Documentation

Linglib.Features.Definiteness

Definiteness: Types and Classifications #

@cite{donnellan-1966} @cite{hawkins-1978} @cite{heim-1982} @cite{patel-grosz-grosz-2017} @cite{schwarz-2009} @cite{schwarz-2013}

Framework-agnostic vocabulary for definiteness phenomena. These types classify definite descriptions, article systems, and presupposition types without committing to any particular semantic theory.

The organizing principle is DefPresupType (.uniqueness |.familiarity) — every other type in this module is a dimension that maps into this binary distinction: article morphology, pragmatic use type, bridging relation, etc.

Used by:

The two presupposition types underlying definite descriptions.

@cite{schwarz-2009}: these correspond to two morphologically distinct articles in languages like German, Fering, Lakhota, and Akan. Every classification in this module ultimately maps into this binary type.

Instances For
    @[implicit_reducible]
    Equations
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      Demonstratives (this/that) project D_deix — the familiarity/strong-article layer. @cite{schwarz-2013} §5.5 and @cite{patel-grosz-grosz-2017}.

      Equations
      Instances For

        @cite{schwarz-2009}: article type in the D-domain.

        Schwarz argues for two structurally distinct definite articles:

        • Weak: situational uniqueness
        • Strong: anaphoric familiarity

        @cite{patel-grosz-grosz-2017} build on this: ArticleType predicts D-layer count and whether DEM pronouns exist.

        Instances For
          @[implicit_reducible]
          Equations
          Equations
          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
          Instances For

            Which presupposition types are morphologically distinguished by a language's article system. This tracks overt marking, not semantic availability: a language with no articles (.none_) morphologically distinguishes zero presupposition types, but may still express both uniqueness and familiarity via covert type-shifting (e.g., Shan bare nouns; @cite{moroney-2021}). Semantic availability of presupposition types is determined by the blocking principle and type-shift hierarchy (@cite{dayal-2004}), not by article inventory alone.

            Equations
            Instances For

              Languages with two article forms morphologically distinguish both presupposition types. This is @cite{patel-grosz-grosz-2017}'s structural claim: 2 D-layers = 2 morphologically distinct presupposition signals.

              Languages with one article form morphologically distinguish one presupposition type (modulo ambiguity).

              @cite{hawkins-1978}'s four use types for definite descriptions. @cite{schwarz-2013} shows these map systematically onto weak vs strong articles.

              Instances For
                @[implicit_reducible]
                Equations
                Equations
                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                Instances For

                  Bridging subtypes (@cite{schwarz-2013} §3.2). German and Fering show that bridging splits across the two article forms:

                  • Part-whole bridging → weak article (situational uniqueness)
                  • Relational bridging → strong article (anaphoric link)

                  Schwarz's "producer bridging" (e.g., "the play... the author") is the prototypical case of relational bridging.

                  Instances For
                    @[implicit_reducible]
                    Equations
                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    Instances For

                      How a language expresses the weak/strong article contrast.

                      @cite{schwarz-2013} surveys languages along two dimensions:

                      • How many overt article forms? (0, 1, or 2)
                      • What expresses weak-article definites? (bare nominal, overt article, etc.)
                      Instances For
                        @[implicit_reducible]
                        Equations
                        Equations
                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                        Instances For

                          The fundamental semantic contrast between indefinite and definite:

                          • Indefinite (some/a): existential quantification, no presupposition on prior discourse. Introduces a NEW discourse referent.
                          • Definite (the): presupposes existence (+ uniqueness or familiarity). Retrieves an EXISTING referent.

                          @cite{heim-1982}: indefinites are novel, definites are familiar. This is the dynamic semantics version of the ∃/ι contrast.

                          Instances For
                            @[implicit_reducible]
                            Equations
                            Equations
                            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                            Instances For

                              Cross-linguistic strategy for marking definiteness, following @cite{jenks-2018}'s typology extended by @cite{moroney-2021} with the .unmarked category.

                              The original @cite{jenks-2018} typology had four cells (2×2: both-marked × same/different + one-marked × unique/anaphoric), but "one-marked, unique" was unattested. @cite{moroney-2021} adds a fifth: neither type is obligatorily marked, yet both are expressible via bare nouns. This captures Shan, Serbian, and Kannada.

                              This is strictly finer than ArticleType: .generallyMarked and .markedAnaphoric both map to ArticleType.weakOnly, so ArticleType collapses a real distinction.

                              • generallyMarked : DefMarkingStrategy

                                Both unique and anaphoric definiteness are marked with the same form. Languages: English (the), Cantonese.

                              • bipartite : DefMarkingStrategy

                                Unique and anaphoric definiteness are marked with different forms. Languages: German (weak/strong articles), Lakhota.

                              • markedAnaphoric : DefMarkingStrategy

                                Only anaphoric definiteness is obligatorily marked (via demonstrative). Unique definiteness is expressed with bare nouns. Languages: Mandarin, Akan, Wu.

                              • unmarked : DefMarkingStrategy

                                Neither type is obligatorily marked. Bare nouns can express both unique and anaphoric definiteness. Demonstrative-noun phrases are optional in anaphoric contexts. Languages: Shan, Serbian, Kannada. NEW in @cite{moroney-2021}.

                              Instances For
                                @[implicit_reducible]
                                Equations
                                Equations
                                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                Instances For