

sepr

ominen

cead

ded)

Ana

phor

icde

finite

sNon

-ana

phor

icde

finite

s

Seman

tically

andpr

agmatically

spec

ificinde

finite

s

Seman

tically

spec

ific

prag

matically

nons

pecific

inde

finite

s

Seman

tically

nons

pecific

inde

finite

s

ART

++++

+a+

+

Relativ

ized

deictic

brsquoersquo

+++

++

minus

Emph

atic

pron

oun

lersquoek

+++

++

minus

NUM

+CLF

+ART

minusminus

+minus

minus

NUM

+CLF

minusminus

++

+

Bare

nominal

++

++

+

a Mos

tlikelyto

occu

rwith

high

discou

rsesalie

nce

109




Acknowledgments







110


References
















111


















112





113

Chapter 5




1 Introduction





(1) Emruztoday

yeka

māšincar

tuat

xiābunstreet

didamsaw1SG



(2) Māšin-icar-i

rorā

emruztoday

tuat

xiābunstreet

didisaw2SG




Yeye

šomāreh-inumber-i

rorā

entexābchoose

kondo2SG

vaand

injāhere

alāmatmark

bezando2SG



(4) Yekye

bače-ichild-i

tuat

xiābunstreet

gomlost

šodebecame3SG

budwas3SG




(5) Emruztoday

yea

pesarboy

vaand

yea

doxtargirl

rorā

did-amsaw-1SG

Pesar-(e)boy-e

tāsbald

budwas3SG



116



(6) Yea

pesar-eboy-e

injāhere

kārwork

mikonedo3SG


(7) Diruzyesterday

māšin-icar-i

jolo-efrontof-E

daredoorof

xunehome

didisaw2SG

ndash Nano

manI

hičany

māšin-e-icar-e-i

nadidamnotsaw1SG


(8) Emruztoday

yea

māšin-e-icar-e-i

azfrom

poštbehind

behemtome

zadcollided3SG




117











Total 473 100

118




waƞa[+specific]








(10) a MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F


b-muhamiwith-lawyer

wa-layennibut


manot


wa-layennibut

manot



b MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F


b-wahedwith-one

r-rajelthe-man

wa-layennibut

manot



c MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F


b-shiwith-some

rajelman

wa-layennibut

manot




119













120








121




(14) a AnneAnne

yeka

xunehouse

xaridbought

Xunehouse

labeon

marzeedgeof



Anneraftewent3SG

budAUX3SG

yea

marāsemeceremony

arusimarriage

Arusbride

xeylivery

xošgelbeautiful

budwas3SG


moonxeylivery

rošanbright



dinosaur6060

milionmillion

sāleyear

qablago

monqarezextinct

šodebecame3SG



122



(15) a Rooon

miztable

ketābebookbe3SG


bookrooon

mizetablebe3SG


Aliketābbook

xaridbought3SG



xaridbought3SG






(i) ye-(ta)a-(CL)

ketabbook


ketabbook

(iii) yea



123







124





wide scope








wide scope


Aliketāb-ibook-i

xaridbought3SG


Aliyeka

ketābbook

xaridbought3SG


Aliyeka

ketāb-ibook-i

xaridbought3SG



125




Iketāb-ibook-i



Ihattāeven

yea

ketābbook

hamalso



Iyea

ketāb-ibook-i

rorā




Iketāb-ibook-i



Iyea

ketābbook

rorā



Iyea

ketāb-ibook-i

rorā





126















127







128



(19) Emruztoday

yeka

pesarboy

vaand

yeka

doxtargirl

rorā

didamsaw1SG

Pesar(-e)boy(-e)

rorā

mišnāxtamknew1SG




(20) a AnneAnne

yeka

xunehouse

xaridebought3SG

Xune(-he)house(-he)

labeon

marzeedgeof



Anneraftewent3SG

budAUX3SG

yea

marāsemeceremony

arusimarriage

Arus(-e)bride(-e)

xeylivery

xošgelbeautiful

budwas3SG


moon(-e)xeylivery

rošanbright



129



6060

milionmillion

sāleyear

qablago

monqarezextinct

šodebecame3SG




inthis


yeka

safartrip

beto

ālmānGermany

migiradget3SG





(22) Ye(k)a

pesar-eboy-e

injāhere

kārwork

mikonedo3SG


(23) Diruzyesterday

māšin-icar-i

jolo-efrontof-E

daredoorof

xunehome

didisaw2SG

ndash Nano

manI

hičany

māšin-e-icar-e-i

nadidamnotsaw1SG


(24) EmruzToday

yea

māšin-e-icar-e-i

azfrom

poštbehind

behemtome

zadsmashed3SG


130




(25) a Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtargirl

raqsidandanced3PL


b Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-egirl-e

raqsidandanced3PL


allpesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-igirl-i

raqsidandanced3PL


d Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

raqsidandanced3PL


(26) a AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtargirl

dustfriend

šebecome3SG



131


b AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-egirl

dustfriend

šebecome3SG


Alimixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-igirl-i

dustfriend

šebecome3SG


d AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

dustfriend

šebecome3SG






132




(27) Tanhāialone

vasatemiddleof

pārkeparkof

MellatMellat

nešastamsitting1SG

yea

xānum-e-iwoman-e-i

dāreAUX3SG

kenāramnextme

QurānQuran

mixunereading3SG


(28) Yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

tuat

bašgāhamgymmy

hastbe3SG

ajabwhat

heykalibody-shape

dārehave3SG


(29) ZoškZoshk

kethat

berimgo1PL

yea

sag-e-idog-e-i

hamalso

hastbe3SG

unjāthere

tāzerecently

āšnāfamiliar

šodegot3SG


(30) Yea

darscourse

dāštamhad1SG

bewith

esmename



Unjāthere

yea

pesar-e-iboy-e-i

budwas3SG

bewith

esmenameof

VahidVahid

yaor

HamidHamid



133











134


(31) SārāSara

yea

ostād-eprofessor-e

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave


Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor



kudumwhich

ostādprofessor


(32) SārāSara

yea


rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave


Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor



kudumwhich

ostādprofessor





yea

ostādprofessor

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave

(i) ManI

midunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor



yea

ostād-iprofessor-i

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave

(ii) Valibut

nemidunamnotknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor


135



Indefiniteform





51 Experiment 1


136



(33) a MonaMona

bāwith

yeka

doktor-edoctor-e

ezdevajmarriage

kardedid3SG


Monabāwith

yeka


ezdevajmarriage

kardedid3SG


Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

doktordoctor


butmanI

nemidunamnotknow1SG

kudumwhich

doktordoctor






137




512 Results



Indefiniteform

Epistemictype

Meanvalue




3025 good



4425 weak good


138



27 3

47 44




19

4336

51

2439 37

5

human non-human




139


513 Discussion


52 Experiment 2


521 Design




SaraSara

emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-elawyer-e

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

140


ManI

hamalso

bawith

vakil-elawyer-e


karwork

kardamdid1SG

Karešworkhis

xeylivery

xubegoodbe3SG



emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-elawyer-e

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

Migansay3PL

vakil-elawyer-e

maroofeknownbe3SG

valibut

manI

čiz-ithing-INDEF

azašfromhim



emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-e-ilawyer-e-i

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

ManI

hamalso

bawith

vakil-elawyer-e


kārwork

kardamdid1SG

Karešworkhis

xeylivery

xubegoodbe3SG



emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-e-ilawyer-e-i

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

MiganSay3PL

vakil-elawyer-e

maroofeknownbe3SG

valibut

manI

čiz-ithing-INDEF

azašfromhim


141




Migansay3PL

yea

moalem-eteacher-e

tuin

madreseschool

TizhushānTizhushan

hastbe3SG

kethat

bečehastudentPL

azašfromher

xeylivery

mitarsanfrighten3PL

ManI

hamalso

bāhāshwithhim

4ta4CL

darscourse

daštamhad3SG

vaand



Šenidamheard1SG

yea

pesar-eboy-e

hastbe3SG

tuin

inthis

mahaleneighborhood

kewho

vasefor

doxtaragirlPL


ijadmake

mikonedo3SG

ManI

mišnasamešknow1SG

azhimfrom

vaghtiwhen

bačechild

budwas3SG





142



1

2

3

4

5

14 17

323

3 27

15 15 14 15 13 15








143





Acknowledgments


144


References












145
















146
















147

Chapter 6















150









151








152







153







154












(3) agbənhouseSGM

gin

aacutegbənhouseSGM


ito

aacutemanwaterPLM


sgfrom

uacuteliheartSGM

155




(6) diEXIST

aggʷiacutedmanSGM


(7) diEXIST

taltiacutewomanSGF

dand

aggʷiacutedmanSGM



(8) šaltownSGM

nof

isiacutewansiwa



dabbmany




diEXIST

aggʷiacutedmanSGM

dand



dand



nof

tləččagirlSGF



(10) w-omDEM-2SGF

šahiacutenteaSGM


156




aacutenniCOMP

aziacutedijackalSGM



ankaacutenplaceSGM

agbənhouseSGM

diacutemaalways



gin

idrarənmountainPLM








nof




157


(13) kanif

xsi-ṭwantPFV-2SG


šaltownSGM

sfrom

ənniǧup


ito



gin

ankaacutenplaceSGM






sgfrom







158










albaacutebdoorSGM


albaacutebdoorSGM

nof

šaltownSGM



əgd-əsin-3SG



(18) kanif







sgfrom

aacutellonwindowSGM


159




ito

aacutenuwellSGM

nof

aacutemanwaterPLM














160







nof

isiacutewanSiwa




nof








gin

təṭspringSGF


161










(28) sgfrom

əlwoqttimeSGF



(29) aacutenniCOMP


dand









(31) əǧǧənoneM

nof

aacuteddoṛtimeSGM





gin

aacutegbənhouseSGM


162




əǧǧətoneF

gəd-sənfrom-3PL

amẓaacuteogreSGM

daw-oacutemDEM-2SGF




wәnREL






sfrom



nof

wənREL




(35) kullevery

əǧǧənoneM

wənREL




163



(36) makwhen

əǧǧənoneM


anǧaacutefmarryVN




ankaacutenplaceSGM

nof







šaliacuteshali







164



aksuacutemmeatSGM





(42) diEXIST




sgfrom

aacutellonwindowSGM

tləččagirlSGF




taliacutestankSGF


amaacutenwaterPLM

kanif

laacute-diNEG-EXIST

taacutelistankSGF



diEXIST

azidiacutejackalSGM

dand

tɣaacutettgoatSGF

aziacutedijackalSGM

kullevery

yomday




165





aməllalwhiteSGM

daacutew-omDEM-2SGF

w-omDEM-2SGF

tisəntsaltSGF

tiacutesəntsaltSGF

ənšniacuteIDP1PL




swith

tiniacutedateSGF

dand

arənflourPLM

bassbut

tiacutenidateSGF

dand

aacuterənflourPLM


amaacutenwaterPLM





166







167




Acknowledgments






unit

168


References













169













170

Chapter 7








Dominika Skrzypek









172





2 Indirect anaphora


173

Dominika Skrzypek











174











175

Dominika Skrzypek


(12) Semantic types









176






177

Dominika Skrzypek







NPs extracted



29 5822

178








179

Dominika Skrzypek






4 Results




180





8408 9004 9013


9026 8650 9201



181

Dominika Skrzypek









ofif

swaso

worthaeligrbe

atthat

manman

mistaeligrloses

allaeligall

sinaelighis

taeligndaeligrteeth

affrom

sinhisREFL


182



komcame

thornathen

fuulfully


tilto

miinmy

kaeligradear

sunson

okand

thornaharwhen

iakI

sasaw

hanumhim

slaa-sbeat-PASS

maeligthornwith

naeliguafists

()()

okand

spytta-sspit-PASS

iin

anlaeligtface

okand

krona-scrown-PASS

maeligthornwith

thornornathorns



honshe

varthornbecame

hauandepregnant

maeligthornwith

guzGodGEN

sonson

iiin

sinoherREFL

liuewomb



mathornerman

draeligpinkilled

()()

thornathen

skalshall

uighimurder

aon

thorningiting

lysaeligdeclare




gikwent

bortaway

okand

faldadhefolded

hanhim

jin

sinomher

hwiffscarf

somwhich

honshe

hafdhehad

aon

sinoher

hofdhehead


183

Dominika Skrzypek


syntiswas-seen


hwifwirscarf

allirall

blodhoghirbloody

okand

waterwet

affof

blodhblood

swaso

atthat

blodh-inblood-DEF

floumltflew

nidhirdown

vmabout


kindircheeks

Hulkitwhich

herra-nmaster-DEF

saasaw

ropadhescreamed

okand

sagdhesaid

hwarwho

slohit

thikyou

jin

thityour

aumlnliteface

aumlllaor

sarghadhehurt

Okand

quinnna-nwoman-DEF

lyptelifted

vpup

sinaher

handhand

okand

stroumlkstroked

sikherself

vmabout

aumlnliti-tface-DEF

okand

thawhen

honshe

toktook

nidhirdown


thathen

warwas

honshe (= the hand)

alall

blodhoghbloody




barbore


vpup

hand-enahand-DEF

ocand

sloghhit

honaher

widhat


atthat

honshe

stoslashrtefell

tilto

iordh-innaearth-DEF


184



begynthebegan


somas

hwnshe

warwas

wanaccustomed

gladelighgladly

atto

loslashperun

iin


()(hellip)

elleror

roslashrdhewagged





hoffui-thead-DEF

bloslashdebled

bodheboth

gioslashmmenthrough

mwnmouth

okand

oslashrenears



methwith

mwndhmouth

ocand

hiaeligrtheheart





konaeligwife

iin

bohouse

doumlrdies

bondehusband



draeligpaeligrkills


manmanACC

komacome

tilto

aruaheir


okand

faget


okand

huggacut

thornaeligrthere

nithornaeligrdown

aon

foumltaeligrfeet

thornaeligsthisGEN



185

Dominika Skrzypek





saasaw

hanshis

diruecourage

ocand

reedeprepared

hanomhim

snarutrap

()(hellip)

