Determined Reference as a CI
Component in the Meaning of
Definites
Evidence from languages with multiple
definite articles
Assif Am-David and Manfred Sailer,
Goethe University Frankfurt
Determined Reference as a CI
Component in the Meaning of
Definites
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Hierarchy of determined reference
Why CIs?
Typology of languages with multiple definite articles
Hierarchy of determined reference in multiple definite
articles
Evidence for CI interpretation
Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
Referential covariation under quantification
Summary
Introduction
Sioux (Lakota) (Siouan) (Rood & Taylor, 1996):
• Articles :
k?uN: anaphoric definite
different from demonstratives: le’, he’, ka’
kiN: non-anaphoric definite
waN-: indefinite
(1) SˆuN’ka kiN he’l yuNke’. SˆuN’ka k?uN thalo’ kiN thebye’.
Dog
the there lie. Dog
the.past meat the eat.up
‘The dog is lying there. The dog ate up the meat.’
Introduction
• Schwarz (2013) distinguishes two definite
articles: weak and strong.
• Weak definite article marks uniqueness.
• Strong definite article marks anaphoricity.
Introduction
Objectives:
• Formally account for the distinction between
definite articles – Using different types of
inferences (presuppositions and CIs
[=conventional implicatures])
• Propose a fine-grained model of determined
reference to replace the dual distinction
• Account for crosslinguistic variation in the
domain of definite articles (including languages
with three definite articles)
Hierarchy of determined reference
• Familiarity-identifiability based approaches
(Maetzner, 1885; Christophersen, 1939;
Jespersen, 1943; Strawson, 1950; Hawkins,
1978; Heim, 1982; Ariel, 1990; Gundel et al.,
1993)
• Uniqueness-maximality based approaches
(Russell, 1905; Sharvy, 1980; Link, 1983;
Landman, 1991)
Hierarchy of determined reference
• Combining both approaches:
Donnellan (1966): Ambiguous (referential vs.
attributive)
Roberts (2003): Both together (uniquely
identifiable)
Hierarchy of determined reference
• Schwarz (2013): Weak definites mark
uniqueness, strong definites mark familiarity
No apparent relation between the two.
• Current attempt: combination of two
different meaning components –
Maximality presupposition
A series of CIs – Degree of familiarity in the form
of hierarchy of determined reference
Hierarchy of determined reference
• Maximality presupposition: ∃!x P(x)
• Affirmative CIs:
A. discourse-oldness (=anaphoricity)
B. hearer-oldness
Hierarchy of determined reference
A. Discourse-oldness (+DO): The speaker
believes the addressee knows there is a maximal
element satisfying the definite description
belonging to some subset of the universe of
discourse.
BELIEVE(I, (KNOW (you, ∃! 𝑥(𝑃𝑥 ˄ (x ∈ 𝑈𝐷)))))
Hierarchy of determined reference
• Good for: anaphorical definites
(2) A student arrived. The student was helpless.
• This allows extensionally non-referential
anaphoras in opaque contexts with empty
descriptions.
(3) Everyone warned me of the witch in the
cave. Yet, I was not afraid because I know the
witch does not exist.
Hierarchy of determined reference
• For non-anaphorical definites the negative
counterpart of the CI will be implied (-DO):
BELIEVE(I, (KNOW (you, ¬∃! 𝑥(𝑃𝑥 ˄ (x ∈ 𝑈𝐷)))))
Hierarchy of determined reference
• B. Hearer-oldness (+HO):
The speaker believes the addressee knows there
is a maximal element satisfying the definite
description.
BELIEVE (I, (KNOW (you, ∃! 𝑥𝑃𝑥)))
Hierarchy of determined reference
• No empty set denotation.
• Does not require acquaintance.
• More closely related to referentiality in
Strawson (1950) than Donnellan (1966) –
No misdescriptions admitted.
• Good for: uniques
(4) The sun is rising.
Hierarchy of determined reference
• For non-hearer-old definites the negative
counterpart of the CI will be implied (-HO):
¬BELIEVE(I, (KNOW (you, ∃! 𝑥𝑃𝑥)))
Hierarchy of determined reference
• The lack of both discourse-oldness and
hearer-oldness is good for:
• situational definites
(5) Give me the hammer on the table.
