on the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
1/20
Folia Linguistica Historica
II/l
pp 3553
Societas
Linguiitica Europaea
1981
ON THE DEVELOPMENTOF THE
NME R AL
AS
ANINDEFINITE MARKER
T. GIVON
1. INTRODUCTION
1
In
this
paper
I
will
discuss
the
seemingly universal process
by
which
the
numeraV'pne'
becomes a markerfor Singular-indefinite
nouns. Suchadevelopmentisattested
independently
inGermanic,
Romance, Mandarin, Sherpa, Hungarian, Neo-Aramaic, Persian,
Turkish and
various
Amerindianand
Austronesian languages.
2
Itis
also a
hallmark
of all
Creole languages,
a
factwhichunderscores
the human-universal nature of this feature (Bickerton,
1975).
I
will
suggest
that
thisdevelopment proceeds viaa number ofsteps,and
will
use
mostly data from Israeli Hebrew
to
illustrate
the
early
first
step
of
this
development. The same early step isattestedin
all Creoles, in Mandarin, Sherpa, Turkish,
Neo-Aramaic,
Persian and
others.
An
intermediatestage
in
thisdevelopment may
be
found
in some Romance languages, such s Spanish and
Italian.
While
French, English and
German represent
the latest,
perhaps
the
terminal stage along thisdiachronic continuum.
Sincethisdevelopment inIsraeli
Hebrewisrecentandunrecogniz-
ed by
traditional grammarians,
who do not
distinguish between
the various sublevels of the Israeli speech continuum
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
2/20
by native
Speakers
in
informal
contexts, among friends and inti-
mates
or at
casual
streetencounters. Thisdialect
is in
some
sense
a 'Creole',having been developedbyfirst-generation Speakersout
of variable,
considerably Pidginized input
of
non-native
speech.
StreetHebrew,likeCreoles,thus
represents
thefirst,earliest stage
in the development of One'
s
an indefinite marker,
where
it is
used only to mark
referentiell-indefinite
nouns.
2.
INDEFINITE
SUBJECTS
A J S T D
REFERENTIALITY
Although it hasbeen
traditionally
assumed that the indefinite
nouns
goes unmarked
in Hebrew s it
indeed does
in Biblical
Hebrew),
a
brief scrutiny
of
Street Hebrew will reveal
that the
numeral One'
in its masculine or
feminine forms
is used to intro-
ducereferential-indefinite nouns into discpurse.However, even in
this
least-opaque context
of
all,
the
Zo0ica%-referential subject
of a
real event
in the past, Street
Hebrew
s
well
sall
other
languages
using
One' s a referential-indefinite marker) makes a
pragmat ic
distinctioii s to
whether
the referentiality
3
('specific
dentity') of the
subject
'really
mattered',
or
whether
it was
iincidental, and the real
issue
was the
subject's type.
Thus,
contrast
1)
Referent ial:
ba
hena ish-xad etrnolve-hitxille-daberve-hu
. . .
came
here
man-owe
yesterday
and-started to-talk
and-he
man came
in
yesterday
and started talkingand he . .
.
2)Attributive ba hena ishetmol,
lo
isha
camehere
man
yesterday
not
woman
*A mancame
here
yesterday, notawoman '
The
presentative
formula
in 1), with VS syntax,
4
introduces a
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
3/20
Hebrew,
One*
in its reduced, de-stressed form
5
isobligatorily
usedin (1)but
cannot
be
used
in
(2).
The samething
holds
with
the
plural
'some':
6
(3)B eferential:
ba-u
henafaima-anashimetmol
ve-hityashv-u
ve-hitxil-u. . .
came-PL heresowe-men
yesterday and-sat-PL
and
-started-PL
*Somemeneame
over
yesterday
and
st
down
andstarted...
(4 )
Attributive:
ba-uhena anashim
etmol,
lonashim
came-PL
here men
yesterday
not
women
*Men
eame
hereyesterday,
not women '
Again, the use of'some'in (3) is
obligatory
inStreet
Hebrew,
but
it
cannot
be
used
in
(4).
And the
same
is
truewith
the
feminine
version ofOne', sin:
(5)
Beferential:
ba-a
hena
isha-
etmol
ve-amrashe-...
came-F
here
woman-one
yesterday
and-said-Fthat-
wbman
came
over
yesterday
and'
saidthat...