Ocand

bathornasked

munk-inmonk-DEF

sikhimself

inlaumltaallow

iin

sinhisREFL

cellacell



sanctasaint

katherinaCatherine

thettethis

fornamunderstood

thathen

luckthelocked

hwnshe

sikherself

hardelighfirmly

iin

synherREFL

cellaeligcell

ochand

badhprayed


tillto

gudhGod



186






fargets

saeligrhimself

athornalkonowife

gaeligtaeligrbegets

uithornby

barnchild

doumlrdies

svthis

faeligrgets

athornraanother

gaeligtaeligrbegets

vithornby

barnchild

fargets

hinathat

thornriethiuthird

thornoumlrdies

bondepeasant

thornathan

konaeligwoman

eris

livaeligndialive

thornathan

skalshall

afof

takaeligtake

hemfylghdowry

sinaeligher

altall

thornetthat

aeligrwhich

vnoumltunused

aeligris

hunshe

aeligllaeligror

haelignaeligrher

boumlrnchildren

thornathan

skalshall

hinthat

aeliglstioldest

koldaeligrbrood

boskiptidivision


takaeligrtake

afof


afof




jin

thethis


fortravelled

therthere

framforward

vmabout

ena

praumlstirpriest

mzwith

gud-zGod-GEN

likamabody

tilto

ena

siukansick

manman

okand

klokka-nbell-DEF

ringderang

forfor

gud-zGod-GEN



187

Dominika Skrzypek







188











189

Dominika Skrzypek



6 Conclusions




190


Acknowledgments






References





191

Dominika Skrzypek
















192









193

Name index











Name index












116 117 124 172 188Lyons John 172 188

195

Name index



Onea Edgar 121









97 99 100 103ndash105 107

196

Name index





Xu Liejiong 44


Zhao Wei 176

197

Language index





Chinese 2 4120


Chuj 2Czech 62 63 74 122 150



856 86 95 99 10120 115ndash117 120 124 127 143 150








Japanese 2





128Polish 62 63 150 154


Sakha 575

Language index


45 4522


46Spanish 61 856





200

Subject index




129 171 172 174 177 179181 184 190




4120 43 4421 45 101 13613712 138 140 144 178








18 25 83 88 98ndash100 10120106ndash108 110









91 9414 104 116 117 120124 128 154 156 161ndash163

Subject index

167 172 173 179 180 188189

determinacy 521


4421 1161 1266




10121 102 103 105 107ndash109121



40 41 4120 43 156

familiarity 3 4 11 52 64 69 74 82110 116 129 153 176 186189 190








179 182 189givenness 68 69 74 7412 7413 75

821






20 25 31 32 43 4422 4546 59 60 154 155

intonation 61 64 74 152 153 157162 165 167

iota shift 55

kinship terms 5 154 155 160 167





202

Subject index


4421 45 9616

novelty 64 70






83 178referentiality 4 20 61 110 117 120








topic 8 9 34 39 40 4422 60ndash62 7375 154 156 158 166 168






203

Nominal anchoring


9 783961 102846

ISBN 978-3-96110-284-6

Contents







3 Contributions



33 Summary


1 Introduction

2 Methodology








343 Focussbj]focus





5 Conclusion


1 Introduction







33 General results





5 Conclusions


1 Introduction










311 ART





























1 Introduction













51 Experiment 1


512 Results

513 Discussion

52 Experiment 2

521 Design


















2 Indirect anaphora


4 Results






6 Conclusions

Index

Name index

Language index

Subject index


Edited by


language

science

press



978-3-96110-285-3 (Hardcover)





Contents








Index 194

Chapter 1














2





211 Definiteness






3






4








5


(6) Germana Er

hemuszligmust


Krankenhaushospital


b Erhe

muszligmust

wiederagain


Krankenhaushospital

zuruumlckback

ausfrom

demtheDAT

erhe

schonalready

entlassendischarged

warwas



Iskalmust

deeldown

tuto

aditheWtheS

kuupmangrocer


Okiheehas

ana

hingsthorse

keeftbought

AditheWtheS

hingsthorse

haaltetlimps



212 Specificity




6



(9) a AliAli

birone

piyano-yupiano-ACC

kiralamakto-rent

istiyorwants


Alibirone

piyanopiano

kiralamakto-rent

istiyorwants





(11) Egya

diaacutekstudent


azthe



7



3 Contributions





8







9





10




33 Summary


11



Acknowledgments


References








12

















13














14

Chapter 2






1 Introduction




CLbogravecow

ăneat

luacuteapaddy

kigraveaSFP


bringcuocirc nCL

saacutechbook

raout

đacircyhere




16




cowăneat

luacuteapaddy

kigraveaSFP


bringsaacutechbook

raout

đacircyhere




17












2 Methodology



18









19










20












21










CậuCL

beacuteboy

thacirc ysee

thecirc that

tặngpresent

mỗieach

ngườiperson

mộtone

traacuteiCL

lecircpear

hellip



Coacutehave

mộtone

ngườiperson

dẫnlead

conCL

conCL

đoacuteDEM

chắc lagravemaybe

conCL

decircgoat

đigo

ngangpass

quaover



22




Sauafter

đoacutethat

ocircng acirc y3SG

lạiagain

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

thangladder

vagraveCONJ

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

cacircytree

haacuteipluck

tiecirc pcontinue




Cậu ta3SG

đatildePERF

đặtplace

caacuteiCL

xocircbucket

ngayright

giữabetween

bocirc father

vagraveand

mẹmother



Luacutectime

nagraveyDEM

ngườiCL


thứcwake

dậyup

lacirc ytake

caacuteiCL

bigravenhbottle

roacutetpour

nướcwater

vagraveoPREP

lyglass





23













24



BịPASS

noacutenghot

mocircngbuttock

anh ta3SG

mởopen


xịtspray

maacutetcool

chofor

caacuteiCL

mocircngbuttock

thigraveCONJ

luacutectime

đoacuteDEM

bạnfriend

anh ta3SG

chocirc mprance

từfrom

ngoagraveioutside

cửa sổwindow

vagraveoin

hocirc iurge

anh ta3SG


kẻootherwise

trễ giờlate




Lecircpear

đổpour

raout


higravenh nhưseems

noacute3SG

bịPASS

đauhurt

chacircnleg

nữamore

thacirc ysee

noacute3SG

sờtouch

sờtouch

caacuteiCL

chacircnleg






25



nagravethat

běnCL

shūbook

(ge)CL


mǎi-zǒubuy-away

lePF


penCL

cybook

keCL

iaʔsnstudent

mabuy

lePFV

tccedilhigo

dieSFP


bunCL

syubook

goCL

hoksaangstudent

maai-jobuy-PFV

laSFP




wǒI

mǎi-lebuy-PFV

liagravengCL

chēcar


NgeI

mabuy

lePFV

buCL

tsʰotsʰicar


Keuihhe

maai-zosell-PFV

gaaCL

cecar



26










ConCL

lừadonkey

cứalways

nhigravenlook

vagraveoinside

caacutecPL

cacirc nCL

xeacute lecircpear

nhưlike

muocirc nwant

đứng lạistop

vagraveCONJ

ăneat

lecircpear





27




anhCL

chocirc nghusband


cửadoor

khiecirc ncause

cocircCL

vợwife


rocirc iCONJ

bỏleave

vagraveoenter





Anh ta3SG

bướcstep

vagraveoPREP

nhagravehouse

thigraveCONJ

lạiEMPH

bịPASS

đứaCL

conson

chơiplay

chiecirc cCL

xe1car

đẩypush

truacutengRES

vagraveoPREP

chacircnleg

khiecirc ncause

anh ta3SG


vagraveoPREP

chiecirc cCL

xe2car




Coacuteexist

mộtone

ngườiCL


đangPROG

ởPREP

trecircntop

caacuteiCL

thangladder

bắcconnect

lecircnPREP

cacircyCL

lecircpear

vagraveCONJ

đangPROG

haacuteipluck

traacuteiCL

lecircpear



28





Subject Object





29




Subject Object



+def 978 34 8 78 176 256 114 1092minusdef 19 9 1 31 3 94 0 365

Total 997 43 9 109 179 350 114 1457


Subject Object



+def 262 55 0 12 133 230 3 324minusdef 0 2 1 0 0 62 0 46

Total 262 57 1 12 133 292 3 370




30


[Subj+CL+ani]

[Subj+CL-ani]

[Subj-CL+ani]

[Subj-CL-ani]

[Obj+CL+ani]

[Obj+CL-ani]

[Obj-CL+ani]

[Obj-CL-ani]

0

500

1000

15001240

89 8 90309

486

117

1416

19 11 2 31 3156

0

411

DefiniteIndefinite




31







32



Thinsky

zibe

lanblue

koSFP


BanCLpiece

thinsky

gintsɔtoday

manvery

lanblue



(18) a Trờisky

đacirc yfull

saostar


CLtrờisky

đecircm naytonight

đacirc yfull

saostar



33



trờisky

mơ ướcdream

củaPOSS

haitwo

chuacuteng ta2PL

đacircyhere

rocirc iSFP








ĐứaCL

con traison

thigraveTOP

đứngstand

lecircnup


vagraveCONJ

vẽdraw

bậydisorderly

lecircnon

tườngwall

cogravenwhile

bagraveCL

vợwife

thigraveTOP

nằmlie

ăneat


vớiPRE




34




Thacirc ysee


củaPOSS


ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband


vagraveand

bắt eacutepforce

ăneat

nhưngCONJ

bagraveCL

vợwife

vẫnstill

khocircngNEG

ăneat




ThằngCL

beacuteboy

tập tễnhlimping

dắtlead

xebike

đigo

vagraveifew

bướcstep

cogravenCONJ

bọnCL

trẻkid

thigraveTOP

đigo

theotoward

hướngdirection



343 Focus



35




Ổng3SG

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

mộtone

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đểso that

ổng3SG

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

mộtone

caacuteiCL

cacircytree

đểto

ổng3SG

haacuteipluck

Ổng3SG

haacuteipluck

xongRES

thigraveCONJ

ổng3SG

leoclimb

xuocirc ngdown

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đoacuteDEM

xuocirc ngdown

đoacuteDEM

Rocirc iCONJ

ổng3SG

dướidown

mặtCL

đacirc tground

sẽFUT

coacutehave

bathree

caacuteiCL

giỏbasket




ThigraveCONJ

coacutehave

bathree

sọtCL


dướiunder

đacirc tground

khocircngNEG

coacutehave

aiwho


hecirc tatall




36




Luacutectime

bacirc y giờthat

ngườiCL

chocirc nghusband

nghehear

thacirc yRES

begravenCONJ

trocirc irise

lecircnout

khỏiout of

mặtsurface

nướcwater

toagravenwhole

thacircnbody

ocircng3SG

lagraveCOP


chỉ cogravenonly

thacirc ysee

mỗionly

khuocircnCL

mặtface




Khiwhen


vigravebecause

bịPASS

tạtthrow

nướcwater

bagraveCL

vợwife



nhigravenlook

xung quanharound

xemsee

aiwho

lagravemdo

vagraveCONJ

chảNEG

coacutehave

aiwho

ngoagraveiexcept

ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband

củaPOSS

migravenhself



37




Ocircng acirc y3SG

bịPASS

bỏngburn

vagraveCONJ

đauhurt

quaacutevery

necircnCONJ

ocircmhold

chacircnfoot

lecircnRES

vagraveand

khocircngNEG

giữkeep

đượcRES


necircnCONJ

teacutefall

vagraveointo

chiecirc cCL

chảopan

đangPROG

chaacuteyburn

đoacuteDEM

caacuteiCL

mocircngbuttock

củaPOSS

ocircng acirc y3SG

đatildePERF

bịPASS

phỏngburn






38





Chiecirc cCL



reoring

lecircnup

luacutecat

8eight

giờorsquoclock

đuacutengexactly

NgườiCL


đangPROG

ngủsleep

thigraveCONJ

bịPASS

nướcwater


vagraveoPREP

mặtface



Chiecirc cCL



reoring

lecircnRES


đatildePERF

taacutemeight

giờorsquoclock

saacutengmorning

NgườiCL


mởopen

mắteye


sangtoward



39





Luacutectime

nagraveyDEM

coacutehave

viecircnCL


vagraveoenter

hỏiask

xemsee


vigravebecause

haitwo

vợwife

chocirc nghusband

catildeiargue

nhauRECIP





đoacuteDEM

lagraveCOP

caacuteiCL

kệshelf

nhỏsmall

caacuteiCL

bigravenhbottle

vagraveand

lyCL

nướcwater

đượcPASS

đặtplace

lecircnmoveup

trecircntop

noacute3SG




40




CacircuCL

chuyệnstory

đượcPASS


vagraveoin

mộtone

buổi sangmorning

tạiat

mộtone

caacutenhCL

đocirc ngfield

coacutehave

mộtone

ngườiCL


leoclimb

lecircnup

trecircnon

mộtone

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đangPROG

haacuteipluck

mộtone

loạikind


nagraveosome

đoacutecertain

giocirc nglike

traacuteiCL

lecircpear





coacutehave

xecar

cứusave

hỏafire

vagraveCONJ


đecirc narrive

xịtspray

nướcwater

vagraveointo

chữaextinguish

chaacuteyfire

nhưngCONJ

lagravem chocause


hỏng hecirc truin




41





NhưngCONJ

sauafter

đoacutethat

caacuteiCL


củaPOSS

ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband

bịPASS

lủngburst

lograveishow

raout

caacuteiCL


chứCONJemph

khocircng phảiNEG


coacute thểcan

gacircycause

nguy hiểmdanger





nhigravenlook

gaacuteigirl

necircnCONJ

noacute3SG

vacirc ptrip

phảiPASS

cụcCL

đaacutestone

vagraveCONJ

teacutefall

xuocirc ngdown

đườngroad



42


5 Conclusion











43






44






45




Acknowledgements


References




46



















47



















48






49

Chapter 3





1 Introduction









52







53



(1) a Vin

uglucornerLOC

spitsleeps

koškacatNOM

b KoškacatNOM

spitsleeps

vin

uglucornerLOC




(3) KoškacatNOM

spitsleep




54








55






(5) a VasjaVasja

znaetknows

ėtogothisACCM

studentastudentACCM



prixodilacame

včerayesterday

vto

gostiguests



kakaja-tosomeNOMF




kupilbought


erundunonsenseACCF



56




(6) a VasjaVasja

kupilbought

molokamilkGEN


Vasjakupilbought

molokomilkACC





57



(7) a VasjaVasja

risovalpaintedIPFV







(8) a IvanIvan

pidrankIPFV

vinowineACC


IvanizpidrankPFV





58



(9) PetjaPetja

razdelildividedPFV

ljudejpeopleACC

nain

dobryxkindACC

iand

zlyxmeanACC







59




(10) a TolyaTolya

včerayesterday


swith

AnejAnya



ToliTolya

tothat

onhe

včerayesterday


swith

AnejAnya


(11) a Varenjejam

jaI

včerayesterday

srsquoelatePFV



varenjajam

tothat

jaI

egoit

včerayesterday

srsquoelatePFV



60




(12) a Buenosgood

vinoswines

(los)(CLMPL)

hayhavePRS3SG

enin

CastillaCastile


booksinin

ingleseEnglish

(line)(CLMPLCLPART)

puogravecanPRS3SG

trovarefind

alonthe

secondosecond

pianofloor




61








62








63








64















65


33 General results







66





67










68





8333 2520


7750 2806


8833 2102


8418 2166


6863 3016


7583 2930


5972 3372


7306 3155




69











70










71







72







73









74



5 Conclusions



75


Acknowledgments


References













76

















77


















78

















79















80

Chapter 4




1 Introduction












82









83







inw1A(prevocalic)




