Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:13:47.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - The Referring Systems and the Determinative Elements of Noun Phrases in Assamese

from Eastern Indo-Aryan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2011

Jagat Chandra Kalita
Affiliation:
Abhayapuri College
Gwendolyn Hyslop
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University
Stephen Morey
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University
Mark W. Post
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Along with number, gender and case, nouns in Assamese and all other Indo-European languages have another important grammatical category, the discussion of which was not found in traditional grammars of olden days of east or west. Nouns, especially class nouns, need to be determined by some devices when they are used in sentences to realize any argument – subject, object or complement. The noun man in English or manuh in Assamese, for example, can refer to all the human beings in one use and in another use the reference of the same noun can be restricted to only one person. The reference of the noun man in former use is called generic and in later the reference is said to be of specific. The specific reference of a class noun can be again definite or indefinite.

One of the reasons behind the absence of discussion on the determinative elements of nouns in traditional grammar may be the absence of a definite article in the older Germanic languages in the west (Hawkins 1978: 13) and any such element in Old and Middle Indo-Aryan Languages in the east (Kakati 1972: 278) to show contrast between definiteness and indefiniteness of NPs. In modern linguistics, however, this feature has been studied by scholars from many different backgrounds and perspectives. Traditional grammarians (Christopherson 1939; Jespersen 1949), philologists (Heinrichs 1954; Hodler 1954), structuralists (Yotsukura 1970), transformational syntacticians (Smith 1964; Higham 1972), and philosophers and logicians (Russell 1905; Strawson 1950) have all contributed to the currently available data and descriptive insights.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Foundation Books
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×