Crosslinguistic Notions of (In)definiteness

Crosslinguistic Notions of (In)definiteness * ISHIKAWA, Kiyoshi Hosei University kiyoshi@fujimi.hosei.ac.jp Abstract We argue that both Russellian and Heimian definites exist in nat- ural languages. Our account captures both the commonality and difference between the two. Further, we suggest that the Russel- lian/Heimian distinction extends to indefinites too. 1 Introduction One morning, Alice tells (1) to her husband, John, who doesn't read newspa- pers. Her use of the president is dependent on the uniqueness of president in the fixed domain she is talking about (i.e. the U.S. politics situation). Let's call it a Russellian domain (R-domain) and such a use of definite description Russellian definiteness (R-definiteness). (1) Hey John, the president resigned!! In the evening John describes a scene he saw in the afternoon with (2). Clearly, the described scene contains at least two dogs, thus the uniqueness of dogs on which his use of the dog is dependent is not w.r.t. the scene as a whole, but rather w.r.t. a domain dynamically constructed by his first sentence. Let's call such a domain a Heimian domain (H-domain) and such a use of definite description Heimian definiteness (H-definiteness). (2) I found a dog on the lawn. The dog was biting another dog� An R-domain r is something out there, not necessarily within our com- prehension in its totality. An H-domain h is the part of such an r which is known, or already familiar, to the conversation participants, which grows as the conversation proceeds. Then, assuming the lattice-theoretic ontology of [1], we say the denotation of a definite description is max(d, p), where max is a function that maps an R- or H-domain d and a property p to the maximal individual which has p in d; the uniqueness, then, follows from the singular morphology of the NP. The Russellian/Heimian distinction (hereafter, the R/H distinction) is a result of the choice of the domain (cf. [2]). Regarding such domains as 85 resource situations in the situation semantic sense, we argue for the signifi- cance of the R/H distinction for English and other languages. 2 Inclusiveness H-definiteness is named after [3], which reduces definiteness to familiarity. We formulate familiarity in terms of domains (situations), while [3] formu- lates it in terms of individuals (file cards). Here, [4]'s inclusiveness analysis is formulated as the maximality function max. For example, in (3), the boys refers to the three boys the speaker met. (3) I met two boys at 10:00. I met another at 11:00. The boys were� This is only natural, since the H-domain contains three boys when the boys is uttered.' 3 Accommodation Cases like (1) could offer a problem for reduction of definiteness to famil- iarity, since the president wasn't introduced explicitly in the discourse be- forehand; hence [3]'s appeal to accommodation. However, we want to have some characterization of when accommodation is or isn't possible. In our view, "accommodated" definites are simply R-definites. (1) is a case in point; John knows that there is only one president in the U.S., so he …

Content truncated to 500 words