3qUOTaART

winikman


aumltan=awife=EV





84






aART

nooch=obig=EV


aART

nenersquo=esmall=EV





85





brsquoinHSY

aART


yalanunder

kamaj=abed=EV






86



peroDISC

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A

karsquoagain


u3A

laakrsquoother

uy3A(prevocalic)

aumltanwife









karsquoagain



u3A


brsquoinHSY





87




lersquoek3EMPH

aART


in1A


lersquoek3EMPH

aART

santoholy

krsquoin=isun=EV





junone

tuulCLFANIM

brsquoinHSY

aART

winik=iman=EV

topvery


brsquoinHSY

t-uPREP-3A

wicheye

aART



214 Bare nominal



88



ooh

inen=e1EMPH=EV

wayersquoDLOC1


wayersquoDLOC1

yan-Oslashexist-3B

in1A

kaalhometown

kutrsquoan3qUOT

winik=iman=EV






marsquoNEG

yan-emptyexist-3B

aART



89











90






311 ART




aART

winikman


aumltan=awife=EV





91



peroDISC

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A

karsquoagain


u3A

laakrsquoother

uy3A(prevocalic)

aumltanwife




topvery


tiPREP

in1A

wicheye

kutrsquoan3qUOT

brsquoinHSY

aART






92




marsquoNEG


u3A


aART


aART

winikman

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV








93



kaumlkaumljcacao

iand

kafecoffee

lersquoek3EMPH

aART


u3A


in1A

kabayoj=ohorse=EV




lersquoek3EMPH

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

u3A







u3A

meyajwork

ichilinside

jumone

prsquoeelCLFINAN

jardingarden

buenowell

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

meyajwork

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

u3A




94



314 Bare nominal



ooh

inen=e1EMPH=EV

wayersquoDLOC1


wayersquoDLOC1

yan-emptyexist-3B

in1A

kaalhometown

kutrsquoan3qUOT

winik=iman=EV






95



aART

uj=umoon=EV


ilikINT

u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

jabrsquoixlike

tiPREP


u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

aART

krsquoinsun







brsquoinHSY

ichilinside

aART

karsquoansky

aART






96





buenowell

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

jesus=uJesus=EV

tiPREP







u3A


brsquoinHSY

ichin

krsquoaakrsquofire






97







puesso

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A


t-uPREP-3A

tzeel=eside=EV

uy(prevocalic)3A


yan-emptyexist-3B

aART

brsquoak=abone=EV






98



puesso

junone

tuulCLFANIM

brsquoinHSY

aART

winikman

aART



brsquoinHSY

u3A







jumone

prsquoeelCLFINAN

krsquoinday

brsquoinHSY

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

brsquoaalumjaguar

uy3A(prevocalic)

etrsquookcompanion

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ajGMM

leon=olion=EV

uy3A(prevocalic)


brsquoinHSY

tiPREP

u3A

brsquoajilself




99









tubrsquoawhere

yan-emptyexist-3B

junone

teekCLFplant

aART





u3A

karsquoagain



yalamunder

junone

teekCLFplant

maumlpcocoyol_palm


100









101



pweswell

kirsquogood


tirsquoi3OBL

iand

jok-eenexit-1B

tojalready

ichin

najhouse



pachbehind

najhouse


pueswell


in1A


u3A

fotophoto

tiPREP


aART




u3A

charsquoangaze

ichin

najhouse






102







brsquoinHSY

u3A


aART



brsquoinHSY

u3A


aART







entonsesthen

tiPREP

karsquoagain

brsquoinHSY

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ilikjust

brsquoinHSY

aART

kochlastone


tiPREP


103


ichilinside

aART

tunichrock

aART


entonsesthen

puesso



brsquoinHSY

u3A


aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

aart







peroDISC

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

muyalcloud

aART


u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

tiPREP

u3A

wich=iface=EV


104






puesthen


brsquoinHSY

uy(prevocalic)3A

oolfeeling

u_menby

kansnake






105





sansamaldaily

tatzrsquofar


brsquoinHSY

u3A

brsquoelgoIPFV

u3A


aART

yuk=uantelope=EV









106



in1A

tat=afather=EV

u3A

krsquoatiwant

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ixGMF

chrsquoup=uwoman=EV






ixGMF

koloolpartridge



etelwith

aART


etelwith

aART

yuk=uantelope=EV

lersquoek3EMPH

kuchiDISC

in1A

krsquoatiwant


perebut

marsquoNEG

yan-emptyexist-3B

kutrsquoan3qUOT




107








108


Table1

Summary

ofreferentialan

chor

ing

inMop

anin

relatio

nto

Dry

errsquos

(2014)

referenc

ehierarch

y(w

ithsu

bdivisions

forrelativ

edis-

cour

sepr

ominen

cead

ded)

Ana

phor

icde

finite

sNon

-ana

phor

icde

finite

s

Seman

tically

andpr

agmatically

spec

ificinde

finite

s

Seman

tically

spec

ific

prag

matically

nons

pecific

inde

finite

s

Seman

tically

nons

pecific

inde

finite

s

ART

++++

+a+

+

Relativ

ized

deictic

brsquoersquo

+++

++

minus

Emph

atic

pron

oun

lersquoek

+++

++

minus

NUM

+CLF

+ART

minusminus

+minus

minus

NUM

+CLF

minusminus

++

+

Bare

nominal

++

++

+

a Mos

tlikelyto

occu

rwith

high

discou

rsesalie

nce

109




Acknowledgments







110


References
















111


















112





113

Chapter 5




1 Introduction





(1) Emruztoday

yeka

māšincar

tuat

xiābunstreet

didamsaw1SG



(2) Māšin-icar-i

rorā

emruztoday

tuat

xiābunstreet

didisaw2SG




Yeye

šomāreh-inumber-i

rorā

entexābchoose

kondo2SG

vaand

injāhere

alāmatmark

bezando2SG



(4) Yekye

bače-ichild-i

tuat

xiābunstreet

gomlost

šodebecame3SG

budwas3SG




(5) Emruztoday

yea

pesarboy

vaand

yea

doxtargirl

rorā

did-amsaw-1SG

Pesar-(e)boy-e

tāsbald

budwas3SG



116



(6) Yea

pesar-eboy-e

injāhere

kārwork

mikonedo3SG


(7) Diruzyesterday

māšin-icar-i

jolo-efrontof-E

daredoorof

xunehome

didisaw2SG

ndash Nano

manI

hičany

māšin-e-icar-e-i

nadidamnotsaw1SG


(8) Emruztoday

yea

māšin-e-icar-e-i

azfrom

poštbehind

behemtome

zadcollided3SG




117











Total 473 100

118




waƞa[+specific]








(10) a MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F


b-muhamiwith-lawyer

wa-layennibut


manot


wa-layennibut

manot



b MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F


b-wahedwith-one

r-rajelthe-man

wa-layennibut

manot



c MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F


b-shiwith-some

rajelman

wa-layennibut

manot




119













120








121




(14) a AnneAnne

yeka

xunehouse

xaridbought

Xunehouse

labeon

marzeedgeof



Anneraftewent3SG

budAUX3SG

yea

marāsemeceremony

arusimarriage

Arusbride

xeylivery

xošgelbeautiful

budwas3SG


moonxeylivery

rošanbright



dinosaur6060

milionmillion

sāleyear

qablago

monqarezextinct

šodebecame3SG



122



(15) a Rooon

miztable

ketābebookbe3SG


bookrooon

mizetablebe3SG


Aliketābbook

xaridbought3SG



xaridbought3SG






(i) ye-(ta)a-(CL)

ketabbook


ketabbook

(iii) yea



123







124





wide scope








wide scope


Aliketāb-ibook-i

xaridbought3SG


Aliyeka

ketābbook

xaridbought3SG


Aliyeka

ketāb-ibook-i

xaridbought3SG



125




Iketāb-ibook-i



Ihattāeven

yea

ketābbook

hamalso



Iyea

ketāb-ibook-i

rorā




Iketāb-ibook-i



Iyea

ketābbook

rorā



Iyea

ketāb-ibook-i

rorā





126















127







128



(19) Emruztoday

yeka

pesarboy

vaand

yeka

doxtargirl

rorā

didamsaw1SG

Pesar(-e)boy(-e)

rorā

mišnāxtamknew1SG




(20) a AnneAnne

yeka

xunehouse

xaridebought3SG

Xune(-he)house(-he)

labeon

marzeedgeof



Anneraftewent3SG

budAUX3SG

yea

marāsemeceremony

arusimarriage

Arus(-e)bride(-e)

xeylivery

xošgelbeautiful

budwas3SG


moon(-e)xeylivery

rošanbright



129



6060

milionmillion

sāleyear

qablago

monqarezextinct

šodebecame3SG




inthis


yeka

safartrip

beto

ālmānGermany

migiradget3SG





(22) Ye(k)a

pesar-eboy-e

injāhere

kārwork

mikonedo3SG


(23) Diruzyesterday

māšin-icar-i

jolo-efrontof-E

daredoorof

xunehome

didisaw2SG

ndash Nano

manI

hičany

māšin-e-icar-e-i

nadidamnotsaw1SG


(24) EmruzToday

yea

māšin-e-icar-e-i

azfrom

poštbehind

behemtome

zadsmashed3SG


130




(25) a Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtargirl

raqsidandanced3PL


b Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-egirl-e

raqsidandanced3PL


allpesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-igirl-i

raqsidandanced3PL


d Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

raqsidandanced3PL


(26) a AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtargirl

dustfriend

šebecome3SG



131


b AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-egirl

dustfriend

šebecome3SG


Alimixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-igirl-i

dustfriend

šebecome3SG


d AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

dustfriend

šebecome3SG






132




(27) Tanhāialone

vasatemiddleof

pārkeparkof

MellatMellat

nešastamsitting1SG

yea

xānum-e-iwoman-e-i

dāreAUX3SG

kenāramnextme

QurānQuran

mixunereading3SG


(28) Yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

tuat

bašgāhamgymmy

hastbe3SG

ajabwhat

heykalibody-shape

dārehave3SG


(29) ZoškZoshk

kethat

berimgo1PL

yea

sag-e-idog-e-i

hamalso

hastbe3SG

unjāthere

tāzerecently

āšnāfamiliar

šodegot3SG


(30) Yea

darscourse

dāštamhad1SG

bewith

esmename



Unjāthere

yea

pesar-e-iboy-e-i

budwas3SG

bewith

esmenameof

VahidVahid

yaor

HamidHamid



133











134


(31) SārāSara

yea

ostād-eprofessor-e

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave


Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor



kudumwhich

ostādprofessor


(32) SārāSara

yea


rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave


Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor



kudumwhich

ostādprofessor





yea

ostādprofessor

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave

(i) ManI

midunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor



yea

ostād-iprofessor-i

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave

(ii) Valibut

nemidunamnotknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor


135



Indefiniteform





51 Experiment 1


136



(33) a MonaMona

bāwith

yeka

doktor-edoctor-e

ezdevajmarriage

kardedid3SG


Monabāwith

yeka


ezdevajmarriage

kardedid3SG


Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

doktordoctor


butmanI

nemidunamnotknow1SG

kudumwhich

doktordoctor






137




512 Results



Indefiniteform

Epistemictype

Meanvalue




3025 good



4425 weak good


138



27 3

47 44




19

4336

51

2439 37

5

human non-human




139


513 Discussion


52 Experiment 2


521 Design




SaraSara

emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-elawyer-e

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

140


ManI

hamalso

bawith

vakil-elawyer-e


karwork

kardamdid1SG

Karešworkhis

xeylivery

xubegoodbe3SG



emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-elawyer-e

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

Migansay3PL

vakil-elawyer-e

maroofeknownbe3SG

valibut

manI

čiz-ithing-INDEF

azašfromhim



emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-e-ilawyer-e-i

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

ManI

hamalso

bawith

vakil-elawyer-e


kārwork

kardamdid1SG

Karešworkhis

xeylivery

xubegoodbe3SG



emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-e-ilawyer-e-i

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

MiganSay3PL

vakil-elawyer-e

maroofeknownbe3SG

valibut

manI

čiz-ithing-INDEF

azašfromhim


141




Migansay3PL

yea

moalem-eteacher-e

tuin

madreseschool

TizhushānTizhushan

hastbe3SG

kethat

bečehastudentPL

azašfromher

xeylivery

mitarsanfrighten3PL

ManI

hamalso

bāhāshwithhim

4ta4CL

darscourse

daštamhad3SG

vaand



Šenidamheard1SG

yea

pesar-eboy-e

hastbe3SG

tuin

inthis

mahaleneighborhood

kewho

vasefor

doxtaragirlPL


ijadmake

mikonedo3SG

ManI

mišnasamešknow1SG

azhimfrom

vaghtiwhen

bačechild

budwas3SG





142



1

2

3

4

5

14 17

323

3 27

15 15 14 15 13 15








143





Acknowledgments


144


References












145
















146
















147

Chapter 6















150









151








152







153







154












(3) agbənhouseSGM

gin

aacutegbənhouseSGM


ito

aacutemanwaterPLM


sgfrom

uacuteliheartSGM

155




(6) diEXIST

aggʷiacutedmanSGM


(7) diEXIST

taltiacutewomanSGF

dand

aggʷiacutedmanSGM



(8) šaltownSGM

nof

isiacutewansiwa



dabbmany




diEXIST

aggʷiacutedmanSGM

dand



dand



nof

tləččagirlSGF



(10) w-omDEM-2SGF

šahiacutenteaSGM


156




aacutenniCOMP

aziacutedijackalSGM



ankaacutenplaceSGM

agbənhouseSGM

diacutemaalways



gin

idrarənmountainPLM








nof




157


(13) kanif

xsi-ṭwantPFV-2SG


šaltownSGM

sfrom

ənniǧup


ito



gin

ankaacutenplaceSGM






sgfrom







158










albaacutebdoorSGM


albaacutebdoorSGM

nof

šaltownSGM



əgd-əsin-3SG



(18) kanif







sgfrom

aacutellonwindowSGM


159




ito

aacutenuwellSGM

nof

aacutemanwaterPLM














160







nof

isiacutewanSiwa




nof








gin

təṭspringSGF


161










(28) sgfrom

əlwoqttimeSGF



(29) aacutenniCOMP


dand









(31) əǧǧənoneM

nof

aacuteddoṛtimeSGM





gin

aacutegbənhouseSGM


162




əǧǧətoneF

gəd-sənfrom-3PL

amẓaacuteogreSGM

daw-oacutemDEM-2SGF




wәnREL






sfrom



nof

wənREL




(35) kullevery

əǧǧənoneM

wənREL




163



(36) makwhen

əǧǧənoneM


anǧaacutefmarryVN




ankaacutenplaceSGM

nof







šaliacuteshali







164



aksuacutemmeatSGM





(42) diEXIST




sgfrom

aacutellonwindowSGM

tləččagirlSGF




taliacutestankSGF


amaacutenwaterPLM

kanif

laacute-diNEG-EXIST

taacutelistankSGF



diEXIST

azidiacutejackalSGM

dand

tɣaacutettgoatSGF

aziacutedijackalSGM

kullevery

yomday




165





aməllalwhiteSGM

daacutew-omDEM-2SGF

w-omDEM-2SGF

tisəntsaltSGF

tiacutesəntsaltSGF

ənšniacuteIDP1PL




swith

tiniacutedateSGF

dand

arənflourPLM

bassbut

tiacutenidateSGF

dand

aacuterənflourPLM


amaacutenwaterPLM





166







167




Acknowledgments






unit

168


References













169













170

Chapter 7








Dominika Skrzypek









172





2 Indirect anaphora


173

Dominika Skrzypek











174











175

Dominika Skrzypek


(12) Semantic types









176






177

Dominika Skrzypek







NPs extracted



29 5822

178








179

Dominika Skrzypek






4 Results




180





8408 9004 9013


9026 8650 9201



181

Dominika Skrzypek









ofif

swaso

worthaeligrbe

atthat

manman

mistaeligrloses

allaeligall

sinaelighis

taeligndaeligrteeth

affrom

sinhisREFL


182



komcame

thornathen

fuulfully


tilto

miinmy

kaeligradear

sunson

okand

thornaharwhen

iakI

sasaw

hanumhim

slaa-sbeat-PASS

maeligthornwith

naeliguafists

()()

