Two notes on the theory of definiteness
- 1 March 1986
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Journal of Linguistics
- Vol. 22 (1) , 25-39
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700010549
Abstract
The terms definite and indefinite, when used in relation to NPs, can be handled in two different ways. One can treat definiteness as a formal (syntactico-morphological) category and make use of the syntactic features [±definite], as in Chomsky (1965). One can also go into the question of how definite and indefinite NPs are used, i.e. the question of when and why a (formally) definite NP is preferred to an indefinite one, or vice versa. If we take the latter approach, we are investigating definiteness as a semantico-pragmatic category.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- The pragmatics of it-clefts and WH-cleftsLingua, 1984
- Some restrictions on clefts that highlight predicate nominalsJournal of Linguistics, 1984
- Predicational cleftsLingua, 1983
- ‘It is Mr. Y’ or ‘he is Mr. Y’?Lingua, 1983
- John A. Hawkins, Definiteness and indefiniteness: a study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm, 1978. Pp. 316.Journal of Linguistics, 1980
- Speech ActsPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,1969
- Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2Journal of Linguistics, 1967
- Reference and Definite DescriptionsThe Philosophical Review, 1966
- III.—ON REFERRINGMind, 1950
- II.—ON DENOTINGMind, 1905