Cover not available
Part of
Language Description Informed by Theory
Edited by Rob Pensalfini, Myfany Turpin and Diana Guillemin
[Studies in Language Companion Series 147] 2014
► pp. 193–216

Marking Definiteness or Specificity, not necessarily both

Evidence of a principle of economy from Mauritian Creole

Definiteness and Specificity are assumed to be universal semantic categories, but they are not marked in all languages. Languages with only two articles mark either Definiteness or Specificity, not both (Ionin 2003). I apply Chomsky’s theory of Derivation by Phase (2001a, 2001b) to the analysis of the specificity marker la in Mauritian Creole to argue that this morpheme must surface as a “last resort” to license the null definite article in some syntactic environments. Building on Chierchia’s (1998) Nominal Mapping Parameter – according to which nouns vary with respect to the features “argumental” or “predicative” – I propose that languages whose nouns are argumental lack a definite article and mark the specific vs. non-specific contrast. Languages whose nouns are predicative require an overt definite article and mark the definite vs. indefinite contrast.

Published online: 28 January 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.147.09gui
References
Abney, Steven Paul.
1987. The English Noun Phrase and its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Aboh, Enoch O.
2004a. The Morpho-syntax of Complement-head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa . Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004b. Topic and focus within D. Linguistics in the Netherlands 21:1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Philip.
2003. Quelques cas de réanalyse et de grammaticalisation dans l'évolution du créole mauricien. In Grammaticalisation et réanalyse: Approches de la variation créole et française , Sibylle Kriegel (ed.), 111–141. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Baker, Philip & Hookoomsing, Vinesh Y.
1987. Diksyoner Kreol Morisyen; Dictionary of Mauritian Creole; Dictionnaire du Créole Mauricien . Paris: L'Harmattan.Google Scholar
Baptista, Marlyse & Guéron, Jacqeline
(eds). 2007. Noun Phrases in Creole Languages: A Multi-faceted Approach [Creole Language Library 31]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Derek.
1981. Roots of Language . Ann Arbor MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg. N.
1978. Reference to Kinds in English . Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
1999. No lack of determination: On determinerless noun phrases. Glot International 4(3): 3–8.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro.
1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam.
1986. Barriers . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995. The Minimalist Program . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001a. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy [MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
2001b. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language , Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christophersen, Paul.
1939. The Articles: A Study of their Theory and Use in English . Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Déprez, Viviane
2003. Determiner architecture and phrasal movement in French lexifier creoles. In Romance language and linguistic theory: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Amsterdam 6–8 December 2001 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 245], Joseph Quer, Jan Schroten, Maura Scorretti, Petra Sleeman & Els Verheugd (eds), 49–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith S.
1966. Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review 75: 281–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epstein, David, Thrainsson, Hoskuldur & Zwart, Jan-Wouter.
1996. Introduction. In Minimal Ideas [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 12], Werner Abraham, David Epstein, Hoskuldur Thrainsson & C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds), 1–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka F.
1994. Specificity and scope. In Langues et grammaires 1, Léa Nash & Georges Tsoulas (eds), 119–137. Paris: Université Paris 8.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry D. & Sag, Ivan A.
1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guillemin, Diana.
2011. The Syntax and Semantics of a Determiner System: A Case Study of Mauritian Creole [Creole Language Library 38]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction . London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene.
1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language , Rainer Bauerle, Christoph, Schwarze & Armin von Stechow (eds), 165–189. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases . New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
2001. Articles. In Language Typology and Language Universals , Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), 831–841. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ionin, Tania.
2003. The interpretation of the: a new look at articles in L2 English. In, Proceedings of the 27th Boston University Conference on Language Development , Barbara Beachley, Amanda Brown & Frances Conlin (eds), 346–357. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
2006. This is definitely specific: Specificity and Definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics 14: 175–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishane, Tabea & Puskás, Genoveva.
2001. Specific is not definite. Generative Grammar in Geneva 2: 39–54.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto.
1933. Essentials of English grammar . London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri J.
1971. Discourse referents . Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sarah A.
1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Subject and Topic , Charles N. Li (ed.), 457–461. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe.
1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form [Fall]. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665.Google Scholar
2001. The structure of DPs. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory , Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds), 562–603. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa & Schaeffer, Jeannette.
2000. Grammar and pragmatics in the acquisition of article systems. In UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Language Development and Breakdown , Jill Gilkerson, Misha Becker & Nina Hyams (eds), 1–39. Los Angeles CA: UCLA.Google Scholar
May, Robert.
1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary L.
1979. Existential Sentences in English . New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Perlman, Abraham.
1969. ‘This’ as a third article in American English. American Speech 44: 76–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David.
1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The Representation of (In)definiteness , Eric J. Reuland & Alice G. B. ter Meulen (eds), 98–129. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves.
1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F.
1981. On the inferencing of indefinite-this NPs. In Elements of Discourse Understanding , Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber & Ivan A. Sag (eds), 231–250. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth.
1988. A head movement approach to construct state noun phrases. Linguistics 26: 909–929. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi.
1990. Relativized Minimality . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax , Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rochecouste, Judith.
1997. A Grammar of Mauricien. PhD dissertation, University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand.
1905. On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Tim.
1989. Subjects, specifiers, and X-Bar theory. In Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure , Mark Baltin & Anthony S. Kroch (eds), 232–262. Chicago Il: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter Frederick.
1950. On referring. Mind 59: 320–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna.
1989. Noun phrases and clauses: Is DP analogous to CP?In The Structure of Noun Phrases , John Payne (ed.), 151–180. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1994. The noun phrase. In The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian , Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin E. Kiss (eds). San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Syea, Anand.
1996. The development of a marker of definiteness in Mauritian Creole. In Changing Meanings, Changing Functions: Papers Relating to Grammaticalization in Contact Languages , Philip Baker & Anand Syea (eds), 171–186. London: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna.
1987. Functional categories in the noun phrase. In Approaches to Hungarian , Istvan Kenesei (ed.), 167–189. Szaged: JATE.Google Scholar
Valois, Daniel.
1991. The Internal Syntax of DP. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Virahsawmy, Dev.
2004. Aprann lir ek ekrir Morisien . <[URL]> (January 2009).
von Heusinger, Klaus.
2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19: 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, R.
2000. Layers in the Determiner System . New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Guillemin, Diana
2015. Of nouns, and kinds, and properties, and why one D is null or not. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 60:3 ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.