Definiteness is a grammatical category, often marking the pragmatic category of identifiability, which is important in all languages; however, it is not grammaticalized as a definite marker in all languages. Many linguists have investigated the semantic categories of definiteness in order to account for the uses of definite articles, especially the referential function of the definite article the in English. Uses of definite articles with referents are due to their ‘familiarity’ (Christophersen 1939; Heim 1982), ‘identifiability’ (Chafe 1976; DuBois 1980; Lambrecht 1994), ‘unique identifiability’ (Gundel et al. 1993), ‘uniqueness’ (Kadmon 1990; Roberts 2003; Ortmann 2014) and ‘inclusiveness’ (Hawkins 1978). The form of the referring expression depends on the cognitive status of the referent. Identifiability involves a representation that is shared in the hearer’s and speaker’s mind, whereas specificity of an indefinite noun phrase involves a representation that exists only in the speaker’s mind (Lambrecht 1994, 77–80). The cognitive category of identifiability does not always correspond to the grammatical category of definiteness. The correlation between the (un)identifiability of a referent and the (in)definiteness of the noun phrase is different in different languages. Chafe (1974, 1976) attempts to connect ‘givenness’ and ‘consciousness’. Givenness is defined as the knowledge that the speaker assumes to be in the consciousness of the addressee. So-called new information is what the speaker assumes they are introducing into the addressee’s consciousness by what they say (Chafe 1976, 30). Chafe discusses how long givenness lasts and considers that givenness is fundamentally a matter of the speaker’s belief that the item exists in the hearer’s consciousness. Something previously treated as new may be later treated as old. Nominal referring expressions are ranked on a continuum from highest accessibility to relatively lower accessibility. Definite descriptions involve low accessibility because definite referents are not highly active in one’s consciousness and usually refer back to relatively distant antecedents. Although previous studies on referential forms have not been challenged, they do not explain all uses of definite articles.

References

Apothéloz, Denis, and Marje-José Reichler-Béguelin

1999 “Interpretations and Functions of Demonstrative NPs in Indirect Anaphora.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 363–397.

Ariel, Mira

1988 “Referring and Accessibility.” Journal of Pragmatics 24: 65–87.

Ariel, Mira

1990 Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London/New York: Routledge.

Arnold, Jennifer E.

1998 “Reference Form and Discourse Patterns.” Ph.D. diss. Stanford University.

Chafe, Wallace L.

1974 “Language and Consciousness.” Language 50: 111–133.

Chafe, Wallace L.

1976 “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View.” In Subject and Topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 25–55. New York: Academic Press

Chafe, Wallace L.

1987 “Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow.” In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, ed. by Russell S. Tomlin, 21–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chafe, Wallace L.

1994 Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chafe, Wallace L.

1996 “Inferring Identifiability and Accessibility.” In Reference and Referent Accessibility, ed. by Thorstein Fretheim, and Jeanette K. Gundel, 37–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chiarcos, Christian

2011 “Evaluating Salience Metrics for the Context-Adequate Realization of Discourse Referents.” In Proceedings of the 13th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG), 32–43. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Christophersen, Paul

1939 The Articles: A Study of Their Theory and Use in English. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.

Comrie, Bernard, Martin Haspelmath, and Balthasar Bickel

2008 Leipzig Glossing Rules. Retrieved from: http://​www​.eva​.mpg​.de​/lingua​/resources​/glossing​-rules​.php

DuBois, John W.

1980 “Beyond Definiteness: The Trace of Identity in Discourse.” In The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, ed. by Wallace L. Chafe, 203–274. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Epstein, Richard

2002 “The Definite Article, Accessibility, and the Construction of Discourse Referents.” Cognitive Linguistics 12: 333–378.

Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski

1993 “Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse.” Language 69: 274–307.

Haude, Katharina

2019 “On Discourse-Semantic Prominence, Syntactic Prominence, and Prominence of Expression: The Case of Movima.” Journal of Pragmatics 154: 22–38.

Hawkins, John A.

1978 Definiteness and Indefiniteness. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.

Heim, Irene R.

1982 “The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases.” Ph.D. diss. University of Massachusetts.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and Beatrice Primus

2015 “Prominence Beyond Prosody: A First Approximation.” In pS-prominenceS: Prominence in Linguistics. Proceedings of the International Conference, ed. by Amedeo De Dominicis, 38–58. Viterbo: Disucom Press.

Huang, Chenglong

2007 Puxi Qiangyu Yanjiu [A Grammar of Puxi Qiang]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.

Hung, Yu-Chen, and Petra B. Schumacher

2012 “Topicality Matters: Position-Specific Demands on Chinese Discourse Processing.” Neurosci. Lett. 511: 59–64.

Hung, Yu-Chen, and Petra B. Schumacher

2014 “Animacy Matters: ERP Evidence for the Multi-Dimensionality of Topic-Worthiness in Chinese.” Brain Research 1555: 36–47.

Kadmon, Nirit

1990 “Uniqueness.” Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 273–324.

Lambrecht, Kund

1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LaPolla, Randy J.

1995 “Pragmatic Relations and Word Order in Chinese.” In Word Order in Discourse, ed. by Pamela A. Downing, and Michael Noonan, 297–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

LaPolla, Randy J., and Chenglong Huang

2003 A Grammar of Qiang: With Annotated Texts and Glossary. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson

1976 “Development of the Causative in Mandarin Chinese: Interaction of Diachronic Processes in Syntax.” In The Grammar of Causative Constructions, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, 477–492. New York: Academic Press.

Liu, Guangkun

1998 Mawo Qiangyu Yanjiu [Studies on the Mawo dialect of the Qiang language]. Chengdu: Sichuan Nationalities Publishing House.

Lyons, Christopher

1999 Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ortmann, Albert

2014 “Definite Article Asymmetries and Concept Types: Semantic and Pragmatic Uniqueness.” In Frames and Concept Types: Applications in Language and Philosophy, ed. by Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Oswald, and Wiebke Petersen, 293–321. New York: Springer.

Roberts, Craige

2003 “Uniqueness in Definite Noun Phrases.” Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 287–350.

Schumacher, Petra B., and Klaus von Heusinger

2019 “Introduction to Prominence in Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 154: 18–21.

Sun, Hongkai

1981 Qiangyu Jianzhi [A Brief Description of the Qiang language]. Beijing: Nationalities Press.

von Heusinger, Klaus, and Petra B. Schumacher

2019 “Discourse Prominence: Definition and Application.” Journal of Pragmatics 154: 117–127.

Zheng, Wuxi

2020 “The First Person Singular Pronoun Topic as Attention-Getter in Interaction: A Study of qámà in Longxi Qiang.” Journal of Pragmatics 156: 1–15.