Cover not available
Part of
English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective: Current issues
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Evelien Keizer
[Studies in Language Companion Series 221] 2022
► pp. 27–78

Refining and re-defining secondary determiners in relation to primary determiners

 | University of Leuven
The aim of this study is to delineate the functional category of English secondary determiners more precisely than in current reference grammars and in my own previous work. To provide a principled basis for a functional typology of secondary determiners, I firstly develop a typology of primary determiner (or ‘grounding’) types within the framework of Cognitive Grammar. Following Langacker, four main types are distinguished, and their referential and discursive properties are characterized: indefinite grounding, relative quantification, possessive grounding, and definite grounding. This typology then forms the starting point for drawing up a typology of the main types of instructions given by secondary determiners, i.e. to retrieve the type specifications of an instance newly introduced by an indefinite NP, to identify the correct antecedent of a definite NP, to relate a referent to another instance of the same type, or to refer to a generalized referent. Thirdly, modifier types that had been confused with secondary determiners in earlier work are distinguished from them on the basis of their semantics and formal behaviour, viz. focus markers, nominal aspectual modifiers, modal and temporal modifiers, and metadesignatives.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Functions fulfilled by elements in the English NP
  • 3.Primary grounding types
    • 3.1Indefinite grounding
      • 3.1.1Indefinite NPs with specific reference
      • 3.1.2Indefinite NPs with non-specific and generalized reference
    • 3.2Relative quantification
    • 3.3Possessive grounding
    • 3.4Definite grounding
    • 3.5Summary
  • 4.A typology of the meanings expressed by secondary determiners
    • 4.1Secondary determiners used in NPs designating non-retrievable and first mention referents
      • 4.1.1Secondary determiners expressing specificity
      • 4.1.2Secondary determiners indicating discursively retrievable type specifications
    • 4.2Secondary determiners used in NPs designating retrievable referents
      • 4.2.1Secondary determiners used with definite first mentions
      • 4.2.2Secondary determiners used in co-referential definite NPs
      • 4.2.3Secondary determiners used in definite NPs with associative anaphora
    • 4.3Generalized reference
      • 4.3.1Secondary determiners in NPs conveying reference to a generalization
      • 4.3.2Secondary determiners aiding implied reference to discourse-new instances of a generalization
    • 4.4Secondary determiners used in NPs designating instances of a reference mass
      • 4.4.1Secondary determiners used in NPs designating parts of a given reference mass
        • 4.4.1.1Secondary determiners used in NPs designating non-identifiable parts of a given reference mass
        • 4.4.1.2Secondary determiners used in NPs designating identifiable parts of a given reference mass
      • 4.4.2Secondary determiners relating instances to other instances of an inductively inferable reference mass
        • 4.4.2.1Secondary determiners relating non-identifiable instances to other instances of an inductively inferable reference mass
        • 4.4.2.2Secondary determiners coding instances as retrievable via other instances of an inductively inferable reference mass
    • 4.5Conclusion
  • 5.Modifier types confused with secondary determiners
    • 5.1Focus marker
      • 5.1.1Semantics
      • 5.1.2Grammatical behaviour
    • 5.2Nominal aspectual modifiers
      • 5.2.1Semantics
      • 5.2.2Grammatical behaviour
    • 5.3Modal and temporal modifiers
      • 5.3.1Semantics
      • 5.3.2Formal behaviour
    • 5.4Metadesignative
      • 5.4.1Semantics
      • 5.4.2Formal behaviour
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Datebases cited
Published online: 21 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.221.01dav
References (73)
References
Adamson, Sylvia. 2000. A lovely little example. Word order options and category shift in the premodifying string. In Pathways of Change. Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 53], Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds), 39–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bache, Carl. 2000. Essentials of Mastering English: A Concise Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bache, Carl & Davidsen-Nielsen, Niels. 1997. Mastering English: An Advanced Grammar for Non-native and Native Speakers. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardenstein, Ruti & Ariel, Mira. Forthcoming. The missing link between truth and intensification. Studies in Language. DOI logo
Breban, Tine. 2008. The grammaticalization and subjectification of English adjectives expressing difference into plurality/distributivity markers and quantifiers. Folia Linguistica 42(2): 259–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. Reconstructing paths of secondary grammaticalization of same from emphasizing to phoric and nominal-aspectual postdeterminer uses. Transactions of the Philological Society 108(1): 68–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Secondary determiners as markers of generalized instantiation in English noun phrases. Cognitive Linguistics 22(3): 511–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Beyond mere syntactic change: A micro-analytical study of various and numerous. In Late Modern English Syntax, Marianne Hundt (ed.), 113–132. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine, Davidse, Kristin & Ghesquière, Lobke. 2011. A typology of anaphoric and cataphoric relations expressed by English complex determiners. Journal of Pragmatics 43(11): 2689–2703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine & Davidse, Kristin. 2016. The history of very: The directionality of functional shift and (inter)subjectification. English Language and Linguistics 20(2): 221–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 2002. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization reconsidered: On the ’late’ use of temporal adverbs. In English Historical Syntax and Morphology: Selected papers from 11 ICEHL [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 223], Teresa Fanego, Javier Pérez-Guerra & María José López-Couso (eds), 67–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Greg. 1978. Reference to Kinds in English. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints and information flow. In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 11], Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Close, Reginald A. 1975. A Reference Grammar for Students of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 1999. The semantics of cardinal versus enumerative existential constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 10(3): 203–250.Google Scholar
. 2001. Postdeterminers: Their secondary identifying and quantifying functions. Leuven: KUL, Dept. of Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2004. The interaction of quantification and identification in English determiners. In Language, Culture and Mind, Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 507–533. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, Breban, Tine & Van linden, An. 2008. Deictification: The development of secondary deictic meanings by adjectives in the English NP. English Language and Linguistics 12(3): 475–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin & Breban, Tine. 2019. A cognitive-functional approach to the order of adjectives in the English noun phrase. Linguistics 57(2): 327–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin & Ghesquière, Lobke. 2016. Content-purport, content-substance and structure: Focusing mere and merely. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 48(1): 85–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smedt, Liesbeth, Brems, Lieselotte & Davidse, Kristin. 2007. NP-internal functions and extended uses of the ‘type’ nouns kind, sort, and type: towards a comprehensive, corpus-based description. In Corpus Linguistics 25 Years On, Roberta Fachinetti (ed.), 225–255. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2002. History of the sort of construction family. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Construction Grammar, Helsinki, 6–8 September.