okand

spytta-sspit-PASS

iin

anlaeligtface

okand

krona-scrown-PASS

maeligthornwith

thornornathorns



honshe

varthornbecame

hauandepregnant

maeligthornwith

guzGodGEN

sonson

iiin

sinoherREFL

liuewomb



mathornerman

draeligpinkilled

()()

thornathen

skalshall

uighimurder

aon

thorningiting

lysaeligdeclare




gikwent

bortaway

okand

faldadhefolded

hanhim

jin

sinomher

hwiffscarf

somwhich

honshe

hafdhehad

aon

sinoher

hofdhehead


183

Dominika Skrzypek


syntiswas-seen


hwifwirscarf

allirall

blodhoghirbloody

okand

waterwet

affof

blodhblood

swaso

atthat

blodh-inblood-DEF

floumltflew

nidhirdown

vmabout


kindircheeks

Hulkitwhich

herra-nmaster-DEF

saasaw

ropadhescreamed

okand

sagdhesaid

hwarwho

slohit

thikyou

jin

thityour

aumlnliteface

aumlllaor

sarghadhehurt

Okand

quinnna-nwoman-DEF

lyptelifted

vpup

sinaher

handhand

okand

stroumlkstroked

sikherself

vmabout

aumlnliti-tface-DEF

okand

thawhen

honshe

toktook

nidhirdown


thathen

warwas

honshe (= the hand)

alall

blodhoghbloody




barbore


vpup

hand-enahand-DEF

ocand

sloghhit

honaher

widhat


atthat

honshe

stoslashrtefell

tilto

iordh-innaearth-DEF


184



begynthebegan


somas

hwnshe

warwas

wanaccustomed

gladelighgladly

atto

loslashperun

iin


()(hellip)

elleror

roslashrdhewagged





hoffui-thead-DEF

bloslashdebled

bodheboth

gioslashmmenthrough

mwnmouth

okand

oslashrenears



methwith

mwndhmouth

ocand

hiaeligrtheheart





konaeligwife

iin

bohouse

doumlrdies

bondehusband



draeligpaeligrkills


manmanACC

komacome

tilto

aruaheir


okand

faget


okand

huggacut

thornaeligrthere

nithornaeligrdown

aon

foumltaeligrfeet

thornaeligsthisGEN



185

Dominika Skrzypek





saasaw

hanshis

diruecourage

ocand

reedeprepared

hanomhim

snarutrap

()(hellip)

Ocand

bathornasked

munk-inmonk-DEF

sikhimself

inlaumltaallow

iin

sinhisREFL

cellacell



sanctasaint

katherinaCatherine

thettethis

fornamunderstood

thathen

luckthelocked

hwnshe

sikherself

hardelighfirmly

iin

synherREFL

cellaeligcell

ochand

badhprayed


tillto

gudhGod



186






fargets

saeligrhimself

athornalkonowife

gaeligtaeligrbegets

uithornby

barnchild

doumlrdies

svthis

faeligrgets

athornraanother

gaeligtaeligrbegets

vithornby

barnchild

fargets

hinathat

thornriethiuthird

thornoumlrdies

bondepeasant

thornathan

konaeligwoman

eris

livaeligndialive

thornathan

skalshall

afof

takaeligtake

hemfylghdowry

sinaeligher

altall

thornetthat

aeligrwhich

vnoumltunused

aeligris

hunshe

aeligllaeligror

haelignaeligrher

boumlrnchildren

thornathan

skalshall

hinthat

aeliglstioldest

koldaeligrbrood

boskiptidivision


takaeligrtake

afof


afof




jin

thethis


fortravelled

therthere

framforward

vmabout

ena

praumlstirpriest

mzwith

gud-zGod-GEN

likamabody

tilto

ena

siukansick

manman

okand

klokka-nbell-DEF

ringderang

forfor

gud-zGod-GEN



187

Dominika Skrzypek







188











189

Dominika Skrzypek



6 Conclusions




190


Acknowledgments






References





191

Dominika Skrzypek
















192









193

Name index











Name index












116 117 124 172 188Lyons John 172 188

195

Name index



Onea Edgar 121









97 99 100 103ndash105 107

196

Name index





Xu Liejiong 44


Zhao Wei 176

197

Language index





Chinese 2 4120


Chuj 2Czech 62 63 74 122 150



856 86 95 99 10120 115ndash117 120 124 127 143 150








Japanese 2





128Polish 62 63 150 154


Sakha 575

Language index


45 4522


46Spanish 61 856





200

Subject index




129 171 172 174 177 179181 184 190




4120 43 4421 45 101 13613712 138 140 144 178








18 25 83 88 98ndash100 10120106ndash108 110









91 9414 104 116 117 120124 128 154 156 161ndash163

Subject index

167 172 173 179 180 188189

determinacy 521


4421 1161 1266




10121 102 103 105 107ndash109121



40 41 4120 43 156

familiarity 3 4 11 52 64 69 74 82110 116 129 153 176 186189 190








179 182 189givenness 68 69 74 7412 7413 75

821






20 25 31 32 43 4422 4546 59 60 154 155

intonation 61 64 74 152 153 157162 165 167

iota shift 55

kinship terms 5 154 155 160 167





202

Subject index


4421 45 9616

novelty 64 70






83 178referentiality 4 20 61 110 117 120








topic 8 9 34 39 40 4422 60ndash62 7375 154 156 158 166 168






203

Nominal anchoring


9 783961 102846

ISBN 978-3-96110-284-6

Contents







3 Contributions



33 Summary


1 Introduction

2 Methodology








343 Focussbj]focus





5 Conclusion


1 Introduction







33 General results





5 Conclusions


1 Introduction










311 ART





























1 Introduction













51 Experiment 1


512 Results

513 Discussion

52 Experiment 2

521 Design


















2 Indirect anaphora


4 Results






6 Conclusions

Index

Name index

Language index

Subject index



978-3-96110-285-3 (Hardcover)





Contents








Index 194

Chapter 1














2





211 Definiteness






3






4








5


(6) Germana Er

hemuszligmust


Krankenhaushospital


b Erhe

muszligmust

wiederagain


Krankenhaushospital

zuruumlckback

ausfrom

demtheDAT

erhe

schonalready

entlassendischarged

warwas



Iskalmust

deeldown

tuto

aditheWtheS

kuupmangrocer


Okiheehas

ana

hingsthorse

keeftbought

AditheWtheS

hingsthorse

haaltetlimps



212 Specificity




6



(9) a AliAli

birone

piyano-yupiano-ACC

kiralamakto-rent

istiyorwants


Alibirone

piyanopiano

kiralamakto-rent

istiyorwants





(11) Egya

diaacutekstudent


azthe



7



3 Contributions





8







9





10




33 Summary


11



Acknowledgments


References








12

















13














14

Chapter 2






1 Introduction




CLbogravecow

ăneat

luacuteapaddy

kigraveaSFP


bringcuocirc nCL

saacutechbook

raout

đacircyhere




16




cowăneat

luacuteapaddy

kigraveaSFP


bringsaacutechbook

raout

đacircyhere




17












2 Methodology



18









19










20












21










CậuCL

beacuteboy

thacirc ysee

thecirc that

tặngpresent

mỗieach

ngườiperson

mộtone

traacuteiCL

lecircpear

hellip



Coacutehave

mộtone

ngườiperson

dẫnlead

conCL

conCL

đoacuteDEM

chắc lagravemaybe

conCL

decircgoat

đigo

ngangpass

quaover



22




Sauafter

đoacutethat

ocircng acirc y3SG

lạiagain

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

thangladder

vagraveCONJ

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

cacircytree

haacuteipluck

tiecirc pcontinue




Cậu ta3SG

đatildePERF

đặtplace

caacuteiCL

xocircbucket

ngayright

giữabetween

bocirc father

vagraveand

mẹmother



Luacutectime

nagraveyDEM

ngườiCL


thứcwake

dậyup

lacirc ytake

caacuteiCL

bigravenhbottle

roacutetpour

nướcwater

vagraveoPREP

lyglass





23













24



BịPASS

noacutenghot

mocircngbuttock

anh ta3SG

mởopen


xịtspray

maacutetcool

chofor

caacuteiCL

mocircngbuttock

thigraveCONJ

luacutectime

đoacuteDEM

bạnfriend

anh ta3SG

chocirc mprance

từfrom

ngoagraveioutside

cửa sổwindow

vagraveoin

hocirc iurge

anh ta3SG


kẻootherwise

trễ giờlate




Lecircpear

đổpour

raout


higravenh nhưseems

noacute3SG

bịPASS

đauhurt

chacircnleg

nữamore

thacirc ysee

noacute3SG

sờtouch

sờtouch

caacuteiCL

chacircnleg






25



nagravethat

běnCL

shūbook

(ge)CL


mǎi-zǒubuy-away

lePF


penCL

cybook

keCL

iaʔsnstudent

mabuy

lePFV

tccedilhigo

dieSFP


bunCL

syubook

goCL

hoksaangstudent

maai-jobuy-PFV

laSFP




wǒI

mǎi-lebuy-PFV

liagravengCL

chēcar


NgeI

mabuy

lePFV

buCL

tsʰotsʰicar


Keuihhe

maai-zosell-PFV

gaaCL

cecar



26










ConCL

lừadonkey

cứalways

nhigravenlook

vagraveoinside

caacutecPL

cacirc nCL

xeacute lecircpear

nhưlike

muocirc nwant

đứng lạistop

vagraveCONJ

ăneat

lecircpear





27




anhCL

chocirc nghusband


cửadoor

khiecirc ncause

cocircCL

vợwife


rocirc iCONJ

bỏleave

vagraveoenter





Anh ta3SG

bướcstep

vagraveoPREP

nhagravehouse

thigraveCONJ

lạiEMPH

bịPASS

đứaCL

conson

chơiplay

chiecirc cCL

xe1car

đẩypush

truacutengRES

vagraveoPREP

chacircnleg

khiecirc ncause

anh ta3SG


vagraveoPREP

chiecirc cCL

xe2car




Coacuteexist

mộtone

ngườiCL


đangPROG

ởPREP

trecircntop

caacuteiCL

thangladder

bắcconnect

lecircnPREP

cacircyCL

lecircpear

vagraveCONJ

đangPROG

haacuteipluck

traacuteiCL

lecircpear



28





Subject Object





29




Subject Object



+def 978 34 8 78 176 256 114 1092minusdef 19 9 1 31 3 94 0 365

Total 997 43 9 109 179 350 114 1457


Subject Object



+def 262 55 0 12 133 230 3 324minusdef 0 2 1 0 0 62 0 46

Total 262 57 1 12 133 292 3 370




30


[Subj+CL+ani]

[Subj+CL-ani]

[Subj-CL+ani]

[Subj-CL-ani]

[Obj+CL+ani]

[Obj+CL-ani]

[Obj-CL+ani]

[Obj-CL-ani]