Hierarchy of determined reference
• (non-anaphorical) attributive definites
(Russellian quantificational account)
(6) A: I do not know who the current king of
Denmark is.
B: In fact it is a queen – Margarethe II.
No commitment to the existence of a maximal
element satisfying the definite description.
Hierarchy of determined reference
Based on a distinction drawn by Schwarz(2013),
bridging can evoke either +DO or -DO˄+HO
depending on whether it is anaphoric or not.
• +DO (strong definite): relational anaphoras
Relation between antecedent and anaphora is
semantically explicit.
(7) I saw a book. Something about the cover
kept intriguing me.
Hierarchy of determined reference
• -DO˄+HO (weak definite): non-relational
anaphoras
Relation between antecedent and anaphora is
semantically implicit.
(8) I bought a very nice painting. My wife said
she particularly liked the green spots.
Hierarchy of determined reference
• Hierarchy:
Determined reference
Anaphoric
Non-anaphoric
Hearer-old
Non-hearer-old
Hierarchy of determined reference
• The hierarchy does not cover all logical
options, but depicts the possible marking
patterns in language.
•
•
Introduction
Hierarchy of determined reference
• Why CIs?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Typology of languages with multiple definite articles
Hierarchy of determined reference in multiple definite articles
Evidence for CI interpretation
Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
Referential covariation under quantification
Summary
Why CIs?
Indicative tests for discerning presuppositions
and CIs (Levinson, 1983; Potts, 2005):
(I) Presupposition failure with a logically
unembedded presupposition trigger leads to the
loss of truth value in the assertion (or falsity).
Why CIs?
(9) # I stopped playing the piano, but I have
never played the piano.
I played the piano (the presupposition lexically
triggered by stopped) is either false (Russell,
1905) or undefined (Strawson, 1950), never
true.
Why CIs?
Conversely, infelicitous flouting of a CI does not
affect the truth value of the assertion,
which can be true independently of the truth
value of the CI.
Why CIs?
(10) "Alex met Probal, the president of the
World Esperanto Association."
-> No, that's not true, Alex did not meet Probal.
-> #No, that's not true, Probal is not the
president of the World Esperanto Association.
Alex met Probal could be true or false regardless
of the truth value of the identity between Probal
and the description, which is a CI triggered by
the apposition.
Why CIs?
(II) Presuppositions can project, but do not have
to If the presupposition trigger is logically
embedded, presuppositions can be cancelled
(local accommodation).
Example – polemic negation:
(11) I did not stop playing the piano because I
have never played the piano.
Why CIs?
Conversely, CIs must project and they can never
be flouted (conjunctive addition) regardless of
syntactic structure.
(12) # It is not true he is smart but rich. Being
smart has nothing to do with being rich.
Here the CI is the contrary relation between
smart and rich.
Why CIs?
Application to definites:
(I) The cancellation of logically unembedded
maximality leads to the loss of truth value in the
assertion (Strawson, 1950) or its falsity (Russell,
1905).
(13) # I saw the Harry Potter movie. In fact there
are 8, of which I only saw the third.
Here the assertion I saw the HP movie cannot be
true.
Why CIs?
This does not happen with the infelicitous flouting
of the CIs of determined reference.
(14) # A studenti came by. The studentj asked me a
question. In fact, it was not the student who came
by.
Truth value of assertion the studentj asked me a
question can be true regardless of the infelicitous
reference!
(This can be stipulated if pointing is applied, for
example.)
Why CIs?
• Second indicative test will be applied to
definites later.
•
•
Introduction
Hierarchy of determined reference
•
Why CIs?
• Typology of languages with multiple definite
articles
•
•
•
•
•
Hierarchy of determined reference in multiple definite articles
Evidence for CI interpretation
Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
Referential covariation under quantification
Summary
Typology of languages with multiple
definite articles
• Typology to provide morpho-syntactic
categories.
• Semantic distinction between strong, weak
and super-weak definite articles to be
explained below.
Typology of languages with multiple
definite articles
(1) Strong and weak definite articles in a two
definite articles system, phonologically unrelated:
• Northern Frisian (Germanic, Indo-European) –
strong: di/det, weak: a/at (Ebert, 1970), but see
p.c. Faltings.
• Sioux (Lakota) (Mississippi Valley, Siouan) –
strong: k’uN, weak: kiN (Boas & Deloria, 1941;
Rood & Taylor, 1996; van Vallin, 2012), both
interpreted as topic marker in Ingham (2003).
