Volume 44, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In many languages, indefinite expressions are known to have restricted access to core argument functions. This article focuses on the accessibility hierarchy of indefinite expressions to subject and object functions in a sample of Austronesian languages. Aiming at some comparative analysis, some cross-linguistic perspectives on the differential encoding of ± definite core arguments and other types of restrictions are discussed. The questions addressed are: (i) What type of indefinite nouns have core argument function? (ii) If barred from core argument function, how are indefinite arguments circumvented? (iii) Does existence or lack of indefinite articles correlate with access to core argument function, and in what way?

In Austronesian languages, one finding is that languages with indefinite articles display fewer restrictions on the access of indefinite NPs to core argument function. Another finding is that differences of definiteness, individuation and specificity of arguments tend to be expressed by distinct domains: the noun phrase in languages with indefinite articles, the verb phrase in languages without indefinite articles (via valency, voice alternations, alignment changes), with an intermediate situation in some Micronesian languages.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abbott, Barbara
    1993 A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences. Journal of Pragmatics19: 39–55. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90069‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90069-2 [Google Scholar]
  2. 1997 Definiteness and existentials. Language73: 103–108. doi:  10.2307/416595 (Last access: 13 February 2020)
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416595 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2004 Definiteness and indefiniteness. InLaurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, 122–149. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2006 Definite and indefinite. InKeith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., vol.3), 392–399. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/01089‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01089-0 [Google Scholar]
  5. Aldridge, Edith
    2004 Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Cornell University Ph.D Dissertation.
  6. Bauer, Winifred
    1983, 1997 (2nd edition). Reference grammar of Maori. Auckland: Reed Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Beaver, David, Itamar Francez & Dmitry Levinson
    2005 Bad subject: (Non)canonicality and NP distribution in existentials. InEfthymia Georgala & Jonathan Howell (eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT)XV, 19–43. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bender, Byron W.
    1969Spoken Marshallese. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Benton, Richard A.
    1968 Numeral and attributive classifiers in Trukese. Oceanic Linguistics7(2), 104–146. 10.2307/3622896
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3622896 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bril, Isabelle
    2000Dictionnaire nêlêmwa-nixumwak-français-anglais. Collection Langues et Cultures du Pacifique, n° 14, Paris: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2002Le nêlêmwa (Nouvelle-Calédonie): Analyse syntaxique et sémantique. Collection Langues et Cultures du Pacifique, n° 16, Paris: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2017 Roots and stems: lexical and functional flexibility in Amis and Nêlêmwa. InEva van Lier (ed.), Studies in Language. Special issue on lexical flexibility in Oceanic languages41(2), 358–407. 10.1075/sl.41.2.04bri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.2.04bri [Google Scholar]
  13. Carlson, Gregory
    1977 A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy1, 413–457. 10.1007/BF00353456
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00353456 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chung, Sandra
    2008 Possessors and definiteness effects. Two Austronesian languages. In: Lisa Matthewson (ed.), Quantification: A cross-linguistic perspective. North-Holland Linguistic Series: Linguistic variation, vol.64, 179–224. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chung, Sandra & William L. Ladusaw
    2004 [2001]Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Creissels, Denis
    2014 Existential predication in typological perspective. Unpublished manuscript. Available at: www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-Exist.Pred.pdf (Last access: 13 February 2020)
  17. De Hoop, Helen
    2012 Type-shifting. InClaudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics, Vol.3, 2259–2271. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Claire Beyssade
    2012Redefining indefinites. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 85. New York, London: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑3002‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3002-1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dryer, Matthew S.
    2013 Indefinite articles. In: Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: wals.info/chapter/38 (Last access: 13 February 2020)
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2014 Competing methods for uncovering linguistic diversity: The case of definite and indefinite articles (Commentary on Davis, Gillon, and Matthewson). Language90(4), 232–249. 10.1353/lan.2014.0070
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0070 [Google Scholar]
  21. Du Bois, John W.
    1987 The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language63, 805–855. 10.2307/415719
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  22. Enç, Mürvet
    1991 The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry22(1), 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Frege, Gottlob
    1892 Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, Neue Folge, Band 100/1, Jg. 1892, S. 25–50. Leipzig.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Givón, Talmy
    1978 Definiteness and referentiality. InJoseph Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, vol.4, 291–330. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2001Syntax. (2volumes). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Guérin, Valérie
    2007 Definiteness and specificity in Mavea. Oceanic Linguistics46(20), 538–553. 10.1353/ol.2008.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2008.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2011A grammar of Mavea. An Oceanic language of Vanuatu. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski
    1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69(2), 274–307. 10.2307/416535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  29. Haspelmath, Martin
    1997Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hawkins, John A.