Attributive:
ba-a
hena
isha
etmol,
lo yalda
came-F here woman
yesterdaynot girl
:
woman
came
here
yesterday, not a
girl '
Oneshouldnotethat
when
otherreferentiality-inducingmodifiers
areused with the noun, one
may
dispense with the numeral/quanti-
fier.
Thus, consider
the use ofpossessives,
adjectives
and
relative
modif
iers s
in:
7
(7 )
bahena
x ver(-xad) sheli
etmolve-
...
came
herefriend (One)mineyeterdayand-...
4
A friend
of
mine came hereyesterday
and . .
.
*The reduction and suffixation from the quantified
expression
ia h
exadOne
man'to
the
less-marked
indefinite
ish-xad *man',
is anatural
consequence
of
stress-loss
on the quantifier, which is in
turn
an equally
predictableconsequence
of the aemanticdepletion of
*one into
an existential
quantifier.
For a
general
discussion of
these processes in thedevelopment
ofboundmorphology, see Givon (1971, 1974)* The reduction may,of course,
be
partial,
since it is
still
in the
middle
of
developing.
The
same
is
true
for
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
4/20
(8 )ba heim etmol
ish
zriken (-xad) vo-...
camehereyesterday man o ld
one)
and-
...
*An
old man
camehereyesterday and...
(9 )
ba
henaetmol
ish
(-xad) she-pagashti lifney harbe
shanim
...
camo here
yesterday
man
one)
that-I-met
before
many
years
..
.
man I mot
many
yearsago
came here
yesterday...'
This
is notaltogethersurprising, since
the
development of One' and
'some'
s
indefinite or existential markers stems precisely
from the fact
that
squantifierstheyalso
imply referentiality/exis-
tence.
Restrictive,
definite
modifiers
automatically presuppose
referentiality.
3. LOGICALLY-REFERENTIL OBJECTS
8
Confining
the discussionforthe
moment
to
logically-referential
objectsof
non-modal
verbsin sentences referipgto real
events
in
the past, one f inds here the very same distinction between a
io^ica -referential object whose specific identity matters in the
narrative,
s against a
logically-referential object whose specific
identity
doesn t
matter,
but
only
its
type
matters.
Let
me
illustrate
this
with
an example. Suppose I describe buying a
book,
using
thepasttense;thenproceedingtoread it andcommentingon its
quality.
The
book
wasintroducedinto the discourse fo r the
first
time s the object of'buy', and isthus referqntfatndefinite; But
further, its specificidentity maiters.in the following discourse, it
remainsa
topic.
InsuchacaseStreetHebrew Woulduse therefer-
ential-indefinite
marker
One', s in:
(10); .
.axarey
she-gmartila-avod,yaradtila-xanut - >.
after that-finished-I
to-work
descended-Ito-the-shop
.
.
.After
I
finished
working,I
wentdown
tothe
shop
;
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
5/20
39
Dispensing with One in such a context would sound odd to
the
native
Speaker
ofStreet
Hebrew.
Onthe
other
hand,
supposed
one
bought
a
book indiscriminantly without paying
attention to its
specific
identity
and the rest of the story never mentionsthat
book
again. One then engaged in the action of
book-buying ,
and
although the book is logically just sreferential sin (10) above,
Street Hebrew wouldnotuse the referential-indefinite marker in
sucha case. Thusconsider:
(11)
...axarey she-gamarti
la-avod, yaradti la-xanut
after
that-finished-I
to-wprkdescended-I to-the-shop
..
.After I
finished working,
I went
down
to
theshop
ba-tsad
ha-sheni shel ha-rexov ve-kaniti sefer,
in-the-eidethe-other
of
the-street and-bought-I book
across
thestreetand I
bought
book
ve-az
halaxti
ha-bayta
ve-axalti ve-halaxti
1-ishon
...
and-then
went-I
to-home
and-ate-I
and-went-I to-sleep
and
then
I wehthrneandateand
went
tosleep...
A story suchs
(11) is, of
course, more plausible with paper since
onehabitually
buysa
paper, usually
thesame
type,
whosespecific
identity
is
thus,
in terms ofreal-world pragmatics, less likely to
be an issue.*
Let us nowturnto environments
where
a
truly logicalcontrast
between referential and non-referential usesof nouns hasbeen
traditionallyobserved (seediscussion
in
Givon, 1973),
and
where
in
StreetHebrew
and all
other languages
usingOne to
mark
the
referential-indefinite nounone isagain used sthe markerof
referentiality.