0

500

1000

15001240

89 8 90309

486

117

1416

19 11 2 31 3156

0

411

DefiniteIndefinite




31







32



Thinsky

zibe

lanblue

koSFP


BanCLpiece

thinsky

gintsɔtoday

manvery

lanblue



(18) a Trờisky

đacirc yfull

saostar


CLtrờisky

đecircm naytonight

đacirc yfull

saostar



33



trờisky

mơ ướcdream

củaPOSS

haitwo

chuacuteng ta2PL

đacircyhere

rocirc iSFP








ĐứaCL

con traison

thigraveTOP

đứngstand

lecircnup


vagraveCONJ

vẽdraw

bậydisorderly

lecircnon

tườngwall

cogravenwhile

bagraveCL

vợwife

thigraveTOP

nằmlie

ăneat


vớiPRE




34




Thacirc ysee


củaPOSS


ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband


vagraveand

bắt eacutepforce

ăneat

nhưngCONJ

bagraveCL

vợwife

vẫnstill

khocircngNEG

ăneat




ThằngCL

beacuteboy

tập tễnhlimping

dắtlead

xebike

đigo

vagraveifew

bướcstep

cogravenCONJ

bọnCL

trẻkid

thigraveTOP

đigo

theotoward

hướngdirection



343 Focus



35




Ổng3SG

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

mộtone

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đểso that

ổng3SG

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

mộtone

caacuteiCL

cacircytree

đểto

ổng3SG

haacuteipluck

Ổng3SG

haacuteipluck

xongRES

thigraveCONJ

ổng3SG

leoclimb

xuocirc ngdown

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đoacuteDEM

xuocirc ngdown

đoacuteDEM

Rocirc iCONJ

ổng3SG

dướidown

mặtCL

đacirc tground

sẽFUT

coacutehave

bathree

caacuteiCL

giỏbasket




ThigraveCONJ

coacutehave

bathree

sọtCL


dướiunder

đacirc tground

khocircngNEG

coacutehave

aiwho


hecirc tatall




36




Luacutectime

bacirc y giờthat

ngườiCL

chocirc nghusband

nghehear

thacirc yRES

begravenCONJ

trocirc irise

lecircnout

khỏiout of

mặtsurface

nướcwater

toagravenwhole

thacircnbody

ocircng3SG

lagraveCOP


chỉ cogravenonly

thacirc ysee

mỗionly

khuocircnCL

mặtface




Khiwhen


vigravebecause

bịPASS

tạtthrow

nướcwater

bagraveCL

vợwife



nhigravenlook

xung quanharound

xemsee

aiwho

lagravemdo

vagraveCONJ

chảNEG

coacutehave

aiwho

ngoagraveiexcept

ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband

củaPOSS

migravenhself



37




Ocircng acirc y3SG

bịPASS

bỏngburn

vagraveCONJ

đauhurt

quaacutevery

necircnCONJ

ocircmhold

chacircnfoot

lecircnRES

vagraveand

khocircngNEG

giữkeep

đượcRES


necircnCONJ

teacutefall

vagraveointo

chiecirc cCL

chảopan

đangPROG

chaacuteyburn

đoacuteDEM

caacuteiCL

mocircngbuttock

củaPOSS

ocircng acirc y3SG

đatildePERF

bịPASS

phỏngburn






38





Chiecirc cCL



reoring

lecircnup

luacutecat

8eight

giờorsquoclock

đuacutengexactly

NgườiCL


đangPROG

ngủsleep

thigraveCONJ

bịPASS

nướcwater


vagraveoPREP

mặtface



Chiecirc cCL



reoring

lecircnRES


đatildePERF

taacutemeight

giờorsquoclock

saacutengmorning

NgườiCL


mởopen

mắteye


sangtoward



39





Luacutectime

nagraveyDEM

coacutehave

viecircnCL


vagraveoenter

hỏiask

xemsee


vigravebecause

haitwo

vợwife

chocirc nghusband

catildeiargue

nhauRECIP





đoacuteDEM

lagraveCOP

caacuteiCL

kệshelf

nhỏsmall

caacuteiCL

bigravenhbottle

vagraveand

lyCL

nướcwater

đượcPASS

đặtplace

lecircnmoveup

trecircntop

noacute3SG




40




CacircuCL

chuyệnstory

đượcPASS


vagraveoin

mộtone

buổi sangmorning

tạiat

mộtone

caacutenhCL

đocirc ngfield

coacutehave

mộtone

ngườiCL


leoclimb

lecircnup

trecircnon

mộtone

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đangPROG

haacuteipluck

mộtone

loạikind


nagraveosome

đoacutecertain

giocirc nglike

traacuteiCL

lecircpear





coacutehave

xecar

cứusave

hỏafire

vagraveCONJ


đecirc narrive

xịtspray

nướcwater

vagraveointo

chữaextinguish

chaacuteyfire

nhưngCONJ

lagravem chocause


hỏng hecirc truin




41





NhưngCONJ

sauafter

đoacutethat

caacuteiCL


củaPOSS

ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband

bịPASS

lủngburst

lograveishow

raout

caacuteiCL


chứCONJemph

khocircng phảiNEG


coacute thểcan

gacircycause

nguy hiểmdanger





nhigravenlook

gaacuteigirl

necircnCONJ

noacute3SG

vacirc ptrip

phảiPASS

cụcCL

đaacutestone

vagraveCONJ

teacutefall

xuocirc ngdown

đườngroad



42


5 Conclusion











43






44






45




Acknowledgements


References




46



















47



















48






49

Chapter 3





1 Introduction









52







53



(1) a Vin

uglucornerLOC

spitsleeps

koškacatNOM

b KoškacatNOM

spitsleeps

vin

uglucornerLOC




(3) KoškacatNOM

spitsleep




54








55






(5) a VasjaVasja

znaetknows

ėtogothisACCM

studentastudentACCM



prixodilacame

včerayesterday

vto

gostiguests



kakaja-tosomeNOMF




kupilbought


erundunonsenseACCF



56




(6) a VasjaVasja

kupilbought

molokamilkGEN


Vasjakupilbought

molokomilkACC





57



(7) a VasjaVasja

risovalpaintedIPFV







(8) a IvanIvan

pidrankIPFV

vinowineACC


IvanizpidrankPFV





58



(9) PetjaPetja

razdelildividedPFV

ljudejpeopleACC

nain

dobryxkindACC

iand

zlyxmeanACC







59




(10) a TolyaTolya

včerayesterday


swith

AnejAnya



ToliTolya

tothat

onhe

včerayesterday


swith

AnejAnya


(11) a Varenjejam

jaI

včerayesterday

srsquoelatePFV



varenjajam

tothat

jaI

egoit

včerayesterday

srsquoelatePFV



60




(12) a Buenosgood

vinoswines

(los)(CLMPL)

hayhavePRS3SG

enin

CastillaCastile


booksinin

ingleseEnglish

(line)(CLMPLCLPART)

puogravecanPRS3SG

trovarefind

alonthe

secondosecond

pianofloor




61








62








63








64















65


33 General results







66





67










68





8333 2520


7750 2806


8833 2102


8418 2166


6863 3016


7583 2930


5972 3372


7306 3155




69











70










71







72







73









74



5 Conclusions



75


Acknowledgments


References













76

















77


















78

















79















80

Chapter 4




1 Introduction












82









83







inw1A(prevocalic)




3qUOTaART

winikman


aumltan=awife=EV





84






aART

nooch=obig=EV


aART

nenersquo=esmall=EV





85





brsquoinHSY

aART


yalanunder

kamaj=abed=EV






86



peroDISC

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A

karsquoagain


u3A

laakrsquoother

uy3A(prevocalic)

aumltanwife









karsquoagain



u3A


brsquoinHSY





87




lersquoek3EMPH

aART


in1A


lersquoek3EMPH

aART

santoholy

krsquoin=isun=EV





junone

tuulCLFANIM

brsquoinHSY

aART

winik=iman=EV

topvery


brsquoinHSY

t-uPREP-3A

wicheye

aART



214 Bare nominal



88



ooh

inen=e1EMPH=EV

wayersquoDLOC1


wayersquoDLOC1

yan-Oslashexist-3B

in1A

kaalhometown

kutrsquoan3qUOT

winik=iman=EV






marsquoNEG

yan-emptyexist-3B

aART



89











90






311 ART




aART

winikman


aumltan=awife=EV





91



peroDISC

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A

karsquoagain


u3A

laakrsquoother

uy3A(prevocalic)

aumltanwife




topvery


tiPREP

in1A

wicheye

kutrsquoan3qUOT

brsquoinHSY

aART






92




marsquoNEG


u3A


aART


aART

winikman

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV








93



kaumlkaumljcacao

iand

kafecoffee

lersquoek3EMPH

aART


u3A


in1A

kabayoj=ohorse=EV




lersquoek3EMPH

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

u3A







u3A

meyajwork

ichilinside

jumone

prsquoeelCLFINAN

jardingarden

buenowell

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

meyajwork

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

u3A




94



314 Bare nominal



ooh

inen=e1EMPH=EV

wayersquoDLOC1


wayersquoDLOC1

yan-emptyexist-3B

in1A

kaalhometown

kutrsquoan3qUOT

winik=iman=EV






95



aART

uj=umoon=EV


ilikINT

u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

jabrsquoixlike

tiPREP


u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

aART

krsquoinsun







brsquoinHSY

ichilinside

aART

karsquoansky

aART






96





buenowell

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

jesus=uJesus=EV

tiPREP







u3A


brsquoinHSY

ichin

krsquoaakrsquofire






97







puesso

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A


t-uPREP-3A

tzeel=eside=EV

uy(prevocalic)3A


yan-emptyexist-3B

aART

brsquoak=abone=EV






98



puesso

junone

tuulCLFANIM

brsquoinHSY

aART

winikman

aART



brsquoinHSY

u3A







jumone

prsquoeelCLFINAN

krsquoinday

brsquoinHSY

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

brsquoaalumjaguar

uy3A(prevocalic)

etrsquookcompanion

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ajGMM

leon=olion=EV

uy3A(prevocalic)


brsquoinHSY

tiPREP

u3A

brsquoajilself




99









tubrsquoawhere

yan-emptyexist-3B

junone

teekCLFplant

aART





u3A

karsquoagain



yalamunder

junone

teekCLFplant

maumlpcocoyol_palm


100









101



pweswell

kirsquogood


tirsquoi3OBL

iand

jok-eenexit-1B

tojalready

ichin

najhouse



pachbehind

najhouse


pueswell


in1A


u3A

fotophoto

tiPREP


aART




u3A

charsquoangaze

ichin

najhouse






102







brsquoinHSY

u3A


aART



brsquoinHSY

u3A


aART







entonsesthen

tiPREP

karsquoagain

brsquoinHSY

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ilikjust

brsquoinHSY

aART

kochlastone


tiPREP


103


ichilinside

aART

tunichrock

aART


entonsesthen

puesso



brsquoinHSY

u3A


aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

aart







peroDISC

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

muyalcloud

aART


u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

tiPREP

u3A

wich=iface=EV


104






puesthen


brsquoinHSY

uy(prevocalic)3A

oolfeeling

u_menby

kansnake






105





sansamaldaily

tatzrsquofar


brsquoinHSY

u3A

brsquoelgoIPFV

u3A


aART

yuk=uantelope=EV









106



in1A

tat=afather=EV

u3A

krsquoatiwant

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ixGMF

chrsquoup=uwoman=EV






ixGMF

koloolpartridge



etelwith

aART


etelwith

aART

yuk=uantelope=EV

lersquoek3EMPH

kuchiDISC

in1A

krsquoatiwant


perebut

marsquoNEG

yan-emptyexist-3B

kutrsquoan3qUOT




107








108


Table1

Summary

ofreferentialan

chor

ing

inMop

anin

relatio

nto

Dry

errsquos

(2014)

referenc

ehierarch

y(w

ithsu

bdivisions

forrelativ

edis-

cour

sepr

ominen

cead

ded)

Ana

phor

icde

finite

sNon

-ana

phor

icde

finite

s

Seman

tically

andpr

agmatically

spec

ificinde

finite

s

Seman

tically

spec

ific

prag

matically

nons

pecific

inde

finite

s

Seman

tically

nons

pecific

inde

finite

s

ART

++++

+a+

+

Relativ

ized

deictic

brsquoersquo

+++

++

minus

Emph

atic

pron

oun

lersquoek

+++

++

minus

NUM

+CLF

+ART

minusminus

+minus

minus

NUM

+CLF

minusminus

++

+

Bare

nominal

++

++

+

a Mos

tlikelyto

occu

rwith

high

discou

rsesalie

nce

109




Acknowledgments







110


References
















111


















112





113

Chapter 5




1 Introduction





(1) Emruztoday

yeka

māšincar

tuat

xiābunstreet

didamsaw1SG



(2) Māšin-icar-i

rorā

emruztoday

tuat

xiābunstreet

didisaw2SG




Yeye

šomāreh-inumber-i

rorā

entexābchoose

kondo2SG

vaand

injāhere

alāmatmark

bezando2SG



(4) Yekye

bače-ichild-i

tuat

xiābunstreet

gomlost

šodebecame3SG

budwas3SG




(5) Emruztoday

yea

pesarboy

vaand

yea

doxtargirl

rorā

did-amsaw-1SG

Pesar-(e)boy-e

tāsbald

budwas3SG



116



(6) Yea

pesar-eboy-e

injāhere

kārwork

mikonedo3SG


(7) Diruzyesterday

māšin-icar-i

jolo-efrontof-E

daredoorof

xunehome

didisaw2SG

ndash Nano

manI

hičany

māšin-e-icar-e-i

nadidamnotsaw1SG


(8) Emruztoday

yea

māšin-e-icar-e-i

azfrom

poštbehind

behemtome

zadcollided3SG




117











Total 473 100

118




waƞa[+specific]








(10) a MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F


b-muhamiwith-lawyer

wa-layennibut


manot


wa-layennibut

manot



b MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F


b-wahedwith-one

r-rajelthe-man

wa-layennibut

manot



c MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F


b-shiwith-some

rajelman

wa-layennibut

manot




119













120








121




(14) a AnneAnne

yeka

xunehouse

xaridbought

Xunehouse

labeon

marzeedgeof



Anneraftewent3SG

budAUX3SG

yea

marāsemeceremony

arusimarriage

Arusbride

xeylivery

xošgelbeautiful

budwas3SG


moonxeylivery

rošanbright



dinosaur6060

milionmillion

sāleyear

qablago

monqarezextinct

šodebecame3SG



122



(15) a Rooon

miztable

ketābebookbe3SG


bookrooon

mizetablebe3SG


Aliketābbook

xaridbought3SG



xaridbought3SG






(i) ye-(ta)a-(CL)

ketabbook


ketabbook

(iii) yea



123







124





wide scope








wide scope


Aliketāb-ibook-i

xaridbought3SG


Aliyeka

ketābbook

xaridbought3SG


Aliyeka

ketāb-ibook-i

xaridbought3SG



125




Iketāb-ibook-i



Ihattāeven

yea

ketābbook

hamalso



Iyea

ketāb-ibook-i

rorā




Iketāb-ibook-i



Iyea

ketābbook

rorā



Iyea

ketāb-ibook-i

rorā





126















127







128



(19) Emruztoday

yeka

pesarboy

vaand

yeka

doxtargirl

rorā

didamsaw1SG

Pesar(-e)boy(-e)

rorā

mišnāxtamknew1SG




(20) a AnneAnne

yeka

xunehouse

xaridebought3SG

Xune(-he)house(-he)

labeon

marzeedgeof



Anneraftewent3SG

budAUX3SG

yea

marāsemeceremony

arusimarriage

Arus(-e)bride(-e)