Du Bois, John. 1980. Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, Wallace L. Chafe (ed.), 203–274. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Gentens, Caroline & Breban, Tine. 2016. Multiple shifts: New views on pathways and mechanisms of grammaticalization in the English noun phrase. Functions of Language 23(1): 40–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke. 2014. The Directionality of (Inter)subjectification in the English Noun Phrase. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3(2): 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1970. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6(3): 322–361.Google Scholar
1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 1st edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19(3): 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Clair. 2018. Person Reference and Interaction in Umpila/Kuuky Ya’u Narrative. PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.
Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2005. It-extraposition in English: A functional view. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10(2): 119–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2007. The English Noun Phrase. The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. English partitives in Functional Discourse Grammar: types and constraints. Glossa 2(1): 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language 11(1): 77–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Dynamicity, factivity and scanning. The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. In Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language and Thinking, Diane Pecher & Rolf Zwaan (eds), 164–197. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2016. Nominal grounding and English quantifiers. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 3(1): 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Grounding, semantic functions, and absolute quantifiers. English Text Construction 10(2): 233–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Forthcoming. Functions and assemblies.
Lyons, John. 1975. Deixis as the source of reference. In Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Edward Keenan (ed.) 61–83. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Text Analysis, Wang Zhenhua (ed.). Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Lachlan. 1997. Grammar, discourse and knowledge: The use of such. In Studies in English Language and Teaching. In Honour of Flor Aarts, Jan Aarts, Inge de Mönnink & Herman Wekker (eds), 85–105. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 1997. Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
. 2003. The nothing that is, the zero that isn’t. Studia Linguistica 57: 75–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1976. Existential Sentences in English. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 223–255. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Geoffrey Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1990. The Collins COBUILD English Grammar. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Van Praet, Wout & Davidse, Kristin. 2019. Rethinking predicative clauses with indefinite predicate and specificational clauses with indefinite variable: A cognitive-functional account. Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics 38: 1–36.Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2002. Prenominal adjectives in English: Structures and ordering. Folia Linguistica 36(3–4): 219–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2007. Interpersonal modification in the English noun phrase. Functions of Language 14(2): 203–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ward, Gregory & Birner, Betty. 1995. Definiteness and the English existential. Language 71(4): 722–742. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1997. Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willemse, Peter. 2005. Nominal Reference-point Constructions: Possessive and Esphoric NPs in English. PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.
. 2007. Indefinite possessive NPs and the distinction between determining and nondetermining genitives in English. English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 537–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willemse, Peter, Davidse, Kristin & Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2009. English possessives as reference-point constructions and their function in the discourse. In The Expression of Possession, William McGregor (ed.), 13–50. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Datebases cited
BNC: British National Corpus: Brigham Young University
LLC: London Lund Corpus of Spoken English: ICAME CD-ROM
WB: WordbanksOnline: HarperCollins
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Davidse, Kristin, Ngum Meyuhnsi Njende & Gerard O’Grady
2023. Structural Assemblies and Semantics of the Four Existential Constructions with Relative Clause. In Specificational and Presentational There-Clefts, ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Davidse, Kristin, Ngum Meyuhnsi Njende & Gerard O’Grady
2023. Determiners of Existent NPs in the Four Existential Constructions with Relative Clause. In Specificational and Presentational There-Clefts, ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Davidse, Kristin, Ngum Meyuhnsi Njende & Gerard O’Grady
2023. Different Antecedent–Relative Clause Relations. In Specificational and Presentational There-Clefts, ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Keizer, Evelien
2022. Modifier-numeral word order in the English NP: An FDG analysis. Open Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 545 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.