1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Functions of Language
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Some as an indefinite article in Present Day English
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates the different functions of in Present Day English. It especially focuses on whether and to what extent functions as an indefinite article for non-count and plural nouns and as such competes with the bare marking strategy (). It is shown that next to being a quantifier, has grammaticalized into an article-like element. On the basis of a sample of direct object NPs extracted from the British National Corpus (XML Edition), we analyze singular, plural and non-count NPs functioning as syntactic objects which either occur bare or have as a determiner. One question is how often and in which constructional environments functions as a so-called ‘near-article’ and which other functions it fulfills (e.g. partitive or vagueness marker). The results of a multinomial logistic regression model are used to discuss which grammatical factors are correlated with the use of as an existential marker of indefiniteness. We then investigate the potential factors predicting speakers’ choice between using as an overt near-article or leaving the nominal bare in indefinite NPs (i.e. zero article), by means of binomial logistic regression. Theoretically, this paper contributes to the study of such mechanisms as paradigmatization, analogization and constructional competition within a usage-based, constructional model of language and its change.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23024.som
2025-06-03
2025-06-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/fol.23024.som
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea
    (eds.) 2015 Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bolinger, David
    1977 Meaning and form. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Buyssens, Eric
    1959 Negative contexts. English Studies. –. 10.1080/00138385908597040
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00138385908597040 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bybee, Joan
    1995 Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes(). –. 10.1080/01690969508407111
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407111 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bybee, Joan & Sarah Thompson
    1997 Three frequency effects in syntax. InMatthew L. Juge & Jeri L. Moxley (eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-third annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on pragmatics and grammatical structure, –. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v23i1.1293
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v23i1.1293 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, Danqi & Christopher Manning
    2014 A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks. InAlessandro Moschitti, Bo Pang & Walter Daelemans (eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), –. Doha, Qatar: ACL. 10.3115/v1/D14‑1082
     https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/D14-1082 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chesterman, Andrew
    1991 On definiteness. A study with special reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511519710
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519710 [Google Scholar]
  8. 1993 Articles and no articles. InAndreas Jucker (ed.), The noun phrase in English. Its structure and variability, –. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Christophersen, Paul
    1939 The articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Croissant, Yves
    2020 Estimation of random utility models in R: The mlogit package. Journal of Statistical Software(). –. 10.18637/jss.v095.i11
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v095.i11 [Google Scholar]
  11. De Smet, Hendrik
    2012 The course of actualization. Language. –. 10.1353/lan.2012.0056
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0056 [Google Scholar]
  12. Diessel, Holger
    2019 The grammar network. How linguistic structure is shaped by use. Cambridge. CUP. 10.1017/9781108671040
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  13. Downing, Angela
    2015 English grammar. A university course. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Du Bois, John W.
    1987 The discourse basis of ergativity. Language. –. 10.2307/415719
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  15. Duffley, Patrick & Pierre Larrivee
    2012 Exploring the relation between the qualitative and quantitative uses of the determiner some. English Language and Linguistics(). –. 10.1017/S1360674311000311
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000311 [Google Scholar]
  16. Farkas, Donka
    2002 Varieties of indefinites. InBrendan Jackson (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, –. Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications. 10.3765/salt.v12i0.2873
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v12i0.2873 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fischer, Olga
    2007 Morphosyntactic change. Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2010 An analogical approach to grammaticalization. InKatharina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization. Current views and issues, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.119.11fis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.119.11fis [Google Scholar]
  19. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2014 An introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn., revised byChristian M. I. M. Matthiessen. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hawkins, John A.
    1978 Definiteness and indefiniteness. A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 1991 On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics. –. 10.1017/S0022226700012731
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012731 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2004 Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hilpert, Martin
    2021 Ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004446793
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004446793 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hirtle, W. H.
    1988 Some and any: Exploring the system. Linguistics. –. 10.1515/ling.1988.26.3.443
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1988.26.3.443 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hosmer, David W. & Stanley Lemeshow
    2000 Applied logistic regression. New York: Riley. 10.1002/0471722146
     https://doi.org/10.1002/0471722146 [Google Scholar]
  26. Israel, Michael
    2000 Some and the pragmatics of indefinite construal. InSteve S. Chang, Lily Liaw & Josef Ruppenhofer (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th annual meeting of the Berkley Linguistics Society, –. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Jacobsson, Bengt
    2002 The indefinites some and any in linguistic theory and actual usage. Studia Neophilologica(). –. 10.1080/00393270252956160
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00393270252956160 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ladusaw, William A.
    1980 Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Bloomington, IN: University of Texas at Austin PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2016 Nominal grounding and English quantifiers. Cognitive Linguistic Studies(). –. 10.1075/cogls.3.1.01lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.1.01lan [Google Scholar]
  30. 1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2, Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lehmann, Christian
    1995 [1982] Thoughts on grammaticalization. [LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 1]. Munich: Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Levshina, Natalia
    2015 How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lyons, Christopher
    1999 Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  34. Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine
    2021 Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Ogura, Mieko
    1993 The development of periphrastic do in English: A case of lexical diffusion in syntax. Diachronica(). –. 10.1075/dia.10.1.04ogu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.10.1.04ogu [Google Scholar]
  36. Partee, Barbara, Alice ter Meulen & Robert E. Wall
    1990 Mathematical methods in linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Payne, John & Huddleston, Rodney
    2002 Nouns and noun phrases. InRodney Huddleston & Geoffrey Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781316423530.006
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.006 [Google Scholar]
  38. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Rissanen, Matti
    1967 The uses of one in Old and Early Middle English. Helsinki: Modern Language Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Sahlin, Elisabeth
    1979 Some and any in spoken and written English. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Smirnova, Elena & Lotte Sommerer
    2020 The nature of the node and the network: Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. InLotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova. (eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.int
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.int [Google Scholar]
  42. Sommerer, Lotte
    2018 Article emergence in Old English. A constructionalist perspective. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110541052
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110541052 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sommerer, Lotte & Klaus Hofmann
    2021 Constructional competition and network reconfiguration: investigating sum(e) in Old, Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics(). –. 10.1017/S136067431900039X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067431900039X [Google Scholar]
  44. Train, Kenneth
    2009 Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    1992 Syntax. InRichard M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. 1. Old English. From the beginnings to, –. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.005 [Google Scholar]
  46. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
    2013 Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  47. Zehentner, Eva
    2019 Competition in language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110633856
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110633856 [Google Scholar]
  48. Zwarts, Frans
    1995 Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis. –.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23024.som
Loading
Some as an indefinite article in Present Day English
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.23024.som
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23024.som
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23024.som
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: indefinite article ; paradigmatization ; analogization ; regression modeling ; indefiniteness marking ; constructional competition ; quantifier ; some ; grammaticalization

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