Definite descriptions and cognitive status in English: why accommodation is unnecessary

A commonly held view of English definite articles is that they signal that the referent of an NP is familiar to the addressee. However, it is well known that not all definite article phrases meet this familiarity requirement. To account for such nonfamiliar uses, Heim (1982) invokes the mechanism of ‘accommodation’, which enables an addressee to remedy a violation of the familiarity requirement by adding assumptions to the ‘common ground’. In this article we argue that the Givenness Hierarchy framework provides an insightful account of all uses of definite article phrases without requiring an appeal to accommodation. Such an account provides a unified treatment of definite article phrases, including demonstrative phrases and personal pronouns, while at the same time distinguishing among them in a principled way. This proposal is supported by results of a corpus-based examination of the use of definite articles and by an examination of cleft presuppositions.

[1]  Ina Ruck,et al.  USA , 1969, The Lancet.

[2]  J. Hawkins.  Definiteness and indefiniteness: a study in reference and grammaticality prediction , 1978 .

[3]  Ron Zacharski,et al.  On the Generation and Interpretation of Demonstrative Expressions , 1988, COLING.

[4]  E. Prince.  The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-status , 1992 .

[5]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  Givenness, implicature and the form of referring expressions in discourse , 1990 .

[6]  Ron Zacharski,et al.  Givenness, implicature and demonstrative expressions in English discourse: the Chicago Linguistic Society. Part II: , 1989 .

[7]  Mira Ariel.  Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents , 1990 .

[8]  E. Prince.  A COMPARISON OF WH-CLEFTS AND IT-CLEFTS IN DISCOURSE , 1978 .

[9]  R. Freedle.  Discourse production and comprehension , 1978 .

[10]  松井 智子,et al.  Bridging and relevance , 2000 .

[11]  Ann E. Mulkern,et al.  Quantity implicatures in reference understanding , 1998 .

[12]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[13]  Gregory Ward,et al.  Uniqueness, Familiarity, and the Definite Article in English , 1994 .

[14]  Jeanette K. Gundel.  Relevance theory meets the givenness hierarchy: an account of inferrables , 1996 .

[15]  Ellen F. Prince,et al.  Toward a taxonomy of given-new information , 1981 .

[16]  Nancy Hedberg,et al.  The Referential Status of Clefts. , 2000 .

[17]  Renata Vieira,et al.  A Corpus-based Investigation of Definite Description Use , 1997, CL.

[18]  Francis Cornish,et al.  Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding: Evidence from English and French , 1999 .

[19]  Nancy Hedberg,et al.  Discourse pragmatics and cleft sentences in English , 1990 .

[20]  P. Christophersen.  The articles : A study of their theory and use in English , 1940 .

[21]  Keith S. Donnellan.  Reference and Definite Descriptions , 1966 .

[22]  Francis Cornish,et al.  ‘Antecedentless’ anaphors: deixis, anaphora, or what? Some evidence from English and French , 1996, Journal of Linguistics.

[23]  C. R.,et al.  On referring , 1950 .

[24]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  Statut cognitif et forme des anaphoriques indirects , 2000 .

[25]  J. Delin,et al.  Cleft constructions in discourse. , 1990 .

[26]  James F. Allen,et al.  The TRAINS 93 Dialogues , 1995 .

[27]  Kari Fraurud,et al.  Definiteness and the Processing of Noun Phrases in Natural Discourse , 1990, J. Semant..

[28]  Mira Ariel.  Referring and accessibility , 1988, Journal of Linguistics.

[29]  W. Chafe.  Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing , 1996 .

[30]  Jessica R. Wirth.  The Derivation of Cleft Sentences in English. , 1978 .

[31]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse , 1993 .