1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 16, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

In cognitive linguistics, grammatical structure is known to be representative of meaning. This is also true of English articles. In this paper, we argue that the choice of article, when the grammar allows it, is dependent on the wider discourse context and most importantly on how the speaker construes this context. Using survey data from 181 native speakers of English, we show that the choice of article depends on the activation of semantic frames and how speakers may choose to highlight different elements of a frame to construe the situation differently. We rely on Entropy to measure the restrictiveness of a context and to identify particular contexts in which choice is allowed or inhibited. We find that some contextual features such as the specificity of the referent are more restrictive while Hearer Knowledge is more open to construal.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22005.rom
2024-04-04
2024-12-02

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.22005.rom
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/cf.22005.rom.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22005.rom&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ariel, M.
    (1988) Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24(1), 65–87. 10.1017/S0022226700011567
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011567 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2001) Accessibility theory: An overview. InT. Sanders T., J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp.29–88). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.8.04ari
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.04ari [Google Scholar]
  3. Bickerton, D.
    (1981) Roots of language. Language Science Press. 10.17169/langsci.b91.109
     https://doi.org/10.17169/langsci.b91.109 [Google Scholar]
  4. (1984) The Language Bioprogram Hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(2), 173–188. 10.1017/S0140525X00044149
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00044149 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chafe, W. L.
    (1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. InC. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp.25–55). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, H. H.
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  7. (1997) Communal lexicons. InK. Malmkjaer & J. Williams (Eds.), Language learning and language understanding (pp.63–87). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2015) Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. InE. Dąbrowska & D. Dagmar (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.650–668). Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑033
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-033 [Google Scholar]
  10. Davies, M.
    (2016) Corpus of News on the Web (NOW).
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Divjak, D.
    (2019) Frequency in language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316084410
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316084410 [Google Scholar]
  12. Divjak, D., Romain, L., & Milin, P.
    ( 2023) From their point of view: The article category as a hierarchically structured referent tracking system. Linguistics, 61(4), 1027-1068. 10.1515/ling‑2022‑0186
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2022-0186 [Google Scholar]
  13. Epstein, R.
    (2002) The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(4), 333–378. 10.1515/cogl.2002.007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.007 [Google Scholar]
  14. Farmer, T., Misyak, J. B., & Morten, H. C.
    (2012) Individual differences in sentence processing. InM. Spivey, K. McRae & M. Joannisse (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp.353–364). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139029377.018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139029377.018 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fauconnier, G.
    (2007) Mental spaces. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.351–376). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame Semantics. InKorea, The Linguistic Society of (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137). Hanshin.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Givón, T.
    (1992) The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 301, 5–55. 10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  18. Horton, W. S., & Boaz, K.
    (1996) When do speakers take into account common ground?Cognition, 59(1), 91–117. 10.1016/0010‑0277(96)81418‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Huebner, T.
    (1983) A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Karoma.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (1985) System and variability in interlanguage syntax. Language Learning, 35(2), 141–163. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1985.tb01022.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01022.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Lambrecht, K.
    (1994) Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  22. Langacker, R. W.
    (2004) Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language, 11(1), 77–113. 10.1075/fol.11.1.05lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.11.1.05lan [Google Scholar]
  23. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2016) Nominal structure in Cognitive Grammar. The Lublin lectures. Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lewis, D. K.
    (1969) Convention: A philosophical study. Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. McCarthy, J.
    (1990) Formalization of two puzzles involving knowledge. InV. Lifschitz (Ed.), Formalizing common sense: Papers by John McCarthy (pp.158–166). Ablex Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Milin, P., Đurđević, D., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F.
    (2009a) The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Language and Memory, 60(1), 50–64. 10.1016/j.jml.2008.08.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.08.007 [Google Scholar]
  28. Milin, P., Kuperman, V., Kostic, A., & Baayen, H.
    (2009b) Paradigms bit by bit: An information theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation. InJ. P. Blevins & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition (pp.214–252). Cambridge University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mulder, K., & Hulstijn, J. H.
    (2011) Linguistic skills of adult native speakers, as a function of age and level of education. Applied Linguistics, 321, 475–494. 10.1093/applin/amr016
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr016 [Google Scholar]
  30. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 4.1.1 edn. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  33. Rudas, T.
    (2018) Lectures on categorical data analysis. Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4939‑7693‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7693-5 [Google Scholar]
  34. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P.
    (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Schiffer, S. R.
    (1972) Meaning. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Shannon, C. E.
    (1948) The processing of lexical sequences. University of Alberta PhD Dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Stalnaker, R. C.
    (1978) Assertion. InP. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp.315–332). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Sommerer, L.
    (2018) Article emergence in Old English: A constructionalist perspective. Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110541052
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110541052 [Google Scholar]
  39. Thomas, M.
    (1989) The acquisition of English articles by first-and second-language learners. Applied psycholinguistics, 10(3), 335–355. 10.1017/S0142716400008663
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400008663 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22005.rom
Loading
Ruled by construal?
Constructions and Frames 16, 1 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22005.rom
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22005.rom
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22005.rom
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): articles; construal; reference; survey data

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error