Typology of languages with multiple
definite articles
(2) Strong and weak definite articles in a three
definite articles system:
• Forest Enets (Samoyedic, Uralic) – strong: r,
weak: da (Siegl, 2013; Gerland & Wratil, 2015)
• Nganasan (Samoyedic, Uralic) – strong: rǝ, weak:
zu (Schröder, 2006)
• Mari (Uralic) – strong: yd, weak: ys (Schlachter,
1960; Klumpp, 2009)
• Northern Frisian (Germanic, Indo-European)
strong: di/det, weak: a, super-weak: a/at (p.c.
Faltings)
Typology of languages with multiple
definite articles
(3) Strong and weak definite articles, weak
definite is a contracted strong definite:
• German dialects (Germanic, Indo-European) –
Alemannic German: strong: dε/di/das, weak:
de/d/s (Studler , 2011), also Himmelmann
(1996) for Franconian German.
• Hausa (Chadic, Afro-Asiatic) – strong: ɗin,
weak: n/r (Jaggar, 2001), strong one identical
with demonstrative (Buba, 1997)
Typology of languages with multiple
definite articles
(4) Strong and weak definite article, strong one
identical with the demonstrative:
• Malagasy (Malayo-Polynesian, Austronesian) –
strong: ilay, weak: ny (Ferrand, 1903; Fugier,
1999)
• Hausa (see (3))
Typology of languages with multiple
definite articles
(5) Only strong definite article:
• Nenets (Samoyedic, Uralic) – strong: da/ta
(Hajdu, 1963)
• Hidatsa (Missouri River, Siouan) – strong: s
(Matthews, 1965)
• Fon (Fongbe) (Kwa, Niger-Congo) –
strong: ɔ (Lefebvre & Brousseau, 2002)
Typology of languages with multiple
definite articles
• Twi (Akan) (Kwa, Niger-Kongo) – strong: no
(Addai Boadi, 2010)
• Mupun (Mwaghavul) (Chadic, Afro-Asiatic) –
strong: ɗi (Frajzynger, 1993)
• Mangarayi (Mangaray-Maran) – strong: gi
(Merlan, 1982)
• Mauritian Creole (Bourbonnais Creoles) –
strong: la, but extended (Wespel, 2008;
Syea, 2013), intepreted as a specificity
marker by Guillemin (2011)
Typology of languages with multiple
definite articles
(6) Two definite articles, unrelated to the
hierarchy of determined reference:
• Scandinavian (Swedish, Danish, Norwegian)
(Germanic, Indo-European) –
• Distinction purely syntactic (cf. Dahl, 2004),
depending on the presence of a modifier for
example.
•
•
Introduction
Hierarchy of determined reference
•
•
Why CIs?
Typology of languages with multiple definite articles
• Hierarchy of determined reference in
multiple definite articles
•
•
•
•
Evidence for CI interpretation
Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
Referential covariation under quantification
Summary
Hierarchy of determined reference in
multiple definite articles
Schwarz (2013) :
• strong definite article – anaphoric definites
• weak definite articles – non-anaphoric ones
• Definite article can be phonologically empty.
Hierarchy of determined reference in
multiple definite articles
In current model:
• Languages with two definite articles:
Strong definite article: +DO
Weak definite article: -DO
• Languages with three definite articles:
Strong definite article: +DO
Weak definite article: -DO,-HO
Super-weak definite article: -DO,-HO
Hierarchy of determined reference in
multiple definite articles
Semantic maps – contiguous covering
(Haspelmath, 2000).
Lexical example:
tree
German Baum
Danish trae
French arbre
Spanish árbol
wood (stuff)
Holz
trae
bois
madera
firewood
Holz
trae
bois
leña
small forest
Wald
skov
forêt
bosque
large forest
Wald
skov
forêt
selva
Hierarchy of determined reference in
multiple definite articles
Grammatical example:
emphatic full
grooming/
reflexive reflexive body motion
anticausative
potential
passive
passive
|——————————| English himself
|—————————————| Classical Latin se
|—————————————————————| Late Latin se
|————————————————————————|French se
Italian si |—————————————————————————————|
Surselvan (Romansch) se-|——————————————————————|
Swedish –s
|——————————————————|
Hierarchy of determined reference in
multiple definite articles
Application of semantic maps to the typology of
definite articles.