4.
INDEFINITE NOUNS
UNDER
THE
SCOPE
OF NEGATION
Object nouns under the scope of negation may be interpreted
referentially
or Andfurther,
s
shown
in
Givon
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
6/20
are
jnarked by a
special
morpheme
f
roughlymeaning 'any',and
the use
of
this morpheme is obligatory within
certain
bounds.
Thusconsider:
12)
lokanitiaf seferetmol non-ref)
notbought-I ny book
yesterday
*Ididn'tbuy any bookyesterday
1
13)
*lokaniti
sefer-xad etmol
*ref-indef)
notbought-I
book-one
yesterday
14 ) lokanitiet-ha-seferha-huetmol ref,def)
not bought-I
ACC-the-book
the-that
yesterday
4
Ididn'tbuythat
bookyesterday'
Sentence
(13)is ungrammatical due to the pragmatic restriction
barring
referential-indefinite
nouns from the scope of negation
Givon, 1975a). But the naked noun,
without
a f
or -xad may be
indeed used
non -referentially
under the scope of negation,
s
in:
15)lo
kaniti sefer
etmol,
kanitiiton
not
bought-Ibook yesterdaybough-Ipaper'
*Ididn'tbuy a book
yesterday,
Iboughtapaper '
There
are, however,
tw o
contexts
in
which
the
numeral
exad
in
an
unreduced
form, may
appear
with
non-referential nouns.
The
first
is an
emphaticcontext,
s in:
19) lo
kaniti afilu
lo sefer
exad sham
not I-boughteven not
book
o ne
there
*Ididn't
buy
even
asingle
book
there '
\
Thereduced,unstressedsuffixal-o^wicannotbesubstituted for
exad
in
such
a
context, again illustrating
its referential
Status.
The
second context ispronominal, whereone
could
indeed
getan
option-
al reduction in subject nouns, though seemingly not in object
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
7/20
41
subject
is notsentence-initial,the reductionis not
possible. Thus,
compare (20) and (21) above to:
24)
lo
bahena
af
exad (samegloss s 20))
25) *lo ba hena ai-xad
It thus
seems
that it is
still
the
numeral exad
which functions
s
the indefinite, non-referential pronoun in all
these
instances, rather
than
the
referential-indefinite marker
o c a d .
So far we
havedealt only with non-referential objects under
the
scope of
negation. Referential objects
of
negated verbs
in
most
languagestend
to bede finite a
fact
thatarisesfrom
the pragmatics
rather than
the
mere logic
of
negation.
Put in
simpleterms,lan-
guagestend to have objects of negated verbs
s
either non-referen-
tial
or referential
:
defimte, but seem to systematically exclude
referential-indefinite nouns
from
this
eiivironment.
11
This is moti-
vated
by the pragmatic use of negative sentences on thebackground
where
the corresponding affirmative has already been mentioned
or
is assumed to be
contemplated
by the
hearer),
so
that
the
refer-
ential
arguments
are not
introduced into
the
discourse
in the
negative sentence
for the
first time. Given
this, it is
only natural
thatthe
reduced
suffixal -xad
which markes referential indefinites
in
Street
Hebrew,
is unacceptable
under
the
scope
of
negation.
Thus:
26) *lokaniti eefer-xad eham
notI-bought
book-one
there
Sentence (26)iseven awkwardunder an external Interpretation,
where
the
unmarked indefinite
sin
16 )
ispreferred.However,notice
that
Hebrew,
like
English, allows
a
referential-indefinite Inter-
pretation
of the
object
in
such construction with
the
help
of a
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
8/20
42
to
27),
and
present
the
reierential-indefinite first
in an
affirmative
sentence,suchs
an
existential,
andthen
negate
it
s
adefinite-pro-
noun.
Thus:
28 ) haya eefer-atftd she-hamorehimlitsalav,aval
hi
lokar a ,
ve-
wasbook-onethat-the-teacherrecommendedit,butehenotreadit
and...
Therewasabooktheteacherrecommended,butehedidn tread it
and...*
One way or another, the
reduced
suffixal -xaddistributes only
wherea
referential
Interpretation
of the
indefinite
is
possible.
5.