xeylivery

xošgelbeautiful

budwas3SG


moon(-e)xeylivery

rošanbright



129



6060

milionmillion

sāleyear

qablago

monqarezextinct

šodebecame3SG




inthis


yeka

safartrip

beto

ālmānGermany

migiradget3SG





(22) Ye(k)a

pesar-eboy-e

injāhere

kārwork

mikonedo3SG


(23) Diruzyesterday

māšin-icar-i

jolo-efrontof-E

daredoorof

xunehome

didisaw2SG

ndash Nano

manI

hičany

māšin-e-icar-e-i

nadidamnotsaw1SG


(24) EmruzToday

yea

māšin-e-icar-e-i

azfrom

poštbehind

behemtome

zadsmashed3SG


130




(25) a Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtargirl

raqsidandanced3PL


b Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-egirl-e

raqsidandanced3PL


allpesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-igirl-i

raqsidandanced3PL


d Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

raqsidandanced3PL


(26) a AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtargirl

dustfriend

šebecome3SG



131


b AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-egirl

dustfriend

šebecome3SG


Alimixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-igirl-i

dustfriend

šebecome3SG


d AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

dustfriend

šebecome3SG






132




(27) Tanhāialone

vasatemiddleof

pārkeparkof

MellatMellat

nešastamsitting1SG

yea

xānum-e-iwoman-e-i

dāreAUX3SG

kenāramnextme

QurānQuran

mixunereading3SG


(28) Yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

tuat

bašgāhamgymmy

hastbe3SG

ajabwhat

heykalibody-shape

dārehave3SG


(29) ZoškZoshk

kethat

berimgo1PL

yea

sag-e-idog-e-i

hamalso

hastbe3SG

unjāthere

tāzerecently

āšnāfamiliar

šodegot3SG


(30) Yea

darscourse

dāštamhad1SG

bewith

esmename



Unjāthere

yea

pesar-e-iboy-e-i

budwas3SG

bewith

esmenameof

VahidVahid

yaor

HamidHamid



133











134


(31) SārāSara

yea

ostād-eprofessor-e

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave


Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor



kudumwhich

ostādprofessor


(32) SārāSara

yea


rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave


Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor



kudumwhich

ostādprofessor





yea

ostādprofessor

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave

(i) ManI

midunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor



yea

ostād-iprofessor-i

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave

(ii) Valibut

nemidunamnotknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor


135



Indefiniteform





51 Experiment 1


136



(33) a MonaMona

bāwith

yeka

doktor-edoctor-e

ezdevajmarriage

kardedid3SG


Monabāwith

yeka


ezdevajmarriage

kardedid3SG


Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

doktordoctor


butmanI

nemidunamnotknow1SG

kudumwhich

doktordoctor






137




512 Results



Indefiniteform

Epistemictype

Meanvalue




3025 good



4425 weak good


138



27 3

47 44




19

4336

51

2439 37

5

human non-human




139


513 Discussion


52 Experiment 2


521 Design




SaraSara

emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-elawyer-e

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

140


ManI

hamalso

bawith

vakil-elawyer-e


karwork

kardamdid1SG

Karešworkhis

xeylivery

xubegoodbe3SG



emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-elawyer-e

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

Migansay3PL

vakil-elawyer-e

maroofeknownbe3SG

valibut

manI

čiz-ithing-INDEF

azašfromhim



emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-e-ilawyer-e-i

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

ManI

hamalso

bawith

vakil-elawyer-e


kārwork

kardamdid1SG

Karešworkhis

xeylivery

xubegoodbe3SG



emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-e-ilawyer-e-i

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

MiganSay3PL

vakil-elawyer-e

maroofeknownbe3SG

valibut

manI

čiz-ithing-INDEF

azašfromhim


141




Migansay3PL

yea

moalem-eteacher-e

tuin

madreseschool

TizhushānTizhushan

hastbe3SG

kethat

bečehastudentPL

azašfromher

xeylivery

mitarsanfrighten3PL

ManI

hamalso

bāhāshwithhim

4ta4CL

darscourse

daštamhad3SG

vaand



Šenidamheard1SG

yea

pesar-eboy-e

hastbe3SG

tuin

inthis

mahaleneighborhood

kewho

vasefor

doxtaragirlPL


ijadmake

mikonedo3SG

ManI

mišnasamešknow1SG

azhimfrom

vaghtiwhen

bačechild

budwas3SG





142



1

2

3

4

5

14 17

323

3 27

15 15 14 15 13 15








143





Acknowledgments


144


References












145
















146
















147

Chapter 6















150









151








152







153







154












(3) agbənhouseSGM

gin

aacutegbənhouseSGM


ito

aacutemanwaterPLM


sgfrom

uacuteliheartSGM

155




(6) diEXIST

aggʷiacutedmanSGM


(7) diEXIST

taltiacutewomanSGF

dand

aggʷiacutedmanSGM



(8) šaltownSGM

nof

isiacutewansiwa



dabbmany




diEXIST

aggʷiacutedmanSGM

dand



dand



nof

tləččagirlSGF



(10) w-omDEM-2SGF

šahiacutenteaSGM


156




aacutenniCOMP

aziacutedijackalSGM



ankaacutenplaceSGM

agbənhouseSGM

diacutemaalways



gin

idrarənmountainPLM








nof




157


(13) kanif

xsi-ṭwantPFV-2SG


šaltownSGM

sfrom

ənniǧup


ito



gin

ankaacutenplaceSGM






sgfrom







158










albaacutebdoorSGM


albaacutebdoorSGM

nof

šaltownSGM



əgd-əsin-3SG



(18) kanif







sgfrom

aacutellonwindowSGM


159




ito

aacutenuwellSGM

nof

aacutemanwaterPLM














160







nof

isiacutewanSiwa




nof








gin

təṭspringSGF


161










(28) sgfrom

əlwoqttimeSGF



(29) aacutenniCOMP


dand









(31) əǧǧənoneM

nof

aacuteddoṛtimeSGM





gin

aacutegbənhouseSGM


162




əǧǧətoneF

gəd-sənfrom-3PL

amẓaacuteogreSGM

daw-oacutemDEM-2SGF




wәnREL






sfrom



nof

wənREL




(35) kullevery

əǧǧənoneM

wənREL




163



(36) makwhen

əǧǧənoneM


anǧaacutefmarryVN




ankaacutenplaceSGM

nof







šaliacuteshali







164



aksuacutemmeatSGM





(42) diEXIST




sgfrom

aacutellonwindowSGM

tləččagirlSGF




taliacutestankSGF


amaacutenwaterPLM

kanif

laacute-diNEG-EXIST

taacutelistankSGF



diEXIST

azidiacutejackalSGM

dand

tɣaacutettgoatSGF

aziacutedijackalSGM

kullevery

yomday




165





aməllalwhiteSGM

daacutew-omDEM-2SGF

w-omDEM-2SGF

tisəntsaltSGF

tiacutesəntsaltSGF

ənšniacuteIDP1PL




swith

tiniacutedateSGF

dand

arənflourPLM

bassbut

tiacutenidateSGF

dand

aacuterənflourPLM


amaacutenwaterPLM





166







167




Acknowledgments






unit

168


References













169













170

Chapter 7








Dominika Skrzypek









172





2 Indirect anaphora


173

Dominika Skrzypek











174











175

Dominika Skrzypek


(12) Semantic types









176






177

Dominika Skrzypek







NPs extracted



29 5822

178








179

Dominika Skrzypek






4 Results




180





8408 9004 9013


9026 8650 9201



181

Dominika Skrzypek









ofif

swaso

worthaeligrbe

atthat

manman

mistaeligrloses

allaeligall

sinaelighis

taeligndaeligrteeth

affrom

sinhisREFL


182



komcame

thornathen

fuulfully


tilto

miinmy

kaeligradear

sunson

okand

thornaharwhen

iakI

sasaw

hanumhim

slaa-sbeat-PASS

maeligthornwith

naeliguafists

()()

okand

spytta-sspit-PASS

iin

anlaeligtface

okand

krona-scrown-PASS

maeligthornwith

thornornathorns



honshe

varthornbecame

hauandepregnant

maeligthornwith

guzGodGEN

sonson

iiin

sinoherREFL

liuewomb



mathornerman

draeligpinkilled

()()

thornathen

skalshall

uighimurder

aon

thorningiting

lysaeligdeclare




gikwent

bortaway

okand

faldadhefolded

hanhim

jin

sinomher

hwiffscarf

somwhich

honshe

hafdhehad

aon

sinoher

hofdhehead


183

Dominika Skrzypek


syntiswas-seen


hwifwirscarf

allirall

blodhoghirbloody

okand

waterwet

affof

blodhblood

swaso

atthat

blodh-inblood-DEF

floumltflew

nidhirdown

vmabout


kindircheeks

Hulkitwhich

herra-nmaster-DEF

saasaw

ropadhescreamed

okand

sagdhesaid

hwarwho

slohit

thikyou

jin

thityour

aumlnliteface

aumlllaor

sarghadhehurt

Okand

quinnna-nwoman-DEF

lyptelifted

vpup

sinaher

handhand

okand

stroumlkstroked

sikherself

vmabout

aumlnliti-tface-DEF

okand

thawhen

honshe

toktook

nidhirdown


thathen

warwas

honshe (= the hand)

alall

blodhoghbloody




barbore


vpup

hand-enahand-DEF

ocand

sloghhit

honaher

widhat


atthat

honshe

stoslashrtefell

tilto

iordh-innaearth-DEF


184



begynthebegan


somas

hwnshe

warwas

wanaccustomed

gladelighgladly

atto

loslashperun

iin


()(hellip)

elleror

roslashrdhewagged





hoffui-thead-DEF

bloslashdebled

bodheboth

gioslashmmenthrough

mwnmouth

okand

oslashrenears



methwith

mwndhmouth

ocand

hiaeligrtheheart





konaeligwife

iin

bohouse

doumlrdies

bondehusband



draeligpaeligrkills


manmanACC

komacome

tilto

aruaheir


okand

faget


okand

huggacut

thornaeligrthere

nithornaeligrdown

aon

foumltaeligrfeet

thornaeligsthisGEN



185

Dominika Skrzypek





saasaw

hanshis

diruecourage

ocand

reedeprepared

hanomhim

snarutrap

()(hellip)

Ocand

bathornasked

munk-inmonk-DEF

sikhimself

inlaumltaallow

iin

sinhisREFL

cellacell



sanctasaint

katherinaCatherine

thettethis

fornamunderstood

thathen

luckthelocked

hwnshe

sikherself

hardelighfirmly

iin

synherREFL

cellaeligcell

ochand

badhprayed


tillto

gudhGod



186






fargets

saeligrhimself

athornalkonowife

gaeligtaeligrbegets

uithornby

barnchild

doumlrdies

svthis

faeligrgets

athornraanother

gaeligtaeligrbegets

vithornby

barnchild

fargets

hinathat

thornriethiuthird

thornoumlrdies

bondepeasant

thornathan

konaeligwoman

eris

livaeligndialive

thornathan

skalshall

afof

takaeligtake

hemfylghdowry

sinaeligher

altall

thornetthat

aeligrwhich

vnoumltunused

aeligris

hunshe

aeligllaeligror

haelignaeligrher

boumlrnchildren

thornathan

skalshall

hinthat

aeliglstioldest

koldaeligrbrood

boskiptidivision


takaeligrtake

afof


afof




jin

thethis


fortravelled

therthere

framforward

vmabout

ena

praumlstirpriest

mzwith

gud-zGod-GEN

likamabody

tilto

ena

siukansick

manman

okand

klokka-nbell-DEF

ringderang

forfor

gud-zGod-GEN



187

Dominika Skrzypek







188











189

Dominika Skrzypek



6 Conclusions




190


Acknowledgments






References





191

Dominika Skrzypek
















192









193

Name index











Name index












116 117 124 172 188Lyons John 172 188

195

Name index



Onea Edgar 121









97 99 100 103ndash105 107

196

Name index





Xu Liejiong 44


Zhao Wei 176

197

Language index





Chinese 2 4120


Chuj 2Czech 62 63 74 122 150



856 86 95 99 10120 115ndash117 120 124 127 143 150








Japanese 2





128Polish 62 63 150 154


Sakha 575

Language index


45 4522


46Spanish 61 856





200

Subject index




129 171 172 174 177 179181 184 190




4120 43 4421 45 101 13613712 138 140 144 178








18 25 83 88 98ndash100 10120106ndash108 110









91 9414 104 116 117 120124 128 154 156 161ndash163

Subject index

167 172 173 179 180 188189

determinacy 521


4421 1161 1266




10121 102 103 105 107ndash109121



40 41 4120 43 156

familiarity 3 4 11 52 64 69 74 82110 116 129 153 176 186189 190








179 182 189givenness 68 69 74 7412 7413 75

821






20 25 31 32 43 4422 4546 59 60 154 155

intonation 61 64 74 152 153 157162 165 167

iota shift 55

kinship terms 5 154 155 160 167





202

Subject index


4421 45 9616

novelty 64 70






83 178referentiality 4 20 61 110 117 120








topic 8 9 34 39 40 4422 60ndash62 7375 154 156 158 166 168






203

Nominal anchoring


9 783961 102846

ISBN 978-3-96110-284-6

Contents







3 Contributions



33 Summary


1 Introduction

2 Methodology








343 Focussbj]focus





5 Conclusion


1 Introduction







33 General results





5 Conclusions


1 Introduction










311 ART





























1 Introduction













51 Experiment 1


512 Results

513 Discussion

52 Experiment 2

521 Design


















2 Indirect anaphora


4 Results






6 Conclusions

Index

Name index

Language index

Subject index

Contents








Index 194

Chapter 1














2





211 Definiteness






3






4








5


(6) Germana Er

hemuszligmust


Krankenhaushospital


b Erhe

muszligmust

wiederagain


Krankenhaushospital

zuruumlckback

ausfrom

demtheDAT

erhe

schonalready

entlassendischarged

warwas



Iskalmust

deeldown

tuto

aditheWtheS

kuupmangrocer


Okiheehas

ana

hingsthorse

keeftbought

AditheWtheS

hingsthorse

haaltetlimps



212 Specificity




6



(9) a AliAli

birone

piyano-yupiano-ACC

kiralamakto-rent

istiyorwants


Alibirone

piyanopiano

kiralamakto-rent

istiyorwants





(11) Egya

diaacutekstudent


azthe



7



3 Contributions





8







9





10




33 Summary


11



Acknowledgments


References








12

















13














14

Chapter 2






1 Introduction




CLbogravecow

ăneat

luacuteapaddy

kigraveaSFP


bringcuocirc nCL

saacutechbook

raout

đacircyhere




16




cowăneat

luacuteapaddy

kigraveaSFP


bringsaacutechbook

raout

đacircyhere




17












2 Methodology



18









19










20












21










CậuCL

beacuteboy

thacirc ysee

thecirc that

tặngpresent

mỗieach

ngườiperson

mộtone

traacuteiCL

lecircpear

hellip



Coacutehave

mộtone

ngườiperson

dẫnlead

conCL

conCL

đoacuteDEM

chắc lagravemaybe

conCL

decircgoat

đigo

ngangpass

quaover



22




Sauafter

đoacutethat

ocircng acirc y3SG

lạiagain

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

thangladder

vagraveCONJ

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

cacircytree

haacuteipluck

tiecirc pcontinue




Cậu ta3SG

đatildePERF

đặtplace

caacuteiCL

xocircbucket

ngayright

giữabetween

bocirc father

vagraveand

mẹmother



Luacutectime

nagraveyDEM

ngườiCL


thứcwake

dậyup

lacirc ytake

caacuteiCL

bigravenhbottle

roacutetpour

nướcwater

vagraveoPREP

lyglass





23













24



BịPASS

noacutenghot

mocircngbuttock

anh ta3SG

mởopen


xịtspray

maacutetcool

chofor

caacuteiCL

mocircngbuttock

thigraveCONJ

luacutectime

đoacuteDEM

bạnfriend

anh ta3SG

chocirc mprance

từfrom

ngoagraveioutside

cửa sổwindow

vagraveoin

hocirc iurge

anh ta3SG


kẻootherwise

trễ giờlate




Lecircpear

đổpour

raout


higravenh nhưseems

noacute3SG

bịPASS

đauhurt

chacircnleg

nữamore

thacirc ysee

noacute3SG

sờtouch

sờtouch

caacuteiCL

chacircnleg






25



nagravethat

běnCL

shūbook

(ge)CL


mǎi-zǒubuy-away

lePF


penCL

cybook

keCL

iaʔsnstudent

mabuy

lePFV

tccedilhigo

dieSFP


bunCL

syubook

goCL

hoksaangstudent

maai-jobuy-PFV

laSFP




wǒI

mǎi-lebuy-PFV

liagravengCL

chēcar


NgeI

mabuy

lePFV

buCL

tsʰotsʰicar


Keuihhe

maai-zosell-PFV

gaaCL

cecar



26










ConCL

lừadonkey

cứalways

nhigravenlook

vagraveoinside

caacutecPL

cacirc nCL

xeacute lecircpear

nhưlike

muocirc nwant

đứng lạistop

vagraveCONJ

ăneat

lecircpear





27




anhCL

chocirc nghusband


cửadoor

khiecirc ncause

cocircCL

vợwife


rocirc iCONJ

bỏleave

vagraveoenter





Anh ta3SG

bướcstep

vagraveoPREP

nhagravehouse

thigraveCONJ

lạiEMPH

bịPASS

đứaCL

conson

chơiplay

chiecirc cCL

xe1car

đẩypush

truacutengRES

vagraveoPREP

chacircnleg

khiecirc ncause

anh ta3SG


vagraveoPREP

chiecirc cCL

xe2car




Coacuteexist

mộtone

ngườiCL


đangPROG

ởPREP

trecircntop

caacuteiCL

thangladder

bắcconnect

lecircnPREP

cacircyCL

lecircpear

vagraveCONJ

đangPROG

haacuteipluck

traacuteiCL

lecircpear



28





Subject Object





29




Subject Object



+def 978 34 8 78 176 256 114 1092minusdef 19 9 1 31 3 94 0 365

Total 997 43 9 109 179 350 114 1457


Subject Object



+def 262 55 0 12 133 230 3 324minusdef 0 2 1 0 0 62 0 46

Total 262 57 1 12 133 292 3 370




30


[Subj+CL+ani]

