Definiteness

Abstract

This 1999 textbook investigates definiteness both from a comparative and a theoretical point of view, showing how languages express definiteness and what definiteness is. It surveys a large number of languages to discover the range of variation in relation to definiteness and related grammatical phenomena, such as demonstratives, possessives and personal pronouns. It outlines work done on the nature of definiteness in semantics, pragmatics and syntax, and develops an account on which definiteness is a grammatical category represented in syntax as a functional head (the widely discussed D). Consideration is also given to the origins and evolution of definite articles in the light of the comparative and theoretical findings. Among the claims advanced are that definiteness does not occur in all languages, though the pragmatic concept which it grammaticalizes probably does.

Re-examining the relationship between the subject agreement morpheme and (in)definiteness in Northern Sotho

“…Lyons (1999) views the grammatical category of definiteness as the grammaticalisation of semantic and pragmatic definiteness, which has to do with whether or not a referent is familiar and therefore uniquely or inclusively identifiable to the addressee. The pragmatic condition of identifiability is widely available across languages (Lyons 1999), including those not grammatically marked for definiteness. Definiteness is linguistically marked in different ways in various languages.…”

“…Definite reference is viewed as inducing the inherent presupposition that the speaker and the addressee share information pertaining to the familiarity, locatability and unique or inclusive identifiability of the referent of the NP within a particular discourse (Jackendoff 1972;Heim 1982;Givón 1995;Lyons, 1999;Cruse 2000). Because it is 1.The word 'Bantu' is used in this article for linguistic classification purposes.…”

“…Anaphora concerns linguistic co-reference whilst situational factors are non-linguistic. Definite NPs include proper nouns (Chafe 1976;Lyons 1999) because these refer to uniquely identifiable entities.…”

“…A distinction is drawn in the literature between specificity and nonspecificity in the realm of indefiniteness (Hawkins 1978;Chesterman 1991;Enç 1991;Diesing 1992;Lyons 1999;Cruse 2000). Specific indefinites consist of NPs whose referents are familiar to the speaker but not necessarily to the addressee.…”

“…The issues relating to definite reference are considered relevant in Northern Sotho because definiteness as a grammatical category is viewed as the grammaticalisation of a semantic and pragmatic category of identifiability, which is available across languages (Lyons 1999). The discussion in this article is based on previous works and opinions and (it is hoped) this will not be the last article on the topic.…”