YES-NO QUESTIONS
Non-referentialindefinite nouns in
this
context may be marked
byacompoundpronominalform,sin:
12
29 )
a.
raita miahehushm
?
you-saw
someonethere
Did
you see
anyone
there?
b. raita mashehu
sham?
you-saw
something
there
Didyou see anythingthere?
c. hihalxa le-an-shehu
etmol?
sheweht to-somewhereyesterday
Did
she go anywhere
yesterday?
.
An alternative marker, used in the presence of a head noun,
involvesthe WHpronoun
eyze Vhich? ,
s
in:
;
13
30) ba hena eyze ish etmol?
came
here which
man yesterday
?
Did
some
man comehere
yesterday?
12
These compound pronominal
forms
are etymolgically analyzable
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
9/20
The
feeling
impartedbythisform issomehowofsemi-referentiality .
That
is, in
(30)
the
Speaker
is
somehow more
committed to believing
inthepossibility that some specificindividual was
indeed involved,
while in (29) he is much less committed.
14
The contrast between
some-
and
any-
inEnglishis roughly of the
same
type, sin:
31) a. Did you see someonethere? (more referential)
b. Did you
seeanyone there? (less referential)
The reduced, suffixed
-xad
may mark indefinite nounsin this
context,
but
then they
are
iriterpretedre ferentially,
and in
thiscase
a restrictive
relative
modifier seems preferable, to reinforce the
referential reading. Thus consider:
32)
raita
ish-xad
she-amad bapina
ha-zot
lifney
xamesh dakot
ve-
..
. ?
you-sawman-onetf>hat-stoodat-corner the-thisbefore
fiveminutes
and-
Did you (by any
chance)
see a man who wasstanding at
thiscorner
five
minutesago and . . .
?
Again,it ispossible to
substitute here
eyze for -xad,
1
but thiswill
once
more resirit
in
a
seeming
decrease
in the expectationsof
referentiality by the
Speaker. Thus:
33 )
raita eyze ish
she-amad sham
ve . . . ?
you-feaw
whichmantht-stood there ahd-
Didyou see someman who was.
Standing
there and . . .
?
6. HYPOTHETICALCONDITIONALS
This
is
another
environment in
which nouns
do not have to be
interpreted
referentially.
When a non-referential reading of indef-
inite nouns is used inthisenvironment, the same set of compound
WH-based pronouns s in yes-no questions,
above,
are used.
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
10/20
b. im
tiresham maahehu
az..
.
if
you-seethere anything then
If
you
ee anythingthere,..
.
c.im hi telex
leunehehu
az...
if ehegoes
anywhere
then
*If ehe goes
anywhere,../
Similarly,
eyze
plus
a heacl
noun may
be
used here
s in
yes-no
questions, presumably
withthe same
increase
in
expectedreferen-
tiality s discussed above. Again, marking nouns with -xad will
impart a referential Interpretation in this context, and will most
appropriately require a relative modifier to reinforce
this
Inter-
pretation. Thus:
35)
im
tire shamteh xad
im
searot adumot umishkafayim
. . .
If
you-see thereman-onewithhairs red
and-glasses
. . .
you
see
a man
there with
red
hair
and
wearing glasses,
. .
.
For
some
Speakers,
suchs myself,
the
unmarked
use of
indefinites
in this
context, even under a non-referential
Interpretation,
is
odd:
3.6)
*imtire
sham ish,
az . . .
if you-see there man, then . . .
For
others such usage
is
acceptable
in
contrasting
the
type man
with, say, Vornan .
1
One way oranother, again xadmarks
only
thereferential indefinite.
7.UNDER
THE
SCOPE
OF NON-IMPLICATIVE
VERBS
Objectnouns under the scope ofverbssuchs Vant ,
c
look for ,
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
11/20
45
English,wherea n)
(* one )
hasalready
spread
to all indefinites,
referential
s
well
s
non-referential. Thus, consider:
(37)hu mexapes
isha,-(a)xat (referential)
he looking-for woman-one
is looking fo r a (specific)
woman
(38)
hu
mexapes (lo) isha (non-referential)
he looking
(for-him)
woman
is
looking
for a
woman
(a
mem ber
of the
type)
(39)
ani rotseliknot eeier-xad sham (referential)
I
want to-buy
book-one
there
wantto buy acertain (specific) book
there
(40) an i
rotse liknot
(li) sefer
sham (non-referential)
I
want to-buy (me) book
there
wantto buy abook there (amember ofthetype)
The
optional
use of the
dativepronoun
coreferential with
the
subject
of
look
for
and
want
is
a
curious
development.
