Cogprints
Login | Create Account

Reference_ and_Definiteness,Revised

riley, dr john a. (2006) Reference_ and_Definiteness,Revised. [Preprint]

Full text available as:

[img]
Preview
PDF
181Kb

Abstract

If D denotes a discourse, and p an expression in an utterance u of D, the action, D(p), of D on p, is the set of mental representations of the interpretations of p in D, and corresponds to the discourse 'meaning' of p in D. The correspondence p-->D(p) is called the reference of the speaker. The domain, dom(p), is defined, and it is shown that the set i(D(p)) of underlying entities of D(p) is contained in or equal to dom(p). A reference is inclusive if i(D(p)) = dom(p); exclusive otherwise. If dom(p) (resp. i(D(p))) consists of a single entity, the reference is said to be unique (resp unambiguous). Definite reference is defined as unambiguous and inclusive. It is shown that definite reference is unique in the classical sense, and it is conjectured that a generalization of the notion of 'familiarity' holds. A number of putative counterexamples to the classical definition are shown to satisfy the more general definition. Other application is made to specificity, predicate nominals, and parameterized nominals.

Item Type:Preprint
Additional Information:This revision includes the footnotes to the original.
Keywords:identifiability, spcificity, reference, definiteness
Subjects:Linguistics > Semantics
Psychology > Cognitive Psychology
Linguistics > Pragmatics
ID Code:4814
Deposited By:riley, dr john a
Deposited On:01 Apr 2006
Last Modified:12 Sep 2007 18:02

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Barbara. (2003)(Paper read at the annual LSA meeting Atlanta, 1/5/03). The difference between definite and indefinite descriptions.

_____________. (2001a). Definiteness and Identification in English.

In Németh T. Enikö, ed., Pragmatics in 2000: Selected papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, vol. 2. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, pp 1-15.

_____________. (2001b). Definiteness and Indefiniteness. To appear in Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward, eds., Handbook of Pragmatics, Oxford: Blackwell.

______________ . (1999). Support for a unique theory of definite descriptions. In Tanya Matthews & Devon Strolovitch, eds., Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IX. Ithaca: Cornell University. pp. 1-15.

Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1992). Frames, Concepts and Conceptual Fields. In Lehrer, Adrienne and Kittay, Eva Feder, eds. (1992). Frames, Fields and Contrasts. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Birner, Betty and Ward, Gregory. (1994). Uniqueness, Familiarity and the Definite Article. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Pp. 93-102.

Brown, George and Yule, George (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Burton-Roberts, Noel. (1981). Review of Hawkins' Definiteness and Indefiniteness. Language, vol. 57, pp. 191-196.

Chafe, Wallace. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. University of Chicago Press.

Chierchia, G. (1992). Anaphora and Dynamic Binding. Linguistics and Philosophy,

vol. 15, pp. 111-183.

Cormack, A. and Kempson, R. (1991). On Specificity. In: Garfield, J. and Kiteley, M. (1991). Meaning and Truth: Essential Readings in Modern Semantics. Paragon House.

Epstein, Richard. (1999). Roles, Frames, and Definiteness. In Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics. Karen Van Hock, Andrej Kibrik, and Leo Noordman, eds. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. pp. 53-74.

Fauconnier, Gilles. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge University Press.

Fiengo, R. and May, R. (1994). Indices and Identity. MIT Press

Givon, Talmy. (1973). Opacity and Reference in Language: An Inquiry into the Role of Modalities. In Synstax and Semantics, vol 2, john Kimball, ed. Seminar Press.

____________(1984). Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vols. I, II. John Benjamins.

Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69.274–307.

Hawkins, John A. (1978). Definiteness and Indefiniteness. Croom Helm.

_____________. (1991). On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality predictions. Journal of Linguistics 27. pp. 405-442.

Kearns, Kate. (2000). Semantics. St. Martin's Press.

Keenan, E. L. (1996). The Semantics of Determiners. In Lappin, ed. (1996).

Kripke, S. (1991) Speaker's reference and Semantic reference. In Garfield and Kiteley (1991).

Kehler, Andrew. (2002). Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI Publications.

King, Jeffrey C. (2005). Anaphora. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 6, Number 3.

Lambrecht, Knud. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, Stephen C.. (2000). Presumptive Meanings. MIT Press.

Lyons, Christopher. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge University Press.

Lyons, John. (1977). Semantics. vol. 1. Cambridge University Press.

McCawley, James D. (1979). Presupposition and Discourse Structure. In Syntax and Semantics. vol. 11: Presupposition. pp. 371-388.

Neale, S. (1990). Descriptions. MIT Press.

Partee, B. H. (1972). Opacity, Coreference and Pronouns. In Semantics of Natural Language. (1972). D. Davidson and Gilbert Harman, eds. D. Reidel.

Prince, Ellen F. (1992). The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-status. In William Mann, Sandra a. Thompson (Editor). (1992). Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text. John Benjamins.

Riley, John A. (1999). A Theory of Pronominal Reference based on Information Theory. Part I. Theoretical Linguistics. vol. 25 no. 2/3. pp. 179-214.

___________. (2000). A Theory of Pronominal Reference based on Information Theory. Part II. Theoretical Linguistics. vol. 26. pp. 135-174.

Models of Discourse. MIT Press. pp. 267-330).

Stalnaker, Robert C. (1991). Pragmatic Presuppositions. In Davis, S., ed. Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford University Press. pp. 471-481.

Vallduvi, Enric. (1993). The Informational Component. PhD Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.

Vallduvi, Enric and Engdahl, Elisabet. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics 34, pp. 459-519.

Webber, Bonnie L. (1981). Discourse model synthesis:preliminaries to reference. in Joshi, A., Webber, B. L., and Sag, I., eds. Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge University Press. pp. 283-299.

Metadata

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Cogprints is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.