Abstract / Description of output
Recent research on definiteness has shown that languages can distinguish between an anaphoricand a uniqueness-based notion of definiteness. This distinction may be marked by using different forms of the article, as in Fering, or no determiner in one of the two cases (Hausa, Mandarin): see Schwarz 2009, 2013. Anaphoric (aka “strong”) definites, illustrated in (1a), refer to objects thathave been introduced in the (discourse) context, possibly via various types of bridging relation (see again Schwarz 2009, Jenks 2017, Simpson and Biswas 2016 for discussion on the nature of thes erelations, an issue which we will not address in this contribution). Unique (“weak”) definites, as in(1b), on the other hand, pick up a referent which is the single or maximal element in the property denoted by their restrictor.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Proceedings of GLOW in Asia XI |
| Subtitle of host publication | MIT Working Papers in Linguistics |
| Editors | Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine |
| Place of Publication | USA |
| Publisher | MIT Working Papers in Linguistics |
| Pages | 79-93 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Volume | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2017 |
Publication series
| Name | MIT Working Papers in Linguistics |
|---|---|
| Publisher | MIT |
| Volume | 84 |
| ISSN (Print) | 1049-1058 |
Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)
- syntax
- semantics
- definite descriptions
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Two levels for definiteness'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Profiles
-
Caroline Heycock
- School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences - Personal Chair in Syntax
Person: Academic: Research Active