[Subj+CL-ani]

[Subj-CL+ani]

[Subj-CL-ani]

[Obj+CL+ani]

[Obj+CL-ani]

[Obj-CL+ani]

[Obj-CL-ani]

0

500

1000

15001240

89 8 90309

486

117

1416

19 11 2 31 3156

0

411

DefiniteIndefinite




31







32



Thinsky

zibe

lanblue

koSFP


BanCLpiece

thinsky

gintsɔtoday

manvery

lanblue



(18) a Trờisky

đacirc yfull

saostar


CLtrờisky

đecircm naytonight

đacirc yfull

saostar



33



trờisky

mơ ướcdream

củaPOSS

haitwo

chuacuteng ta2PL

đacircyhere

rocirc iSFP








ĐứaCL

con traison

thigraveTOP

đứngstand

lecircnup


vagraveCONJ

vẽdraw

bậydisorderly

lecircnon

tườngwall

cogravenwhile

bagraveCL

vợwife

thigraveTOP

nằmlie

ăneat


vớiPRE




34




Thacirc ysee


củaPOSS


ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband


vagraveand

bắt eacutepforce

ăneat

nhưngCONJ

bagraveCL

vợwife

vẫnstill

khocircngNEG

ăneat




ThằngCL

beacuteboy

tập tễnhlimping

dắtlead

xebike

đigo

vagraveifew

bướcstep

cogravenCONJ

bọnCL

trẻkid

thigraveTOP

đigo

theotoward

hướngdirection



343 Focus



35




Ổng3SG

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

mộtone

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đểso that

ổng3SG

leoclimb

lecircnPREP

mộtone

caacuteiCL

cacircytree

đểto

ổng3SG

haacuteipluck

Ổng3SG

haacuteipluck

xongRES

thigraveCONJ

ổng3SG

leoclimb

xuocirc ngdown

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đoacuteDEM

xuocirc ngdown

đoacuteDEM

Rocirc iCONJ

ổng3SG

dướidown

mặtCL

đacirc tground

sẽFUT

coacutehave

bathree

caacuteiCL

giỏbasket




ThigraveCONJ

coacutehave

bathree

sọtCL


dướiunder

đacirc tground

khocircngNEG

coacutehave

aiwho


hecirc tatall




36




Luacutectime

bacirc y giờthat

ngườiCL

chocirc nghusband

nghehear

thacirc yRES

begravenCONJ

trocirc irise

lecircnout

khỏiout of

mặtsurface

nướcwater

toagravenwhole

thacircnbody

ocircng3SG

lagraveCOP


chỉ cogravenonly

thacirc ysee

mỗionly

khuocircnCL

mặtface




Khiwhen


vigravebecause

bịPASS

tạtthrow

nướcwater

bagraveCL

vợwife



nhigravenlook

xung quanharound

xemsee

aiwho

lagravemdo

vagraveCONJ

chảNEG

coacutehave

aiwho

ngoagraveiexcept

ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband

củaPOSS

migravenhself



37




Ocircng acirc y3SG

bịPASS

bỏngburn

vagraveCONJ

đauhurt

quaacutevery

necircnCONJ

ocircmhold

chacircnfoot

lecircnRES

vagraveand

khocircngNEG

giữkeep

đượcRES


necircnCONJ

teacutefall

vagraveointo

chiecirc cCL

chảopan

đangPROG

chaacuteyburn

đoacuteDEM

caacuteiCL

mocircngbuttock

củaPOSS

ocircng acirc y3SG

đatildePERF

bịPASS

phỏngburn






38





Chiecirc cCL



reoring

lecircnup

luacutecat

8eight

giờorsquoclock

đuacutengexactly

NgườiCL


đangPROG

ngủsleep

thigraveCONJ

bịPASS

nướcwater


vagraveoPREP

mặtface



Chiecirc cCL



reoring

lecircnRES


đatildePERF

taacutemeight

giờorsquoclock

saacutengmorning

NgườiCL


mởopen

mắteye


sangtoward



39





Luacutectime

nagraveyDEM

coacutehave

viecircnCL


vagraveoenter

hỏiask

xemsee


vigravebecause

haitwo

vợwife

chocirc nghusband

catildeiargue

nhauRECIP





đoacuteDEM

lagraveCOP

caacuteiCL

kệshelf

nhỏsmall

caacuteiCL

bigravenhbottle

vagraveand

lyCL

nướcwater

đượcPASS

đặtplace

lecircnmoveup

trecircntop

noacute3SG




40




CacircuCL

chuyệnstory

đượcPASS


vagraveoin

mộtone

buổi sangmorning

tạiat

mộtone

caacutenhCL

đocirc ngfield

coacutehave

mộtone

ngườiCL


leoclimb

lecircnup

trecircnon

mộtone

caacuteiCL

thangladder

đangPROG

haacuteipluck

mộtone

loạikind


nagraveosome

đoacutecertain

giocirc nglike

traacuteiCL

lecircpear





coacutehave

xecar

cứusave

hỏafire

vagraveCONJ


đecirc narrive

xịtspray

nướcwater

vagraveointo

chữaextinguish

chaacuteyfire

nhưngCONJ

lagravem chocause


hỏng hecirc truin




41





NhưngCONJ

sauafter

đoacutethat

caacuteiCL


củaPOSS

ocircngCL

chocirc nghusband

bịPASS

lủngburst

lograveishow

raout

caacuteiCL


chứCONJemph

khocircng phảiNEG


coacute thểcan

gacircycause

nguy hiểmdanger





nhigravenlook

gaacuteigirl

necircnCONJ

noacute3SG

vacirc ptrip

phảiPASS

cụcCL

đaacutestone

vagraveCONJ

teacutefall

xuocirc ngdown

đườngroad



42


5 Conclusion











43






44






45




Acknowledgements


References




46



















47



















48






49

Chapter 3





1 Introduction









52







53



(1) a Vin

uglucornerLOC

spitsleeps

koškacatNOM

b KoškacatNOM

spitsleeps

vin

uglucornerLOC




(3) KoškacatNOM

spitsleep




54








55






(5) a VasjaVasja

znaetknows

ėtogothisACCM

studentastudentACCM



prixodilacame

včerayesterday

vto

gostiguests



kakaja-tosomeNOMF




kupilbought


erundunonsenseACCF



56




(6) a VasjaVasja

kupilbought

molokamilkGEN


Vasjakupilbought

molokomilkACC





57



(7) a VasjaVasja

risovalpaintedIPFV







(8) a IvanIvan

pidrankIPFV

vinowineACC


IvanizpidrankPFV





58



(9) PetjaPetja

razdelildividedPFV

ljudejpeopleACC

nain

dobryxkindACC

iand

zlyxmeanACC







59




(10) a TolyaTolya

včerayesterday


swith

AnejAnya



ToliTolya

tothat

onhe

včerayesterday


swith

AnejAnya


(11) a Varenjejam

jaI

včerayesterday

srsquoelatePFV



varenjajam

tothat

jaI

egoit

včerayesterday

srsquoelatePFV



60




(12) a Buenosgood

vinoswines

(los)(CLMPL)

hayhavePRS3SG

enin

CastillaCastile


booksinin

ingleseEnglish

(line)(CLMPLCLPART)

puogravecanPRS3SG

trovarefind

alonthe

secondosecond

pianofloor




61








62








63








64















65


33 General results







66





67










68





8333 2520


7750 2806


8833 2102


8418 2166


6863 3016


7583 2930


5972 3372


7306 3155




69











70










71







72







73









74



5 Conclusions



75


Acknowledgments


References













76

















77


















78

















79















80

Chapter 4




1 Introduction












82









83







inw1A(prevocalic)




3qUOTaART

winikman


aumltan=awife=EV





84






aART

nooch=obig=EV


aART

nenersquo=esmall=EV





85





brsquoinHSY

aART


yalanunder

kamaj=abed=EV






86



peroDISC

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A

karsquoagain


u3A

laakrsquoother

uy3A(prevocalic)

aumltanwife









karsquoagain



u3A


brsquoinHSY





87




lersquoek3EMPH

aART


in1A


lersquoek3EMPH

aART

santoholy

krsquoin=isun=EV





junone

tuulCLFANIM

brsquoinHSY

aART

winik=iman=EV

topvery


brsquoinHSY

t-uPREP-3A

wicheye

aART



214 Bare nominal



88



ooh

inen=e1EMPH=EV

wayersquoDLOC1


wayersquoDLOC1

yan-Oslashexist-3B

in1A

kaalhometown

kutrsquoan3qUOT

winik=iman=EV






marsquoNEG

yan-emptyexist-3B

aART



89











90






311 ART




aART

winikman


aumltan=awife=EV





91



peroDISC

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A

karsquoagain


u3A

laakrsquoother

uy3A(prevocalic)

aumltanwife




topvery


tiPREP

in1A

wicheye

kutrsquoan3qUOT

brsquoinHSY

aART






92




marsquoNEG


u3A


aART


aART

winikman

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV








93



kaumlkaumljcacao

iand

kafecoffee

lersquoek3EMPH

aART


u3A


in1A

kabayoj=ohorse=EV




lersquoek3EMPH

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

u3A







u3A

meyajwork

ichilinside

jumone

prsquoeelCLFINAN

jardingarden

buenowell

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

meyajwork

aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

u3A




94



314 Bare nominal



ooh

inen=e1EMPH=EV

wayersquoDLOC1


wayersquoDLOC1

yan-emptyexist-3B

in1A

kaalhometown

kutrsquoan3qUOT

winik=iman=EV






95



aART

uj=umoon=EV


ilikINT

u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

jabrsquoixlike

tiPREP


u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

aART

krsquoinsun







brsquoinHSY

ichilinside

aART

karsquoansky

aART






96





buenowell

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

jesus=uJesus=EV

tiPREP







u3A


brsquoinHSY

ichin

krsquoaakrsquofire






97







puesso

aART

winikman

aART

brsquoe=eD3NV=EV

u3A


t-uPREP-3A

tzeel=eside=EV

uy(prevocalic)3A


yan-emptyexist-3B

aART

brsquoak=abone=EV






98



puesso

junone

tuulCLFANIM

brsquoinHSY

aART

winikman

aART



brsquoinHSY

u3A







jumone

prsquoeelCLFINAN

krsquoinday

brsquoinHSY

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

brsquoaalumjaguar

uy3A(prevocalic)

etrsquookcompanion

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ajGMM

leon=olion=EV

uy3A(prevocalic)


brsquoinHSY

tiPREP

u3A

brsquoajilself




99









tubrsquoawhere

yan-emptyexist-3B

junone

teekCLFplant

aART





u3A

karsquoagain



yalamunder

junone

teekCLFplant

maumlpcocoyol_palm


100









101



pweswell

kirsquogood


tirsquoi3OBL

iand

jok-eenexit-1B

tojalready

ichin

najhouse



pachbehind

najhouse


pueswell


in1A


u3A

fotophoto

tiPREP


aART




u3A

charsquoangaze

ichin

najhouse






102







brsquoinHSY

u3A


aART



brsquoinHSY

u3A


aART







entonsesthen

tiPREP

karsquoagain

brsquoinHSY

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ilikjust

brsquoinHSY

aART

kochlastone


tiPREP


103


ichilinside

aART

tunichrock

aART


entonsesthen

puesso



brsquoinHSY

u3A


aART

brsquoersquoD3NV

aart







peroDISC

lersquoek3EMPH

aART

muyalcloud

aART


u3A

brsquoeelgoIPFV

tiPREP

u3A

wich=iface=EV


104






puesthen


brsquoinHSY

uy(prevocalic)3A

oolfeeling

u_menby

kansnake






105





sansamaldaily

tatzrsquofar


brsquoinHSY

u3A

brsquoelgoIPFV

u3A


aART

yuk=uantelope=EV









106



in1A

tat=afather=EV

u3A

krsquoatiwant

junone

tuulCLFANIM

ixGMF

chrsquoup=uwoman=EV






ixGMF

koloolpartridge



etelwith

aART


etelwith

aART

yuk=uantelope=EV

lersquoek3EMPH

kuchiDISC

in1A

krsquoatiwant


perebut

marsquoNEG

yan-emptyexist-3B

kutrsquoan3qUOT




107








108


Table1

Summary

ofreferentialan

chor

ing

inMop

anin

relatio

nto

Dry

errsquos

(2014)

referenc

ehierarch

y(w

ithsu

bdivisions

forrelativ

edis-

cour

sepr

ominen

cead

ded)

Ana

phor

icde

finite

sNon

-ana

phor

icde

finite

s

Seman

tically

andpr

agmatically

spec

ificinde

finite

s

Seman

tically

spec

ific

prag

matically

nons

pecific

inde

finite

s

Seman

tically

nons

pecific

inde

finite

s

ART

++++

+a+

+

Relativ

ized

deictic

brsquoersquo

+++

++

minus

Emph

atic

pron

oun

lersquoek

+++

++

minus

NUM

+CLF

+ART

minusminus

+minus

minus

NUM

+CLF

minusminus

++

+

Bare

nominal

++

++

+

a Mos

tlikelyto

occu

rwith

high

discou

rsesalie

nce

109




Acknowledgments







110


References
















111


















112





113

Chapter 5




1 Introduction





(1) Emruztoday

yeka

māšincar

tuat

xiābunstreet

didamsaw1SG



(2) Māšin-icar-i

rorā

emruztoday

tuat

xiābunstreet

didisaw2SG




Yeye

šomāreh-inumber-i

rorā

entexābchoose

kondo2SG

vaand

injāhere

alāmatmark

bezando2SG



(4) Yekye

bače-ichild-i

tuat

xiābunstreet

gomlost

šodebecame3SG

budwas3SG




(5) Emruztoday

yea

pesarboy

vaand

yea

doxtargirl

rorā

did-amsaw-1SG

Pesar-(e)boy-e

tāsbald

budwas3SG



116



(6) Yea

pesar-eboy-e

injāhere

kārwork

mikonedo3SG


(7) Diruzyesterday

māšin-icar-i

jolo-efrontof-E

daredoorof

xunehome

didisaw2SG

ndash Nano

manI

hičany

māšin-e-icar-e-i

nadidamnotsaw1SG


(8) Emruztoday

yea

māšin-e-icar-e-i

azfrom

poštbehind

behemtome

zadcollided3SG




117











Total 473 100

118




waƞa[+specific]








