Endophoric definiteness: An analysis based on Romanian data
Articles
Antanas Keturakis
Vilnius University
Published 2018-12-28
https://doi.org/10.15388/Kalbotyra.2018.4
PDF

Keywords

definiteness
article
reference point
cognitive grammar
Romanian

How to Cite

Keturakis, A. (2018) “Endophoric definiteness: An analysis based on Romanian data”, Kalbotyra, 71, pp. 65–83. doi:10.15388/Kalbotyra.2018.4.

Abstract

[full article and abstract in English]

Definiteness as a grammatical or pragmatic category is usually explained via the act of reference. In this spirit, a definite noun phrase is said to ensure that the hearer can identify the entity to which the NP refers, thus establishing a successful act of communication. The well-known typology of definiteness types developed by Hawkins (1978) relies on this assumption. However, such an explanation fails to clarify all the definite noun phrases in discourse.
This paper argues that the information provided in the complex nominal constituent can yield a definite interpretation of the nominal regardless of the hearer’s ability to identify the real-life referent to which the noun refers. Such types of definite noun phrases are subsumed in this article under the term “endophoric definiteness”. I will discuss two subtypes of endophoric definiteness. First, the relational definiteness, based on the notion of reference-point constructions will be discussed. Then I will turn to modificational definiteness where the use of modifiers contribute to the definite interpretation of the nominal. The article focuses on how the endophoric definiteness types function and what strategies can be used to mark them formally. To illustrate this point, I use the qualitative analysis of Romanian data. It shows that a language may have different grammatical patterns for the two subtypes of endophoric definiteness. This formal distinction in linguistic expression shows that relational and modificational definiteness types must be taken into account as contributing, in distinct ways, to the category of definiteness.

PDF

References

DIF. Mircea Cărtărescu, De ce iubim femeile [Why we love women]. Bucureşti: Humanitas, 2005.

Cruse, Alan. 2004. Meaning in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bakker, Stéphanie J. 2009. The Noun Phrase in Ancient Greek. Leiden/Boston: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004177222.i-324

Epstein, Richard. 2002. The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics 12-4, 333–378. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.007

Fraurud, Kari. 1990. Definiteness and the Processing of Noun Phrases in Natural Discourse. Journal of Semantics 7, 395–433. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/7.4.395

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Explaining article-possessor complementarity: economic motivation in noun phrase syntax. Language 75.2, 227–243. https://doi.org/10.2307/417260

Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality. London: Croon Helm.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray. 2003. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1) (1993), 1–38.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. Possession and Possessive Constructions. Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World. John R. Taylor and Robert E. MacLaury, eds. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 51–80. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110809305.51

Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Langacker, Ronald W. 2001. Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12.2, 143–188. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143

Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Concept, Image and Symbol. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Langacker, Ronald W. 2007. Cognitive Grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 421–462.

Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001

Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369

Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789

Pana Dindelegan, Gabriela, ed. 2013. The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Radden, Günter and René Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2

Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The Noun Phrase. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237822.001.0001

Vennemann, Theo. 2001. Structural Contact Features in Celtic and English. Historical Linguistics 1999: Selected Papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999. Laurel J. Brinton, ed. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 351–389.

Willemse, Peter. 2007. Indefinite possessive NPs and the distinction between determining and nondetermining genitives in English. English Language and Linguistics 11.3, 537–568. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002389

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.