If my
intuition does not mislead
me,
these pronouns are inappropriate
in
(37)
and
(39),
i.e.
when
the
object
is interpreted referentially.
The cluing System
may
be
becoming
more
elaborate
here, though
the ultimateresultis far from being.clear.
1
The use of -xadj-ocat tomark the referentially interpreted object
here is
further
illustrated
by
certain
facts of
pronominalization.
Thus, consider:
(41)
hu
mexapes
lo
isha,
ve-kshe-hu yimtsa fota
az . . .
(non-ref)
(mishehij
he looking-for him wom an,
and-when-he finds fher
l then
IsomeoneJ
He slooking
fo r a
woman,
and
when
he
finds
Ther
. .
.
jpne
17
T he use ofthese
dativepronouns
s echo within
neutral patterns
is
not confined to this syntactic
environment,
though a certain correlation
of
their
use
with less-referential* intent seems
to
persist. Thus,
the
verb
find is
implicative,
but
one nevertheless
getsthe
contrast
between:
(i) hu matsa
lo)
isha lifney shana
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
12/20
46
In Hebrew s in EngJish it
seems
that the
anaphoric
definite
object pronoun can be
used
here non-referentially.
Consider
now
the
referentially
interpreted
equivalent:
42 )
hu
mexapeeish-fa^icoi,
wer-kshe-huyimtsaJota az (referential)
he looking-forwoman-one,and when-hefinde/her
j
then
[*onej
looking
for
acertain
woman,
andwhenhe
finds /her
1 . . .
Thus, the presence of
-xadj-xat
rulesout the use of the indefinite,
non-referential
pronoun.
8.
FUTUKE
The futuretense
is one
modality under
the
scope
ofwhich
nouns
maybe
interpretednon-referentially. In
Hebrewagain the numeral
one
is involved in
signalling
the
referentiality
contrast
here. Con-
sider first
the
Situation
of subject
nouns:
43 )tavo
elexa
isha
rnaxar
ve-
. . .
(ambiguous)
w
l-come
to-you woman tomorrow and-
. . .
Awoman will come
toyou
tomorrow
and . . .
44)tavo elexa
isha,- a)xat
maxar ve- . . . ( more
referential )
will-come
to-you woman-one tomorrow and
certain woman will cometo you tomorrowand . . .
\
In the context of, say, a prediction
from
a fortune teuer, the
unmarked subject
in
(43) seems
to be
ambiguous s
to
whether
the
Speaker intends it referentially or not, while the One -marked
subject in (44) tends toward a more referential
Interpretation,
though
it is not
clear
whether this tendency
is
complete.
It
thus
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
13/20
(47)
atatir'e
seret-ccod
maxar, ve
...
(mostly
referential)
you
wl-see
movie-one
tomorrow, and . . .
*You'll
see
a
certain
movie
tomorrow,
and..
.'
In (45), the fact that the messageiscomplete suggests
that
the
main
Import involves
the
fact
of
seeing
a
movie
any
movie.
The object in (46) is equally unmarked,
buthere
the
continuation
introduces the possibility that the
communicative
import of the
message involves
the
specific
identity
of the
movie
which you will
see. Thus,
if
(46)
was completed
with, say:
.
.
.andthisparticular
movie
is
going
to change your
lifecompletely ,
then a referential
Interpretation
of the
unmarked indefinite
noun
will result. However,
if
instead
the continuation will make it clear that the
specific
identity
of the movie is not central to the
communication,
s in
say:
.
.
.afterwards
you'll
meet with friends
and go to
dinner
together , then tlie tendency willbe to
Interpret
theunmarked
indefinite
noun non-referentially.
Finally,in
(47), where
the
noun
ismarked withOne',thereis astronger tendencytoInterpret the
object
referentially, andthus to assumethat the continuation is
likely to hinge
upon
the specific
identity
of the movie.
9. GENERIC EXPRESSIONS
Ifthe numeralOne'has indeed developedsa marker of referen-
tial indefinites
only,
then one
would
expect
that both
generic
predicatesandgeneric subjects
in
Hebrew willnot allowits use.
