Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:53:13.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

John A. Hawkins
John A. Hawkins
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-1693, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since Paul Grice published ‘Logic and conversation’ in 1975, there have been a number of attempts to develop his programmatic remarks on conversational and conventional implicatures further (see Gazdar, 1979; Atlas & Levinson, 1981; Horn, 1985; Sperber & Wilson, 1986; and especially Levinson, 1983, and the references cited therein). The result has been a growing understanding of the relationship between semantics and pragmatics, and more generally of human reasoning in everyday language use. Many aspects of natural language understanding that were previously thought to be part of the conventional meaning of a given expression can now be shown to be the result of conversational inference. And with cancellability as the diagnostic test, a number of traditional problems in the study of meaning are yielding to more satisfactory analyses. Even more ambitiously, implicatures are penetrating into core areas of the syntax, as pragmatic theories of increasing subtlety are proposed for ‘grammatical’ phenomena such as Chomsky's (1981, 1982) binding principles (see Reinhart, 1983, and Levinson, 1987a, b, 1991).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , September 1991 , pp. 405 - 442
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. JL 24. 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. & Levinson, S. C. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness and logical form. In Cole, P. (ed.) Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 1–61.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. (1986). Review of Safir (1985). Studies in Language 10. 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (1981). Review of Hawkins (1978). Lg 57. 191–196.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christophersen, P. (1939). The articles: a study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given–new contract. In Freedle, R. (ed.) Discourse production and comprehension. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 1–40.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, A., Webber, B. & Sag, I. (eds) Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10–63.Google Scholar
Corblin, F. (1981). Review of Hawkins (1978). Le Français Moderne 49. 84–88.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1980). Review of Hawkins (1978). JL 16. 308–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R. (1987). Definiteness and inclusive reference. Journal of Literary Semantics 16. 12–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (1980). Beyond definiteness: the trace of identity in discourse. In Chafe, W. (ed.) The pear stories: cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. 203–274.Google Scholar
Ebert, K. H. (1982). The definite articles with inalienables in English and German. In Lohnes, W. F. & Hopkins, A. (eds) The contrastive grammar of English and German. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers. 64–75.Google Scholar
Erkü, F. & Gundel, J. (1987). The pragmatics of indirect anaphors. In Verschueren, J. & Bertuccelli-Papi, M. (eds) The pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 533–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G. (1989). Konkurrenzphänomene in der Syntax: eine nicht-pragmatische Reduktion der Prinzipien B und C der Bindungstheorie. Linguistische Berichte 123. 385–414.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. & Thompson, S. A. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Lg 66. 297–316.Google Scholar
Galmiche, M. (1989). À propos de la définitude. Langages 94. 7–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geis, M. & Zwicky, A. (1971). On invited inferences. LIn 2. 561–566.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds) Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 41–58.Google Scholar
Harris, M. (1980). Review of Hawkins (1978). Linguistics and Philosophy 3. 419–427.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1976). On explaining some ungrammatical sequences of article + modifier in English. Proceedings of the 12th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 287–301.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: a study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm; and Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1984). A note on referent identifiability and co-presence. Journal of Pragmatics 8. 649–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1990). A parsing theory of word order universals. LIn 21. 223–261.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1991). Innateness and function in language universals. In Hawkins, J. A. & GellMann, M. (eds) The evolution of human languages. Redwood City, Calif.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Heim, I. R. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Holmback, H. (1984). An interpretive solution to the definiteness effect problem. Linguistic Analysis 13. 195–215.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Mimeo, Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1985). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, form, and use in context: linguistic applications. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 11–42.Google Scholar
Kadmon, N. (1990). Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 13. 273–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M. & Veltman, F. (eds) Formal methods in the study of language: proceedings of the third Amsterdam Colloquium, Part I, Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam. (Reprinted in Groenendijk, J., Janssen, T. & Stokhof, M. (eds) Truth, Interpretation and Information, 1984. Dordrecht: Foris.)Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1988). Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.) Linguistic theory: extensions and implications (Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, II), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempson, R. M. & Cormack, A. (1981). Ambiguity and quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 259–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klégr, A. (1984). Hawkins' location theory and the use of articles in of-genitive headnouns. Philologica Pragensia A.27. 23–32.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. (1983). Article défini, théorie de la localisation, et présupposition existentielle. Langue Française 57. 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, E. (1980). Locating the articles; review of Hawkins (1978). Linguistics 18. 147–157.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987a). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. JL 23. 379–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987b). Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren, J. & Bertucelli-Papi, M. (eds) The pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 61–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1989). Review article of Sperber and Wilson (1986). JL 25. 455–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. JL 27. 107–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, C. G. (1980). The meaning of the English definite article. In Van der Auwera, J. (ed.) The semantics of determiners. London: Croom Helm; and Baltimore: University Park Press. 81–95.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1979). Presupposition and discourse context. In Oh, C. K. (ed.) Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press. 371–388.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R. & Galanter, E. (eds) Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, P. (ed.) The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill. 211–277.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981a). Review of Hawkins (1978). Kritiken Litterarum 10. 109–10.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981b). Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In Cole, P. (ed.) Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 223–255.Google Scholar
Rando, E. & Napoli, D. J. (1978). Definites in there sentences. Lg 54. 300–313.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind 14. 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safir, K. (1985). Syntactic chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. (1972). Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1969). Determiners and relative clauses in a generative grammar of English. In Reibel, D. A. & Schane, S. A. (eds) Modern studies in English: readings in transformational grammar. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 247–263.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; and Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vater, H. (1982). Review of Hawkins (1978). Studies in Language 6. 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vater, H. (1983). Zur Pragmatik der Determinantien. In Stickel, G. (ed.) Sprache der Gegenwart: Pragmatik in der Grammatik. (Jahrbuch 1983 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache.) Schwann. 206–223.Google Scholar