1)
Uniqueness
+HO˄-DO
+DO
Languages: Northern Firian, Forest Enets, Mari
Hierarchy of determined reference in
multiple definite articles
2)
Uniqueness
+HO˄-DO
+DO
Languages: Sioux, Alemannic German, Twi,
Mangarayi
3)
Uniqueness +HO˄-DO
+DO
Languages: English, Arabic, Q‘ekchi‘
Hierarchy of determined reference in
multiple definite articles
• Languages with the mapping (2) or (3) are
vague (underspecified) as to the grammatical
distinction between the semantic categories.
• Attributive definites (-HO) appear not
constitute a unit in the semantic map. For
example, both strong and weak definites are
allowed in Standard German in non-referential
uses (own work).
Hierarchy of determined reference in
multiple definite articles
• If a langugae has a phonologically realised
indefinite article and no overt definite article a
null definite article is assumed.
• If the realm of the definite article is divided into
two morpho-syntactic categories and one of
them is covert, it will be the weak one.
• If the realm of the definite article is divided into
three morpo-syntactic categories and one of
them is covert, it will be the super-weak one.
Evidence for CI interpretation
•
•
Introduction
Hierarchy of determined reference
•
•
•
Why CIs?
Typology of languages with multiple definite articles
Hierarchy of determined reference in multiple definite articles
• Evidence for CI interpretation
•
•
•
Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
Referential covariation under quantification
Summary
Evidence for CI interpretation
• Standard German:
von dem/vom (from the)
bei dem/beim (by the)
zu dem/zum and zu der/zur (to the)
in das/ins (to the)
Evidence for CI interpretation
• Both forms are very frequent.
• Used to distinguish strong and weak definites
(Schwarz, 2013)
(15) Hans ging zum/zu dem Haus.
Hans went to the (weak/strong) house.
Evidence for CI interpretation
• Hypothesis: Non-anaphoricity (-DO) is a CI,
therefore, its flouting should be infelicitous.
• Therefore: If the hypothesis is correct
cataphoric definites with weak definite articles
should be ungrammatical, even under the
scope of negation.
• Contrary: If non-anaphoricity is a
presupposition it should be cancellable if
under the scope of negation.
Evidence for CI interpretation
(16) Weil ich eh nicht zu dem/zum Fest
gegangen wäre, hat mein Ex-Mann mich
gar nicht erst zu seiner Hochzeit eingeladen.
Because I wouldn‘t go to the(strong/weak) party
anyway my ex-husband didn‘t invite me to his
wedding in the first place.
Evidence for CI interpretation
(17) Weil ich nicht an dem/am Lauf
teilgenommen habe, hat dieses Jahr jemand
anderes den Berlinmarathon gewonnen.
Because I didn‘t participate in the(strong/weak)
run someone else won the Berlin Marathon this
year.
Evidence for CI interpretation
(18) Weil ich nicht sonderlich an dem/am
Möbelstück hänge, werde ich den Schrank beim
nächsten Sperrmüll rausschmeißen.
Because I‘m not particularly attached to
the(strong/weak) piece of furniture, I will
through away my cupboard with the next bulk
trash.
Evidence for CI interpretation
• Plan to examine grammaticality judgments of
native speakers of both contracted (weak) and
full (strong) forms.
• Future fieldwork on:
Northern Frisian (Volkert Faltings, Ferring
Stiftung)
Alemannic German (Elvira Glaser, Zurich
University)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Hierarchy of determined reference
Why CIs?
Typology of languages with multiple definite articles
Hierarchy of determined reference in multiple definite articles
Evidence for CI interpretation
• Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
•
•
Referential covariation under quantification
Summary
Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
Northern Frisian:
• West-Germanic language, most closely related to
the other Frisian languages (Eastern Frisian and
Western Frisian) next to English
• Formerly considered a dialect of Frisian, now
consensually classified as a language (certainly
not mutually intelligible, substantial grammatical
variation)
• Recognised minority language in Germany and EU
Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
• 10000-8000 speakers (Schleswig-Holstein,
2015)
• All speakers fluent in standard German as well
as Low German (highly diglossic environment)
• Great influence from Low German and Danish
• Potentially endangered, education available in
Northern Frisian (school as well as university)
• Major break between insular and mainland
dialectal groups
Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
• According to p.c. Faltings: threefold system of
definite articles
• Strong article di/det diachronically derived
from the demonstrative dihear/didiar.