Which
is indeed evident from:
(48) ha-arye
hu
melex ha-xayot
the-lion
isking-of
the-animals
'The
lion is the
king
of theanimals'
(49)arye zoxaya torefet ehe-
...
lion animal
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
14/20
62)ha-iah
ha-zehu more
the-man the-this
isteacher
Thie
man i a
teacher'
63) ?ha-ish ha-ze
hu
more-xad
The-man
the-this
isteacher-one
64)ha-ish ha-ze hu more-xad
she-pagashti etmol
(referentialpredicate)
the-man
the-this
isteacher-one
that-I-met
yesterday
*This
man is a
teacher
I met
yesterday...
, 10. THE GRADUAL
NATBE
OF THE
EISE
OF ONE*
AS
AN
INDEFINITE
MARKER
Asshown above, at theearliest
stage
oftheriseof One' s an
indefinite marker for singular nouns, it marks only
referential-
indefinite
nouns.
At the
other
band of the scale of diachronic
development,one
finds languages
such s English, German and
French,
where
'one'
(or its reduced de-stressed reflexes) marks
both
referential and
non-referential
nouns.Thusconsider:
65)John
isa teacher
non-ref)
56)
John is a teacher I
met
last year ref)
67)
I am looking
for
a bookon
math,
do you have
any? non-ref)
58)I amlooking fo r abookonmath,but I can't find it(ref)
59)
horse
is a
four-legged
animal..
.
(non-ref)
60)
horse
I wasridingyesterday
feil
and ref)
61)We'regoingtoseeamovie
tomorrow,
we'renot yet
sure
which non-ref)
62)We're
going to seeamovietomorrow, we got the
tickets
in advance ref)
63)
If a manshows
up,
lethim
in, but
if a
woman
don't non-ref)
64)Ifa manshowsup
wearing
a
funny
hat and
he
givesyou the
password
. . .
ref)
65)
I
didn't
read
a
book I read
a
magazine non-ref)
V
Diachronie development is
normally
gradual. Since there are
manygrammaticalenvironments
in
languagewhere non-referential
nouns mayappear,onewould
like
toknow whicbones and in
what
Order
pioneered the movement from the
early
(Hebrew,
Creole) stage
where 'one' marks only referential-indefinite nouns,
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
15/20
49
(67)
Juan
es
un
profeasor
que
encontreel anopasado
.
(ref)
Johnis
one
professor that
met-Ithe
yearpast
*John
is a
professor
I metlast
year
. . .'
Similarly,under the scope o the FUTURE modality, the useof
One'isrestrictedtoreferential objects,othermeans
such sthe
p lu ra l
areusedto mark non-referential objects. Thus, contrast
the
following
pair with theEnglish(61) and (62) above:
(68)Manana
nos
vaniosparavisitarun amigo (ref)
tomorrowus
we-got
for
visiting
one friend
'Tomorrowwe're goingto
visit
a(specific)
friend'
(69)Manana nos vamost
para visitar am igos (non-ref)
tomorrow
us
we-got fo rvisiting friends
'Tomorrow
we're going
tovisit
friends/a friend
The
expression
of
generic subjects
prefers
the
definite
article
in some
cases, s in
specie^
names etc.,
but
already
allow
the indefinite
One'
for
less-unique
nouns/types.
Thus
consider:
(70)El cabaUo
es
unanimalmuygrandeque . .
(non-ref;
DEF
article)
thehorseis one
animalvery
big
that
*
T he
Jiorse
is a
very
big
animal
that.. .'
(71)
?E7n
caballo
es
un
animal
muy
grande que
. . .
(72)
Un
amigo es
alguien
que te quiere
(non-ref; One')
one friend issomeonethatyouloves .
friend is someone who loves
you'
Finally,
inmany
environments
Spanish alreadyapproximates the
'terminal'
stage
of English,
where
One' marksnon-referential
indef-
inites
s
well. Thus consider:
(73)
Estamosbuscando
a
una criada
que nosesta
esperando aqui
(ref)
we-are
looking-for
onemaidthat
us
iswaitinghere
4
We
are
looking for
a
(specific) m a i dthat's waiting fo rus
here'
(74)Estamost
buscando
auna criadaqueseabuena
(non-ref)
we-are looking-fpr onemaid
that
be good
'We are
looking
for
good m a i d (beeheany)'
(75)noviaun
hom b re ,
viaune mujer
(non-ref
plus
pragmatically
non-ref)
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
16/20
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
17/20
51
One may
Interpret such a progression s another instance of
semantic
bleaching
along a
markedness/implicational space:
(i) Having
quantity
implies existence/reference.
i i
Having existence/reference
implies
having connotation/gener-
icity.