(10) a MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F


b-muhamiwith-lawyer

wa-layennibut


manot


wa-layennibut

manot



b MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F


b-wahedwith-one

r-rajelthe-man

wa-layennibut

manot



c MeryemMaryam

bgha-twanted-F


b-shiwith-some

rajelman

wa-layennibut

manot




119













120








121




(14) a AnneAnne

yeka

xunehouse

xaridbought

Xunehouse

labeon

marzeedgeof



Anneraftewent3SG

budAUX3SG

yea

marāsemeceremony

arusimarriage

Arusbride

xeylivery

xošgelbeautiful

budwas3SG


moonxeylivery

rošanbright



dinosaur6060

milionmillion

sāleyear

qablago

monqarezextinct

šodebecame3SG



122



(15) a Rooon

miztable

ketābebookbe3SG


bookrooon

mizetablebe3SG


Aliketābbook

xaridbought3SG



xaridbought3SG






(i) ye-(ta)a-(CL)

ketabbook


ketabbook

(iii) yea



123







124





wide scope








wide scope


Aliketāb-ibook-i

xaridbought3SG


Aliyeka

ketābbook

xaridbought3SG


Aliyeka

ketāb-ibook-i

xaridbought3SG



125




Iketāb-ibook-i



Ihattāeven

yea

ketābbook

hamalso



Iyea

ketāb-ibook-i

rorā




Iketāb-ibook-i



Iyea

ketābbook

rorā



Iyea

ketāb-ibook-i

rorā





126















127







128



(19) Emruztoday

yeka

pesarboy

vaand

yeka

doxtargirl

rorā

didamsaw1SG

Pesar(-e)boy(-e)

rorā

mišnāxtamknew1SG




(20) a AnneAnne

yeka

xunehouse

xaridebought3SG

Xune(-he)house(-he)

labeon

marzeedgeof



Anneraftewent3SG

budAUX3SG

yea

marāsemeceremony

arusimarriage

Arus(-e)bride(-e)

xeylivery

xošgelbeautiful

budwas3SG


moon(-e)xeylivery

rošanbright



129



6060

milionmillion

sāleyear

qablago

monqarezextinct

šodebecame3SG




inthis


yeka

safartrip

beto

ālmānGermany

migiradget3SG





(22) Ye(k)a

pesar-eboy-e

injāhere

kārwork

mikonedo3SG


(23) Diruzyesterday

māšin-icar-i

jolo-efrontof-E

daredoorof

xunehome

didisaw2SG

ndash Nano

manI

hičany

māšin-e-icar-e-i

nadidamnotsaw1SG


(24) EmruzToday

yea

māšin-e-icar-e-i

azfrom

poštbehind

behemtome

zadsmashed3SG


130




(25) a Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtargirl

raqsidandanced3PL


b Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-egirl-e

raqsidandanced3PL


allpesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-igirl-i

raqsidandanced3PL


d Hameall

pesar-hāboy-PL

bāwith

yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

raqsidandanced3PL


(26) a AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtargirl

dustfriend

šebecome3SG



131


b AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-egirl

dustfriend

šebecome3SG


Alimixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-igirl-i

dustfriend

šebecome3SG


d AliAli

mixādwant3SG

bāwith

yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

dustfriend

šebecome3SG






132




(27) Tanhāialone

vasatemiddleof

pārkeparkof

MellatMellat

nešastamsitting1SG

yea

xānum-e-iwoman-e-i

dāreAUX3SG

kenāramnextme

QurānQuran

mixunereading3SG


(28) Yea

doxtar-e-igirl-e-i

tuat

bašgāhamgymmy

hastbe3SG

ajabwhat

heykalibody-shape

dārehave3SG


(29) ZoškZoshk

kethat

berimgo1PL

yea

sag-e-idog-e-i

hamalso

hastbe3SG

unjāthere

tāzerecently

āšnāfamiliar

šodegot3SG


(30) Yea

darscourse

dāštamhad1SG

bewith

esmename



Unjāthere

yea

pesar-e-iboy-e-i

budwas3SG

bewith

esmenameof

VahidVahid

yaor

HamidHamid



133











134


(31) SārāSara

yea

ostād-eprofessor-e

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave


Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor



kudumwhich

ostādprofessor


(32) SārāSara

yea


rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave


Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor



kudumwhich

ostādprofessor





yea

ostādprofessor

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave

(i) ManI

midunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor



yea

ostād-iprofessor-i

rorā

xeylivery

dustlike

dārehave

(ii) Valibut

nemidunamnotknow1SG

kudumwhich

ostādprofessor


135



Indefiniteform





51 Experiment 1


136



(33) a MonaMona

bāwith

yeka

doktor-edoctor-e

ezdevajmarriage

kardedid3SG


Monabāwith

yeka


ezdevajmarriage

kardedid3SG


Imidunamknow1SG

kudumwhich

doktordoctor


butmanI

nemidunamnotknow1SG

kudumwhich

doktordoctor






137




512 Results



Indefiniteform

Epistemictype

Meanvalue




3025 good



4425 weak good


138



27 3

47 44




19

4336

51

2439 37

5

human non-human




139


513 Discussion


52 Experiment 2


521 Design




SaraSara

emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-elawyer-e

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

140


ManI

hamalso

bawith

vakil-elawyer-e


karwork

kardamdid1SG

Karešworkhis

xeylivery

xubegoodbe3SG



emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-elawyer-e

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

Migansay3PL

vakil-elawyer-e

maroofeknownbe3SG

valibut

manI

čiz-ithing-INDEF

azašfromhim



emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-e-ilawyer-e-i

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

ManI

hamalso

bawith

vakil-elawyer-e


kārwork

kardamdid1SG

Karešworkhis

xeylivery

xubegoodbe3SG



emruztoday

azfrom

yea

vakil-e-ilawyer-e-i

vaqteappointment


gereftetook3SG

MiganSay3PL

vakil-elawyer-e

maroofeknownbe3SG

valibut

manI

čiz-ithing-INDEF

azašfromhim


141




Migansay3PL

yea

moalem-eteacher-e

tuin

madreseschool

TizhushānTizhushan

hastbe3SG

kethat

bečehastudentPL

azašfromher

xeylivery

mitarsanfrighten3PL

ManI

hamalso

bāhāshwithhim

4ta4CL

darscourse

daštamhad3SG

vaand



Šenidamheard1SG

yea

pesar-eboy-e

hastbe3SG

tuin

inthis

mahaleneighborhood

kewho

vasefor

doxtaragirlPL


ijadmake

mikonedo3SG

ManI

mišnasamešknow1SG

azhimfrom

vaghtiwhen

bačechild

budwas3SG





142



1

2

3

4

5

14 17

323

3 27

15 15 14 15 13 15








143





Acknowledgments


144


References












145
















146
















147

Chapter 6















150









151








152







153







154












(3) agbənhouseSGM

gin

aacutegbənhouseSGM


ito

aacutemanwaterPLM


sgfrom

uacuteliheartSGM

155




(6) diEXIST

aggʷiacutedmanSGM


(7) diEXIST

taltiacutewomanSGF

dand

aggʷiacutedmanSGM



(8) šaltownSGM

nof

isiacutewansiwa



dabbmany




diEXIST

aggʷiacutedmanSGM

dand



dand



nof

tləččagirlSGF



(10) w-omDEM-2SGF

šahiacutenteaSGM


156




aacutenniCOMP

aziacutedijackalSGM



ankaacutenplaceSGM

agbənhouseSGM

diacutemaalways



gin

idrarənmountainPLM








nof




157


(13) kanif

xsi-ṭwantPFV-2SG


šaltownSGM

sfrom

ənniǧup


ito



gin

ankaacutenplaceSGM






sgfrom







158










albaacutebdoorSGM


albaacutebdoorSGM

nof

šaltownSGM



əgd-əsin-3SG



(18) kanif







sgfrom

aacutellonwindowSGM


159




ito

aacutenuwellSGM

nof

aacutemanwaterPLM














160







nof

isiacutewanSiwa




nof








gin

təṭspringSGF


161










(28) sgfrom

əlwoqttimeSGF



(29) aacutenniCOMP


dand









(31) əǧǧənoneM

nof

aacuteddoṛtimeSGM





gin

aacutegbənhouseSGM


162




əǧǧətoneF

gəd-sənfrom-3PL

amẓaacuteogreSGM

daw-oacutemDEM-2SGF




wәnREL






sfrom



nof

wənREL




(35) kullevery

əǧǧənoneM

wənREL




163



(36) makwhen

əǧǧənoneM


anǧaacutefmarryVN




ankaacutenplaceSGM

nof







šaliacuteshali







164



aksuacutemmeatSGM





(42) diEXIST




sgfrom

aacutellonwindowSGM

tləččagirlSGF




taliacutestankSGF


amaacutenwaterPLM

kanif

laacute-diNEG-EXIST

taacutelistankSGF



diEXIST

azidiacutejackalSGM

dand

tɣaacutettgoatSGF

aziacutedijackalSGM

kullevery

yomday




165





aməllalwhiteSGM

daacutew-omDEM-2SGF

w-omDEM-2SGF

tisəntsaltSGF

tiacutesəntsaltSGF

ənšniacuteIDP1PL




swith

tiniacutedateSGF

dand

arənflourPLM

bassbut

tiacutenidateSGF

dand

aacuterənflourPLM


amaacutenwaterPLM





166







167




Acknowledgments






unit

168


References













169













170

Chapter 7








Dominika Skrzypek









172





2 Indirect anaphora


173

Dominika Skrzypek











174











175

Dominika Skrzypek


(12) Semantic types









176






177

Dominika Skrzypek







NPs extracted



29 5822

178








179

Dominika Skrzypek






4 Results




180





8408 9004 9013


9026 8650 9201



181

Dominika Skrzypek









ofif

swaso

worthaeligrbe

atthat

manman

mistaeligrloses

allaeligall

sinaelighis

taeligndaeligrteeth

affrom

sinhisREFL


182



komcame

thornathen

fuulfully


tilto

miinmy

kaeligradear

sunson

okand

thornaharwhen

iakI

sasaw

hanumhim

slaa-sbeat-PASS

maeligthornwith

naeliguafists

()()

okand

spytta-sspit-PASS

iin

anlaeligtface

okand

krona-scrown-PASS

maeligthornwith

thornornathorns



honshe

varthornbecame

hauandepregnant

maeligthornwith

guzGodGEN

sonson

iiin

sinoherREFL

liuewomb



mathornerman

draeligpinkilled

()()

thornathen

skalshall

uighimurder

aon

thorningiting

lysaeligdeclare




gikwent

bortaway

okand

faldadhefolded

hanhim

jin

sinomher

hwiffscarf

somwhich

honshe

hafdhehad

aon

sinoher

hofdhehead


183

Dominika Skrzypek


syntiswas-seen


hwifwirscarf

allirall

blodhoghirbloody

okand

waterwet

affof

blodhblood

swaso

atthat

blodh-inblood-DEF

floumltflew

nidhirdown

vmabout


kindircheeks

Hulkitwhich

herra-nmaster-DEF

saasaw

ropadhescreamed

okand

sagdhesaid

hwarwho

slohit

thikyou

jin

thityour

aumlnliteface

aumlllaor

sarghadhehurt

Okand

quinnna-nwoman-DEF

lyptelifted

vpup

sinaher

handhand

okand

stroumlkstroked

sikherself

vmabout

aumlnliti-tface-DEF

okand

thawhen

honshe

toktook

nidhirdown


thathen

warwas

honshe (= the hand)

alall

blodhoghbloody




barbore


vpup

hand-enahand-DEF

ocand

sloghhit

honaher

widhat


atthat

honshe

stoslashrtefell

tilto

iordh-innaearth-DEF


184



begynthebegan


somas

hwnshe

warwas

wanaccustomed

gladelighgladly

atto

loslashperun

iin


()(hellip)

elleror

roslashrdhewagged





hoffui-thead-DEF

bloslashdebled

bodheboth

gioslashmmenthrough

mwnmouth

okand

oslashrenears



methwith

mwndhmouth

ocand

hiaeligrtheheart





konaeligwife

iin

bohouse

doumlrdies

bondehusband



draeligpaeligrkills


manmanACC

komacome

tilto

aruaheir


okand

faget


okand

huggacut

thornaeligrthere

nithornaeligrdown

aon

foumltaeligrfeet

thornaeligsthisGEN



185

Dominika Skrzypek





saasaw

hanshis

diruecourage

ocand

reedeprepared

hanomhim

snarutrap

()(hellip)

Ocand

bathornasked

munk-inmonk-DEF

sikhimself

inlaumltaallow

iin

sinhisREFL

cellacell



sanctasaint

katherinaCatherine

thettethis

fornamunderstood

thathen

luckthelocked

hwnshe

sikherself

hardelighfirmly

iin

synherREFL

cellaeligcell

ochand

badhprayed


tillto

gudhGod



186






fargets

saeligrhimself

athornalkonowife

gaeligtaeligrbegets

uithornby

barnchild

doumlrdies

svthis

faeligrgets

athornraanother

gaeligtaeligrbegets

vithornby

barnchild

fargets

hinathat

thornriethiuthird

thornoumlrdies

bondepeasant

thornathan

konaeligwoman

eris

livaeligndialive

thornathan

skalshall

afof

takaeligtake

hemfylghdowry

sinaeligher

altall

thornetthat

aeligrwhich

vnoumltunused

aeligris

hunshe

aeligllaeligror

haelignaeligrher

boumlrnchildren

thornathan

skalshall

hinthat

aeliglstioldest

koldaeligrbrood

boskiptidivision


takaeligrtake

afof


afof




jin

thethis


fortravelled

therthere

framforward

vmabout

ena

praumlstirpriest

mzwith

gud-zGod-GEN

likamabody

tilto

ena

siukansick

manman

okand

klokka-nbell-DEF

ringderang

forfor

gud-zGod-GEN



187

Dominika Skrzypek







188











189

Dominika Skrzypek



6 Conclusions




190


Acknowledgments






References





191

Dominika Skrzypek
















192









193

Name index











Name index












116 117 124 172 188Lyons John 172 188

195

Name index



Onea Edgar 121









97 99 100 103ndash105 107

196

Name index





Xu Liejiong 44


Zhao Wei 176

197

Language index





Chinese 2 4120


Chuj 2Czech 62 63 74 122 150



856 86 95 99 10120 115ndash117 120 124 127 143 150








Japanese 2





128Polish 62 63 150 154


Sakha 575

Language index


45 4522


46Spanish 61 856





200

Subject index




129 171 172 174 177 179181 184 190




4120 43 4421 45 101 13613712 138 140 144 178








18 25 83 88 98ndash100 10120106ndash108 110









91 9414 104 116 117 120124 128 154 156 161ndash163

Subject index

167 172 173 179 180 188189

determinacy 521


4421 1161 1266




10121 102 103 105 107ndash109121



40 41 4120 43 156

familiarity 3 4 11 52 64 69 74 82110 116 129 153 176 186189 190








179 182 189givenness 68 69 74 7412 7413 75

821






20 25 31 32 43 4422 4546 59 60 154 155

intonation 61 64 74 152 153 157162 165 167

iota shift 55

kinship terms 5 154 155 160 167





202

Subject index


4421 45 9616

novelty 64 70






83 178referentiality 4 20 61 110 117 120








topic 8 9 34 39 40 4422 60ndash62 7375 154 156 158 166 168






203

Nominal anchoring


9 783961 102846

ISBN 978-3-96110-284-6

Contents







3 Contributions



33 Summary


1 Introduction

2 Methodology








343 Focussbj]focus





5 Conclusion


1 Introduction







33 General results





5 Conclusions


1 Introduction










311 ART





























1 Introduction













51 Experiment 1


512 Results

513 Discussion

52 Experiment 2

521 Design


















2 Indirect anaphora


4 Results






6 Conclusions

Index

Name index

Language index

Subject index

Nominal anchoring

Documents

Transcript of Nominal anchoring