on the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf

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


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


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


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

;


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


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


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


8/20

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


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.


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 ,


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


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


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


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,


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)


16/20


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


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


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


argument into discourse.

T.

GIVON

Department

of

Linguistics

Uniyersity

ofOregon

EUGENE, Oregon97403

a n d

Ute

Language Program

SouthernUteTribe

IGNACIO, Colorado 81137

USA.


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.


20/20

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universitt Dsseldorf

on the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.pdf

Documents