• Weak article is a reduced super-weak article
a/at.
• Ebert (1970) only mentions strong and superweak forms.
• Indefinite article an.
Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
•
•
•
•
All data from Ferring-Amrum dialect
No data on other dialects (Sölring, Mooring)
Distinction missing in Eastern and Western Frisian
Similar distinction present in Southern Juttish
dialect of Danish (Ebert, 1970; Faltings, p.c.) –
regional diffusion
• Threefold distinction disappearing in FerringAmrum, strong form disappearing in younger
speakers (p.c. Faltings)
Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
• Ferring Stiftung in Alkersum promotes
research on Northern Frisian as well as school
material and radio programmes
• Native speakers of Northern Frisian from all
ages available – focus on speakers older than
40
Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
• First Phase: Study of the use of the three
definite articles through
• both judgments and elicitation
• Second Phase: Judgments of cataphoric
sentences with negation in order to determine
status of inference
Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
Further plans pending financing:
• Other dialects of Northern Frisian
• Southern Juttish dialect of Danish
• Language change in Northern Frisian
(synchronic and diachronic)
•
•
Introduction
Hierarchy of determined reference
•
•
•
•
•
Why CIs?
Typology of languages with multiple definite articles
Hierarchy of determined reference in multiple definite articles
Evidence for CI interpretation
Fieldwork on Northern Frisian
• Referential covariation under quantification
•
Summary
Referential covariation under
quantification
• Problem: Referential covariation under
quantification
(19) Every student has a mentor and the mentor
needs to meet her twice a year.
• If referentiality is a CI how can the quantifier
take scope over it hence preventing it from
projecting?
Referential covariation under
quantification
• Comparable case:
(20) Jede Katze denkt, dass der Nachbarshund es
zum Glück nicht merkt, wenn sie über den Zaun
springt.
Every cat thinks that the neighbour’s dog
fortunately does not notice when it jumps over
the fence.
Referential covariation under
quantification
• Zum Glück (fortunately) is an evaluative
adverb which brings about a CI: It is fortunate
for x that P.
• Conjunctive interpretation without
covariation:
CI: It is fortunate for x (x=the speaker) that P.
Referential covariation under
quantification
• According to 20 readings judgments most
natural reading:
Every cat thinks: It is fortunate that P.
• Hence, CI: For every x that is a cat, it is
fortunate for x that P.
Referential covariation under
quantification
• The universal quantifier takes scope over the CI.
The variable in the CI covaries with the variable
bound by the quantifier.
• Conclusion: Covariation under quantification
required independently of interpretation of
referentiality in definites.
• Probably, quantifiers can (should?) take scope
over CIs.
Conclusions
• Uniqueness and anaphoricity follow distinct
inference patterns
• Two degrees of determined reference can
account for more occurrences of definite
article.
• Account for languages with three definite
articles.
References
• Addai Boadi, Laurence (2010). The Akan noun phrase. Accra: Black Mask.
• Ariel, Mira (1990). Accessing noun phrases antecedents. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
• Boas, Franz and Deloria, Ella Cara (1941/2011). Dakota grammar.
Cincinnati: Whitefish.
• Buba, Malami (1997). “The deictic particle DI-N in Hausa”. African
languages and cultures. 10/1: 29-45.
• Christophersen, Paul (1939). The articles. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
• Dahl, Östen (2004). “Definite articles in Scandinavian”. In: Kortmann,
Bernd. (ed.). Dialectology meets typology. Berlin: Gruyter.
• Donnellan, Keith (1966/1998). “Reference and definite descriptions”. In:
Ostertag, Gary (ed.). Definite descriptions. pp. 173-193. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
• Ebert, Karen H. (1970). Referenz, Sprechsituation und die bestimmten
Artikel in einem nordfriesischen Dialekt (Fering). Kiel: Nordfriisk Instituut.
References
•
•
•
•
Ferrand, Gabriel(1903/2010). Grammaire malgache. Munich: Lincom.
Frajzynger, Zygmunt (1993) A grammar of Mupun. Berlin: Reimer.
Fugier, Huguette (1999). Sytaxe malgache. Louvain-la-neuve: Peeters.
Gerland, Doris; Wratil, Melani (2015). Information structuring and
definiteness marking in Forest Enets. Ms.
• Guillemin, Diana (2011). The syntax and semantics of a determiner
system. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Gundel, Jeanette K.; Hedberg, Nancy; Zacharski, Ron (1993). “Cognitive
status and the form of referring expressions in discourse”. Language 69(2):
274–307.
References
• Hajdu, Peter (1963). The Samoyed peoples and languages. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
• Haspelmath, Martin (2000). “The geometry of grammatical meaning:
Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison”. In: Tomasello, Michael
(ed.). The new psychology of language, vol. 2: Mahwah. New York:
Erlbaum.
• Hawkins, John A. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness. London: Croom
Helm.
• Heim, Irene R. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun
phrases. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts.
• Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (1996). Demonstratives in Narrative Discourse.
In: Fox, Barbara (ed.). Studies in Anaphora. pp. 203–252. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
• Ingham, Bruce (2003). Lakota. Munich: Lincom.
References
• Jaggar, Philipp J. (2001). Hausa. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Jespersen, Otto (1943). A modern English grammar on historical
principles. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
• Klumpp, Gerson (2009). “Identifiability, givenness and zero-marked
referential objects in Komi“ . In: Dufter, Andreas; Fleischer, Jürg; Seiler,
Guido (eds.). Describing and Modeling Variation in Grammar. pp. 325–
359. Berlin: Gruyter.
• Landman, Fred (1991). Structures for semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Lefebvre, Claire and Brousseau, Anne-Marie (2002). A grammar of
Fongbe. Berlin: Gruyter
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Link, Godehard (1983). “The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a
lattice-theoretical approach”. In: Bäuerle, Rainer; Schwarze, Christoph; von
Stechow, Arnim (eds.). Meaning, use and interpretation of language, Berlin:
Gruyter.
Maetzner, Eduard A. F. (1885). Englische Grammatik. Berlin: Weidmannsche
Buchhandlung.
Matthews, George H. (1965). Hidatsa syntax. London: Mouton.
Merlan, Francesca (1982/1989). Mangarayi. London: Routeledge
Potts, Christopher (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Landesportal Schleswig-Holstein, http://www.schleswigholstein.de/DE/Fachinhalte/M/minderheiten/minderheiten_friesen.html,
retrieved: 27.10.2015
References
• Roberts, Craige (2003). “Uniqueness in definite noun phrases”. Linguistics
and Philosophy 26:287–350.
• Rood, David S.; Allan R. Taylor (1996). “Sketch of Lakhota”. In: Goddard,
Ives (ed.). Hand- book of north American Indians. 17: 440–482.
Washington: Smithsonian Institution. <lakxo- taiyapi.freecyberzone.com>
retrieved: 23.6.2015.
• Russell, Bertrand (1905/1998). “On denoting”. In: Ostertag, Gary (ed.).
Definite descriptions. pp. 35-49. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
• Schlachter, Wolfgang (1960). Studien zum Possessivsuffix des
Syrjänischen. Akademischer Verlag: Berlin.
• Schroeder, Christoph (2006). “Articles and article systems in some areas of
Europe”. In: Bernini, Giuliano (ed.). Pragmatic organization of discourse in
the languages of Europe. Berlin: Gruyter.
• Schwarz, Florian (2013). “Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically”.
Language and linguistics compass 7/10: 534-559.
References
• Sharvy, Richard (1980). “A More General Theory of Definite Descriptions”.
The Philosophical Review 89: 607-23.
• Siegl, Florian (2013). Materials on Forest Enets, an indiginous language of
northern Siberia. Tartu: Tartu University Press.
• Strawson, Peter F. (1950/1998). “On referring”. In: Ostertag, Gary (ed.).
Definite descriptions. pp. 135-160. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
• Studler, Rebekka (2011): Artikelparadigmen. Doctoral dissertation.
University of Zurich.
• Syea, Anand (2013). The syntax of Mauritian Creole. London: Bloomsbury.
• van Vallin Jr., Robert D. (2012). Definiteness in Lakhota. Ms.
• Wespel, Johannes (2008). Descriptions and their domains. Doctoral
dissertation. University of Stuttgart.