The
two
transitions in
(78)
abovemay be viewed
s
each
removing
onemoremarkedsemanticfeature
of
One', the first step bleaching
out
quantification
the
second bleaching
out
existencejreferejice.
In
order
for the
semantic bleaching process
('generalization')
outlined aboveto
take
placerealisticallyinhuman
language,
one
must
obtain
a relatively
high
text frequency of the use of
One'
to
introducereferential
arguments for the first time into discourse.
Butwhat is so
natralaboutthat
? The
answer
tothismay be
sought
contrastively:
f
'
. =
(i)
Other reference-inducirig modifiers, such s definites/deictic,
possessives
and
other restriktive
modiffers do not
only induce
referentiality, but
also
definiteness
i.e.
the
pointing toward
an argumentthat the Speaker
assumes
theheariercan identify
uniquely;
:
:
,,
: :
i
r
. -
. . . . .
;
i i
Quantifying
expressions,
on the
other
hand,
imply
referentiality
but do
not
implypnor-acquitintance/familiarity.They are thus
the nly/jniajoi
class
ofiioun-modifiers in the NP
that fulfils
the
requiremtent
for thedevelopment of a
referential-indefinite
marker/
- : . \ s ^ ?
- ;
ij
-
. -
11.2.
Why
referentiality
; : ? 5 . ' - t .
Existence,at
least'in
theuniverseofdiscourse,
is
aprecondition
for participatiOn, aition,
etc. If
an
argument
is to be
introduced
into
discourse for the first tim'e, its referentiality/existence must
be by
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
18/20
52
11.3. W hy One
Whena new
referential argument
is introduced for the
first time
into discourse, the Speaker
obviously
does not expect
the
hearer
to
identify
it
by its unique reference. Rather
the
Speaker first
identifies it to the hearer by its generic/connotative properties, s
on e
member out of themanywithinthe type.
This
is a
peculiar Situa-
tion,wherethe Speaker wishes to performtwo
seemingly conflicting
tasks:
i)
Introduce
a newargument
s
referential/existing; but
ii ) Identify
it by its
generic/type
properties.
The numeral
'one'
rather than
other numerals isuniquely
fitting toperform such acomplex, contradictory
task.
First,like
all
quantifiers
it
implies
existence/referentiality. But
further,
in
contrastiveuse itimplies also'oneout ofmany ,'oneoutofthe group
or
Oneoutof the
type . It thus
introduces
the new
argument
into
discoursesboth
existing/having
refereniiality,and
s
'member of
type (x)'.And those ai;e precisely the two requirements fo r the
introduction of a
referential-indefinite
argument into discourse.
T.
GIVON
Department
of
Linguistics
Uniyersity
ofOregon
EUGENE, Oregon97403
a n d
Ute
Language Program
SouthernUteTribe
IGNACIO, Colorado 81137
USA.
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
19/20
53
1974)
Serial
Verbs
and SyntacticChange:
Niger-Congo ,
in C. Li
(ed.)
Word
Order an d
Word
Order
Change
Austin:University ofTexas
Press.
(1975a)
Negation
in Language:
Pragmatics,
Function, Ontology ,
Working
Papers
on Language Universals
* 18,
Stanford
University.
1975b)
Universal
Grmmar,
LexicalStructure
and Translatability
inM.
Guenthner-Reutter
and F. Guenthner
(eds),Me aning and
Transla-
tion: Philosophical and Linguistic Approaches London:
Duckworth.
1976a)
Definiteness
and
Referentiality ,
in J. Greenberg,C.Fergu-
sonand E.Moravcsik (eds), Universals of
Human Language
vol.4:Syn-
tax, Stanford: StanfordUniversity
Press.
(1976b) The
Pragmatics
of the VS Word Order in
Israeli
Hebrew ,
in P. Cole (ed.),
Papers
in Hebrew Syntax New York:North Holland.
HBTZRON,R.
(1971). PresentativeFunction
and
PresentativeMovement ,
Studies
in
African Linguistics Supplement
#
2.
JACKENDOFF, R. (1972). Modal
Structure
in Semantic
Representation ,
Linguistic
Inquiry
3.
PBICE, G.(1971).
The
French
Language:
Present
and
Post.London: Arnold.
-
8/11/2019 On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf
20/20
Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universitt Dsseldorf