Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-m6qld Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-16T01:57:56.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English article usage as a window on the meanings of same, identical and similar1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2016

LUNA FILIPOVIĆ  and
JOHN A. HAWKINS
LUNA FILIPOVIĆ
Affiliation:
School of Politics, Philosophy, Language and Communication Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UKl.filipovic@uea.ac.uk
JOHN A. HAWKINS
Affiliation:
Department Linguistics, University of California Davis, Kerr Hall, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis 95616, California, USAjhawkins@ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We propose an explanation for a traditional puzzle in English linguistics involving the use of articles with the nominal modifiers same, identical and similar. Same can only take the definite article the, whereas identical and similar take either the or a. We argue that there is a fundamental difference in the manner in which a comparison is made with these modifiers. Identical and similar involve direct comparisons between at least two entities and an assertion of either full property matching (identical), or partial property matching (similar). The comparison with same proceeds differently: what is compared is not linguistic entities directly, but definite descriptions of these entities that can be derived through logical entailments. John and Mary live in the same house entails the house that John lives in is the (same) house that Mary lives in. There must be a pragmatic equivalence between these entailed definite descriptions, ranging from full referential equivalence to a possibly quite minimal overlap in semantic and real-world properties shared by distinct referents. These differences in meaning and article co-occurrence reveal the sensitivity of syntax to semantic and pragmatic properties, without which all and only the grammatical sentences of a language cannot be predicted.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , July 2016 , pp. 295 - 313
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

We are grateful to two anonymous referees and to Ekkehard König for detailed comments on earlier versions of this paper which improved the first draft considerably. Our gratitude also goes to Bernd Kortmann for helpful and efficient editorial work. We are solely responsible for any remaining shortcomings in the current version.

References

Barker, Chris. 2007. Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (4), 407–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty J. 2013. Introduction to pragmatics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2011. Sentence-internal different as quantifier-internal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (2), 93–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2010. English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and grammaticalized uses (Topics in English Linguistics Series 63). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2011. Secondary determiners as markers of generalized instantiation in English noun phrases. Cognitive Linguistics 22 (3), 511–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromberger, Sylvain. 1992. Types and tokens in linguistics. In Bromberger, Sylvain (ed.), Essays on what we know we don't know, 170–208. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Christophersen, Paul. 1939. The articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, Breban, Tine & Van linden, Ann. 2008. Deictification: The development of secondary deictic meanings by adjectives in the English NP. English Language and Linguistics 12 (3), 475–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje & Emonds, Joseph E.. 2014. English: The language of the Vikings. Olomouc: Palacký University.Google Scholar
Farr, James M. 1905. Intensives and reflexives in Anglo-Saxon and Early Middle-English. Baltimore: J. H. Furst Company.Google Scholar
Fitting, Melvin. 2015. Intensional logic. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2015 edition), available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/logic-intensional/.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker. 2006. The grammar of identity: Intensifiers and reflexives in Germanic languages. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry (ed.), Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1991. On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27, 405–42.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1949. A modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. 7. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kearns, Stephen. 2010. Book review of Types and tokens by Wetzel, Linda. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Retrieved from ndpr.nd.edu/news/24272-types-and-tokens-on-abstract-objects/ Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 2002. Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English. In Minkova, Donka & Stockwell, Robert (eds.), Studies in the history of English: A millennial perspective, 325–55. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempson, Ruth. 1988. Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer, Frederick (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, vol. 2: Linguistic theory: Extensions and implications, 139–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 1999. Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. In Frajzngier, Zygmunt & Curl, Traci S. (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions, 41–74. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2000. The development of complex reflexives and intensifiers in English. Diachronica 27 (1), 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2005. Intensifiers and reflexives. In Comrie, Bernard, Gil, David & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 194–7. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2005. Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. In Pecher, Diane & Zwaan, Rolf A. (eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language and thinking, 164–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, Cristopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14, 479–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. 2009. Two types of definites in natural language. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wetzel, Linda E. 2009. Types and tokens: On abstract objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar