Endophoric definiteness: An analysis based on Romanian data

Antanas Keturakis
{"title":"Endophoric definiteness: An analysis based on Romanian data","authors":"Antanas Keturakis","doi":"10.15388/KALBOTYRA.2018.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"[full article and abstract in English] \nDefiniteness as a grammatical or pragmatic category is usually explained via the act of reference. In this spirit, a definite noun phrase is said to ensure that the hearer can identify the entity to which the NP refers, thus establishing a successful act of communication. The well-known typology of definiteness types developed by Hawkins (1978) relies on this assumption. However, such an explanation fails to clarify all the definite noun phrases in discourse.This paper argues that the information provided in the complex nominal constituent can yield a definite interpretation of the nominal regardless of the hearer’s ability to identify the real-life referent to which the noun refers. Such types of definite noun phrases are subsumed in this article under the term “endophoric definiteness”. I will discuss two subtypes of endophoric definiteness. First, the relational definiteness, based on the notion of reference-point constructions will be discussed. Then I will turn to modificational definiteness where the use of modifiers contribute to the definite interpretation of the nominal. The article focuses on how the endophoric definiteness types function and what strategies can be used to mark them formally. To illustrate this point, I use the qualitative analysis of Romanian data. It shows that a language may have different grammatical patterns for the two subtypes of endophoric definiteness. This formal distinction in linguistic expression shows that relational and modificational definiteness types must be taken into account as contributing, in distinct ways, to the category of definiteness.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kalbotyra","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KALBOTYRA.2018.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

[full article and abstract in English] Definiteness as a grammatical or pragmatic category is usually explained via the act of reference. In this spirit, a definite noun phrase is said to ensure that the hearer can identify the entity to which the NP refers, thus establishing a successful act of communication. The well-known typology of definiteness types developed by Hawkins (1978) relies on this assumption. However, such an explanation fails to clarify all the definite noun phrases in discourse.This paper argues that the information provided in the complex nominal constituent can yield a definite interpretation of the nominal regardless of the hearer’s ability to identify the real-life referent to which the noun refers. Such types of definite noun phrases are subsumed in this article under the term “endophoric definiteness”. I will discuss two subtypes of endophoric definiteness. First, the relational definiteness, based on the notion of reference-point constructions will be discussed. Then I will turn to modificational definiteness where the use of modifiers contribute to the definite interpretation of the nominal. The article focuses on how the endophoric definiteness types function and what strategies can be used to mark them formally. To illustrate this point, I use the qualitative analysis of Romanian data. It shows that a language may have different grammatical patterns for the two subtypes of endophoric definiteness. This formal distinction in linguistic expression shows that relational and modificational definiteness types must be taken into account as contributing, in distinct ways, to the category of definiteness.
内生确定性:基于罗马尼亚数据的分析
确定性作为一种语法或语用范畴,通常通过指称行为来解释。在这种精神下,一个定名词短语被认为是为了确保听话人能够识别NP所指的实体,从而建立成功的交际行为。霍金斯(1978)提出的定义类型学就是基于这一假设。然而,这样的解释并不能澄清话语中所有的定名词短语。本文认为,无论听话人是否有能力识别名词所指的真实指称对象,复杂名词成分中提供的信息都可以对名词产生明确的解释。这些类型的定名词短语在本文中被归入术语“内水平确定性”。我将讨论内水平确定性的两种亚型。首先,将讨论基于参考点构造概念的关系确定性。然后我将转向修饰定义,修饰语的使用有助于名词的明确解释。本文重点讨论了内水平确定性类型是如何发挥作用的,以及可以使用什么策略来正式标记它们。为了说明这一点,我使用了罗马尼亚数据的定性分析。这表明,一种语言可能具有不同的内水平确定性的两种亚型的语法模式。语言表达中的这种形式上的区别表明,关系定义类型和修饰定义类型必须以不同的方式被视为对定义类别的贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
19 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信