    1978Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer
    1998Semantics in Generative Grammar. London: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Heusinger, Klaus von
    2002 Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics19(3), 245–274. 10.1093/jos/19.3.245
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.245 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2003 Cross-linguistic implementations of specificity. In: Katarzyna M. Jaszczolt & Ken Turner (eds.). Meaning through language contrast. vol2, 405–421. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.100.24heu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.100.24heu [Google Scholar]
  34. Heuvel, Wilco van den
    2006Biak: Description of an Austronesian language of Papua. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Huumo, Tuomas
    2017 The partitive A: On uses of the Finnish partitive subject in transitive clauses. InIlja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 423–453. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Jones, Pei Te Hurinui and Bruce Biggs
    1995Nga iwi o Tainui: The traditional history of the Tainui people. Auckland University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kamali, Beste
    2015 Caseless direct objects in Turkish revisited. ZAS Papers in Linguistics58, 107–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Karlsson, Fred
    1999Finnish: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kaufman, Daniel
    2009 Austronesian Nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics35 (1), 1–49. Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Keenan, Edward & Comrie, Bernard
    1977 Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry8(1), 63–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Keenan, Edward
    1976 Towards a universal definition of subject. InCharles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 1987 A semantic definition of indefinite NP. InEric J. Reuland, Alice Ter Meulen (eds.). The representation of (in)definiteness, 286–317. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2003 The definiteness effect: Semantics or pragmatics ?Natural Language Semantics11(2), 187–216. 10.1023/A:1024400425028
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024400425028 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kiparsky, Paul
    2001 Structural case in Finnish. Lingua111, 315–376. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(00)00035‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00035-8 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2005 Absolutely a matter of degree: The semantics of structural case in Finnish. Paper presented atChicago Linguistic Society, April 2005. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Krifka, Manfred
    2004 Bare NPs: Kind-referring, indefinites, both, or neither?InRobert B. Young & Yuping Zhou (eds.) Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) XIII, 180–203. Cornell: CLC Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
    1972 Categorical and thetic judgments: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language9, 153–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lambrecht, Knud
    1987 On the status of canonical SVO sentences in French discourse. InRussell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse: Outcome of a symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, 217–261. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.11.12lam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.12lam [Google Scholar]
  49. 1994 Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
  50. Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.
    1976 Subject and topic: a new typology of language. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 457–489. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Latrouite, Anja & Robert D. van Valin
    2014 Event existential in Tagalog; A role and reference grammar account. InI Wayan Arka & Lina Indrawati (eds.), Argument realisations and related constructions in Austronesian languages, 161–174. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Lichtenberk, Frantisek
    1983A Grammar of Manam. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 18. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lyons, Christopher
    1999Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  54. Margetts, Anna
    1999 Valence and transitivity in Saliba, an Oceanic language of Papua New Guinea. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen PhD dissertation.
  55. 2008 Transitivity discord in some Oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics47(1), 30–44. 10.1353/ol.0.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.0.0004 [Google Scholar]
  56. McNally, Louise
    2011 Existential sentences. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol.2, 1829–1848. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Milsark, Gary
    1974 Existential sentences in English, Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
  58. 1977 Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis3, 1–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Mithun, Marianne
    1984 The evolution of noun incorporation. Language60, 847–894. 10.1353/lan.1984.0038
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1984.0038 [Google Scholar]
  60. 1994 The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. In: Barbara Fox & Paul Hopper (eds.), Voice: Its form and function (Typological Studies in language 27), 247–277. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.27.11mit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.27.11mit [Google Scholar]
  61. Ngata, A. T.
    1926Complete manual of Maori grammar and conversation with vocabulary, 2d ed. Auckland: Whitcombe and Tombs.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Ngata, H. M.
    1994English-Maori dictionary. Wellington: Learning Media.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Orbell, Margaret
    transl. 1992Traditional Māori stories. Auckland: Reed.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Pawley, Andrew & Lawrence Reid
    1980 The evolution of transitive constructions in Austronesian. InPaz B. Naylor (ed.), Austronesian studies: Papers from the Second Eastern Conference on Austronesian Languages, 103–30. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Center for South and Southeastern Asian Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Polinsky, Masha
    1991 Maori ‘he’. Paper presented atthe 6th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Hawaii, Honolulu.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Polinsky, Maria
    1992 Maori ‘he’ revisited. Oceanic Linguistics, 31(2), 229–250. 10.2307/3623016
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3623016 [Google Scholar]
  67. Prince, Ellen
    1981 Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. InPeter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–254. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Rehg, Kenneth L.
    1981Ponapean reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Russell, Bertrand A.
    1905 On Denoting. Mind. New Series, Vol.14, No.56, 479–493. Oxford: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Sabbagh, Joseph
    2009 Existential sentences in Tagalog. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory27(4), 675–719. 10.1007/s11049‑009‑9083‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9083-3 [Google Scholar]
  71. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
    1987 The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics25, 511–580. 10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511 [Google Scholar]
  72. Schachter, Paul & Fé T. Otanes
    1972Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Strawson, Peter F.
    1950 On Referring. Mind, New Series, Vol.59, No.235, 320–344. 10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320 [Google Scholar]
  74. Sugita, Hiroshi
    1973 Semitransitive verbs and object incorporation in Micronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics12(1/2), 393–407. 10.2307/3622861
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3622861 [Google Scholar]
  75. Waititi, Hoani R.
    1974Te rangatahi, advanced 2: A Māori language course. Wellington: GP Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Willson, Heather
    2008 Subject positions in Marshallese. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles PhD dissertation.
  77. Woodbury, Hanni
    1977 Onondaga noun incorporation: Some notes on the interdependence of syntax and semantics. International Journal of American Linguistics41(1), 10–20. 10.1086/465334
    https://doi.org/10.1086/465334 [Google Scholar]
  78. Wouk, Fay
    1986 Transitivity in Proto–Malayo-Polynesian and Proto-Austronesian. InPaul Geraghty, Lois Carrington & Stephen A. Wurm (eds.), FOCAL I: Papers form the Fourth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 133–58. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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