1887
Volume 11, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This paper examines the use of definite and indefinite noun phrases in everyday conversations in Finnish and English to establish meaning and to alter and build context in interaction. The paper shows that participants in conversation use the formal contrast between definite and indefinite NPs not only to express identifiability and non-identifiability of the referent to their addressees, but that they also use it dynamically to make claims about socially shared reality, to create referents in discourse and to build a novel identity for existing referents, to actively construct frames and create roles within them, and to reorganize the participant structure of a speech event.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.11.4.03lau
2001-01-01
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Burton-Roberts, Noel
    (1989) The Limits to Debate: A Revised Theory of Semantic Presupposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chafe, Wallace
    (1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25-55.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Christophersen, Paul
    (1939) The Articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, Herbert H
    (1977) Bridging. In P.N. Johnson-Laird and P.C. Wason (eds.), Thinking. Readings in Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 411-420.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, Herbert H. and Susan E. Haviland
    (1977) Comprehension and the Given-New Contract. In Roy O. Freedle (ed.), Discourse Production and Comprehension. Norwood, N.J.: Ablexpp. 1-40.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, Herbert H. and Catherine R. Marshall
    (1981) Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Aravind K. Joshi , Bonnie L. Webber and Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 10-63.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DuBois, John W
    (1980) Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In Wallace Chafe (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cultural, cognitive and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 203-274.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2000) Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English. CD-ROM. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. [www.ldc.upenn.edu/Publications/SBC/]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Du Bois, John W. , Stephan Schuetze-Coburn , Danae Paolino and Susanna Cumming
    (1993) Outline of discourse transcription. In Jane E. Edwards and Martin D. Lambert (eds.), Transcription and Coding Methods for Language Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Donnellan, Keith
    (1971) Reference and definite descriptions. In D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 100-114.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Erkü, Feride and Jeanette K. Gundel
    (1987) The pragmatics of indirect anaphors. In Jef Verschueren and Marcella Bertucelli-Papi (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 533-545. doi: 10.1075/pbcs.5.39erk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs.5.39erk [Google Scholar]
  13. Epstein, Richard
    (1999) Roles, Frames and Definiteness. In Karen van Hoek , Andrej A. Kibrik , and Leo Noordman (eds.), Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 53-74. doi: 10.1075/cilt.176.05eps
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.176.05eps [Google Scholar]
  14. Fauconnier, Gilles
    (1985) Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Reprinted 1994, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1997) Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fillmore, Charles J
    (1982) Frame Semantics. InLinguistics in the Morning Calm . Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 111-137.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fox, Barbara
    (1987) Discourse structure and anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511627767
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627767 [Google Scholar]
  18. Frege, Gottlob
    (1892) Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeischrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik. 100: 22-50. Also in P.T. Geach and M. Black. 1952. Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 56-78.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gundel, Jeanette K. , Nancy Hedberg , and Ron Zacharski
    (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69: 274-307. doi: 10.2307/416535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goffman, Erving
    (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hawkins, John A
    (1978) Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Heim, Irene
    (1983) File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness. In Rainer Bäuerle , Christopher Schwartze and Armin von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation in Language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 164-189.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hintikka, Jaakko and Lauri Carlson
    (1977) Pronouns of laziness in game-theoretical linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 4(1/2): 1-29. doi: 10.1515/thli.1977.4.1‑3.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1977.4.1-3.1 [Google Scholar]
  24. Karttunen, Lauri
    (1976) Discourse referents. In James D. McCawley (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground. New York: Academic Press, pp. 363-385.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lambrecht, Knud
    (1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  26. Laury, Ritva
    (1997) Demonstratives in Interaction: The emergence of a definite article in Finnish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.7 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2001) Definiteness. In Jef Verschueren , Jan-Ola sstman , Jan Blommaert and Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, 1999 installment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lyons, Christopher
    (1999) Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  29. Marmaridou, Sophia S.A
    (2000) Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.72
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.72 [Google Scholar]
  30. Okamoto, Shigeko
    (1999) Situated politeness: Competing concerns about the use of honorifics in Japanese conversations. Pragmatics9.1: 51-74.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Partee, Barbara Hall
    (1972) Opacity, coreference and pronouns. In Davidson, D. and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 415-441. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑2557‑7_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_13 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pekarek, Simona
    (1998) Deixis and the interactional construction of context. In: University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 5.1: 127-138.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Prince, Ellen
    (1981) Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223-255.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Russell, Bertrand
    (1905) On denoting. Mind14: 479-493. doi: 10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sakahara, Shigeru
    (1996) Roles and identificational copular sentences. In Gilles Fauconnier and Eve Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, Worlds and Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 262-289.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Sbis B, Marina
    (1999) Ideology and the persuasive use of presupposition. In Jef Verschueren (ed.), Language and Ideology: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference. Vol. I. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, pp. 495-509.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Seppänen, Eeva-Leena
    (1998) Läsnäolon pronominit. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Silverstein, Michael
    (1981) The Limits of Awareness. Sociolinguistic Working Papers84. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Lab.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Strawson, Peter F
    (1950) On referring. Mind59: 320-344. doi: 10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320 [Google Scholar]
  40. Vilkuna, Maria
    (1992) Referenssi ja määräisyys suomenkielisten tekstien tulkinnassa. [Reference and definiteness in the interpretation of Finnish-language texts]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.11.4.03lau
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Definiteness , Frames , Interaction , Participant structure , Presupposition , Reference and Roles
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