Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 16:1 (2024) ► pp.1–29

Ruled by construal?

Framing article choice in English [*] *

ORCID logo | University of Birmingham | University of York
| University of Sheffield
| University of Birmingham
| University of Birmingham

In cognitive linguistics, grammatical structure is known to be representative of meaning. This is also true of English articles. In this paper, we argue that the choice of article, when the grammar allows it, is dependent on the wider discourse context and most importantly on how the speaker construes this context. Using survey data from 181 native speakers of English, we show that the choice of article depends on the activation of semantic frames and how speakers may choose to highlight different elements of a frame to construe the situation differently. We rely on Entropy to measure the restrictiveness of a context and to identify particular contexts in which choice is allowed or inhibited. We find that some contextual features such as the specificity of the referent are more restrictive while Hearer Knowledge is more open to construal.

Keywords: articles, construal, survey data, reference
Article outline
  • 1.Aims and objectives
  • 2.State of the art
    • 2.1Articles as grounding elements
    • 2.2Mental spaces and semantic frames
    • 2.3Construal operations
    • 2.4This study
  • 3.Data collection and annotation
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Data classification
    • 4.2Entropy
    • 4.3Variation at participant and stimulus level
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Entropy: Constraint and construal
      • 5.1.1Entropy and specificity of the referent
      • 5.1.2Entropy and Hearer Knowledge
      • 5.1.3Entropy and other constraints
    • 5.2Variation at participant and stimulus level
      • 5.2.1Participants and items
      • 5.2.2Deviation from the mode
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Data availability statement
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 4 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22005.rom
References (39)
Ariel, M.
(1988) Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24 (1), 65–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders T., J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 29–88). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D.
(1981) Roots of language. Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984) The Language Bioprogram Hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7 (2), 173–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L.
(1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H.
(1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997) Communal lexicons. In K. Malmkjaer & J. Williams (Eds.), Language learning and language understanding (pp. 63–87). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(2015) Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Dagmar (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 650–668). Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2016) Corpus of News on the Web (NOW).Google Scholar
Divjak, D.
(2019) Frequency in language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., Romain, L., & Milin, P.
( 2023) From their point of view: The article category as a hierarchically structured referent tracking system. Linguistics, 61 (4), 1027-1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epstein, R.
(2002) The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics, 12 (4), 333–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farmer, T., Misyak, J. B., & Morten, H. C.
(2012) Individual differences in sentence processing. In M. Spivey, K. McRae & M. Joannisse (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 353–364). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(2007) Mental spaces. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 351–376). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1982) Frame Semantics. In Korea, The Linguistic Society of (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
(1992) The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 30 1, 5–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horton, W. S., & Boaz, K.
(1996) When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59 (1), 91–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huebner, T.
(1983) A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Karoma.Google Scholar
(1985) System and variability in interlanguage syntax. Language Learning, 35 (2), 141–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
(1994) Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(2004) Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language, 11 (1), 77–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Nominal structure in Cognitive Grammar. The Lublin lectures. Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K.
(1969) Convention: A philosophical study. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J.
(1990) Formalization of two puzzles involving knowledge. In V. Lifschitz (Ed.), Formalizing common sense: Papers by John McCarthy (pp. 158–166). Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Milin, P., Đurđević, D., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F.
(2009a) The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Language and Memory, 60 (1), 50–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milin, P., Kuperman, V., Kostic, A., & Baayen, H.
(2009b) Paradigms bit by bit: An information theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation. In J. P. Blevins & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition (pp. 214–252). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulder, K., & Hulstijn, J. H.
(2011) Linguistic skills of adult native speakers, as a function of age and level of education. Applied Linguistics, 32 1, 475–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team
(2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 4.1.1 edn. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
(2007) Cognitive English grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudas, T.
(2018) Lectures on categorical data analysis. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P.
(1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. R.
(1972) Meaning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E.
(1948) The processing of lexical sequences. University of Alberta PhD Dissertation.
Stalnaker, R. C.
(1978) Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 315–332). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L.
(2018) Article emergence in Old English: A constructionalist perspective. Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M.
(1989) The acquisition of English articles by first-and second-language learners. Applied psycholinguistics, 10 (3), 335–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar