A Scandinavian Perspective on Swedish Indefinite
Determiners
Joakim Nivre
1
Introduction
In Swedish, as in many other languages, the unmarked determiner in singular
indefinite noun phrases is the indefinite article (IA), realized as en (common
gender) or ett (neuter gender). Semantically, noun phrases determined by the
indefinite article are usually taken to express some kind of existential
quantification; pragmatically, they are often used to introduce new discourse
referents. Thus, a typical use of the sentence in (1a) entails the pseudo-logical
form in (1b) and introduces a new referent for the car that has been bought:
(1)
a.
b.
Hon har köpt en bil.
she has bought IA car
‘She has bought a car.’
x[car(x)  she has bought(x)]
However, the indefinite article is not the only determiner that may occur in
indefinite noun phrases in Swedish. Another possibility is the determiner någon
(neuter något, plural några), which I will provisionally call the ‘existential
determiner’ (ED). It seems to be the standard view that the indefinite article en
and the existential determiner någon are both used to express existential
quantification, and that they differ mainly in their distribution. Thus, the
existential determiner would typically be used in negative polarity contexts,
such as the sentence (2a) with the interpretation indicated in (2b):
1
(2)
a.
b.
Hon har inte köpt någon bil.
she has not bought ED car
‘She hasn’t bought a/any car.’
x[car(x)  she has bought(x)]
Although the examples given so far may give the impression that the
indefinite article and the existential determiner are in complementary
distribution, they can also occur in the same contexts. And when they do, they
seem to give rise to fairly subtle differences in meaning. It is interesting to note
that Swedish differs in this respect from languages as closely related as Danish
and Norwegian, where the cognates of någon (nogen in Danish, noen in
Norwegian) have a much more restricted distribution.
In this article, we will use the contrastive Scandinavian perspective as a key
to analyzing the system of indefinite determiners in Swedish, and especially
what appears to be a wider use of the existential determiner någon. In delimiting
the subject area, we will make two important restrictions. First, we will limit our
attention to the two determiners discussed so far, i.e., the existential determiner
någon and the indefinite article en. Secondly, we will only discuss their use with
singular nouns, in particular singular count nouns. The reason for the second
restriction, besides making the topic manageable, is that the extended use of the
existential determiner in Swedish seems to be exclusively confined to singular
count nouns. Therefore, plurals and mass terms will be discussed only to the
extent that they can contribute further to our understanding of the way in which
indefinite determiners are used with singular count nouns in Swedish.
2
Referential Noun Phrases
We will use the term referential noun phrase in a broad sense about any
(indefinite) noun phrase that can be said to have a referent, real or imagined,
actual or possible. The reference can be specific as in (1) or non-specific as in
(2). The distinction between specific and non-specific uses, as defined here, only
depends on whether existential generalization is a valid inference and has
2
nothing to do with whether the speaker ‘has a particular referent in mind’ or not.
Thus, our notions of specific and non-specific indefinite reference are essentially
the ones found in Lyons (1977). They are also the ones used by Haspelmath
(1997) in his typological study on indefinite pronouns and by Teleman et al
(1999) in the analysis of Swedish noun phrases.
In discussing the use of indefinite determiners in referential noun phrases in
Swedish, it is important to take into account whether the noun phrase occurs in a
negative polarity context or not, since this has a major influence on the choice of
determiner. We will therefore begin by considering the use of indefinite
determiners in negative polarity contexts in section 2.1, and discuss their use in
other contexts in section 2.2.
2.1 Negative Polarity Contexts
It is well known that many languages contain expressions that typically occur
in a specific class of contexts, most prominently under the scope of negation.
These expressions are usually called negative polarity items (NPI) and their
licensing contexts negative polarity contexts (NPC). Typical NPCs, besides
negation, are interrogative sentences, the antecedents of conditional sentences,
generic sentences, comparative constructions and the scope of quantificational
noun phrases headed by certain determiners (such as no and few in English). In
this paper, we will define the class of NPCs rather narrowly to include only
sentences with negation and polar interrogatives (although most of what will be
said about Swedish indefinites probably holds true also of conditionals and
comparatives).
As indicated in the introduction, NPCs are usually considered the unmarked
context for the existential determiner någon in Swedish. This is the view
expressed, for example, by the authors of the Swedish Academy Grammar
(Teleman et al 1999:411) when they assert that, although någon is sometimes
used to denote an approximate quantity or number, it is more typically used with
3
a very weak sense of quantity, in particular in negative polarity contexts. as
illustrated in the a-sentences in (3–5).
(3)
a.
b.
(4)
a.
b.
(5)
a.
b.
Han har inte gjort någon kaninbur.
he has not made ED rabbit-cage
‘He hasn’t made a/any rabbit cage.’
Han har gjort en kaninbur.
he has made IA rabbit-cage
‘He has made a rabbit cage.’
Fick de något kaffe?
got they ED coffee
‘Did they get any coffee?’
De fick kaffe.
they got coffee
‘They got (some) coffee.’
Får du några pengar på torsdag?
get you ED money on Thursday
‘Will you get (any) money on Thursday’
Du får pengar på torsdag.
you get money on Thursday
‘You will get money on Thursday.’
The existential determiner någon appears to be the unmarked choice of
indefinite determiner for all nouns in NPCs, regardless of whether it can occur
with these nouns in other contexts. Thus, the a-sentences in (3–5) can all be seen
as the unmarked negative/interrogative counterparts of the declarative bsentences. In (3b) we have a singular count noun, construed with the indefinite
article en. In (4b) and (5b), we have a mass noun and a plural noun, respectively,
both of which are construed with no indefinite determiner at all. However, in all
three cases, the existential determiner någon is normally used in the
corresponding NPCs.
The unmarked status of någon in NPCs is reflected also in the fact that, in
cases where the indefinite article is used instead, this invariably seems to give
rise to a special and more restricted interpretation (as opposed to mere
4
existential quantification). For example, consider example (6), which is the same
as (3a) except that the existential determiner någon has been replaced by the
indefinite article en:
(6)
Han har inte gjort en kaninbur.
he has not made IA rabbit-cage
‘He hasn’t made a rabbit cage.’
Although (6) is a perfectly natural sentence in Swedish, it would not
normally be used to simply assert that no rabbit cage has been produced. Rather,
it would be used in contexts where there would be a more specific reason for
denying the truth of (3b). Two such uses are indicated in (7):
(7)
a.
b.
Han har inte gjort en kaninbur, han har gjort en fågelbur.
he has not made IA rabbit-cage, he has made IA bird-cage
‘He hasn’t made a rabbit cage, he has made a bird cage.’
Han har inte gjort en kaninbur, han har gjort många.
he has not made IA rabbit-cage, he has made many
‘He hasn’t made one rabbit cage, he has made many.’
In (7a), the negation applies primarily to the head noun. What is being denied
is not the existence of a produced cage, but the classification of this product as a
rabbit cage. In (7b), it is instead the cardinality of the set of produced cages that
is at stake, i.e. the number of cages is not one, but more than one. This
interpretation is possible because the indefinite article in Swedish is identical to
the numeral meaning ‘one’, but it is more natural if the determiner is stressed.
The common denominator of these two interpretations is that the use of the
indefinite article seems to give rise to some kind of existential presupposition,
which is never the case when the existential determiner is used under the scope
of negation. A similar phenomenon is found in other types of examples where
the indefinite article is used instead of the existential determiner despite the
context being, at least superficially, of the negative polarity type:
5
(8)
Har du redan köpt en julgran?
have you already bought IA Christmas-tree
‘Have you already bought a Christmas tree?’
(9)
Kan du gå ner och köpa en tändsticksask åt mig?
can you go down and buy IA matchbox for me
‘Can you go down and buy me a matchbox?’
Teleman et al (1999) explain the use of en in these examples by referring to
the speaker’s assumption that there exists a referent for the indefinite noun
phrases and that the proposition expressed is or will be true. Thus, (8) is an
example of a question presupposing a positive answer. (The speaker assumes
that a christmas tree will be bought; the question is when.) In (9), we have an
example of an interrogative sentence used to make a request. In this case, it may
be argued that we are not dealing with a proper NPC, since we are not dealing
with a genuine question. However, the crucial point is that the speaker expresses
a propositional content that he thinks (or hopes) will be true at some point in the
near future, which means that there will also be a referent for the noun phrase en
tändsticksask (a matchbox). As a tentative generalization, we may therefore
conclude that the indefinite article en is used in NPCs primarily when there is
some kind of existence presupposition attached to the noun phrase in question,
whereas the existential determiner is the unmarked choice when no such
presupposition exists.
Let us now compare the Swedish data with the situation in the other two
languages of Mainland Scandinavian. In Norwegian, both the existential
determiner noen and the indefinite article en occurs regularly in negative
polarity contexts, as exemplified in (10–11):
6
(10) a.
b.
(11) a.
b.
Hun møtte ikke noen student.
she met not ED student
‘She didn’t meet a/any student.’
Hun møtte ikke en student.
she met not IA student
‘She didn’t meet a student.’
Møtte hun noen student?
met she ED student
‘Did she meet a/any student?’
Møtte hun en student?
met she IA student
‘Did she meet a student?’
However, it seems that the existential determiner is used less widely than in
Swedish and the indefinite article is often preferred also in negative polarity
contexts. Thus, the b-sentences in (10–11), rather than the a-sentences, would
appear to be the unmarked alternatives. With regard to the interrogatives in (11)
it may be noted that whereas (11b) is neutral with respect to the expected
polarity of the answer, (11a) seems to carry the implication that a negative
answer is expected, or at least that a positive answer is improbable. This can be
compared to the situation in Swedish, where the existential determiner någon is
normally preferred in neutral questions, while the indefinite article en is often
used when a positive answer is expected (cf. example 8 above).
In Danish the distribution of the existential determiner nogen in negative
polarity contexts is even more restricted and seems to be confined exclusively to
sentences with negation:
(12) a.
b.
Hun mødte ikke nogen student.
she met not ED student
‘She didn’t meet a/any student.’
Hun mødte ikke en student.
she met not IA student
‘She didn’t meet a student.’
7
(13) a.
b.
*Mødte hun nogen student?
met she ED student
Mødte hun en student?
met she IA student
‘Did she meet a student?’
In contrast to the corresponding Norwegian example (11a), the interrogative
in (13a) is simply ungrammatical and the indefinite article en is the only
possibility. And even in sentences with negation, exemplified in (12), the
indefinite article en is the unmarked alternative. Thus, while (12b) is a simple
denial of the proposition that she met a student, (12a) is an emphatic version
(even though the determiner is unstressed) which can be paraphrased as ‘she met
no student whatsoever’. Again, this contrasts with the Swedish situation where
någon is the unmarked alternative with negation, whereas the indefinite article
en triggers a special interpretation.
Summing up the discussion so far, we may conclude that the existential
determiner (as well as the indefinite article) occurs in negative polarity contexts
in all three languages examined. But there are also differences in the extent to
which the existential determiner may be used as an alternative to the indefinite
article. Swedish clearly has the most extended use, making the existential
determiner the unmarked choice in NPCs, while Danish has the most restricted
use, allowing the existential determiner only in sentences with negation and
even then with a marked interpretation.
2.2 Other Contexts
In referential noun phrases outside NPCs the indefinite article is clearly the
unmarked indefinite determiner for singular count nouns. And although the
existential determiner någon can often be used in its place, this invariably seems
to give rise to a special interpretation. For example, Teleman et al (1999)
observe that någon can be used about a specific referent in cases where the
8
speaker is not able or does not find it relevant to identify the referent. Consider
example (14):
(14) a.
b.
Jag talade med en medicinsk expert.
I spoke with IA medical expert
‘I spoke to a medical expert.’
Jag talade med någon medicinsk expert.
I spoke with ED medical expert
‘I spoke to some medical expert.’
By using (14b) instead of (14a) the speaker signals that he lacks information
about the referent of the noun phrase (or considers this information less
important). It may be the case, for example, that he only spoke to the expert on
the phone and didn’t get the name, so all he knows is that the person was a
medical expert. In other cases, the lack of information may concern not the
identity of the referent but its subtype (within the type denoted by the head
nominal):
(15) Hon åt någon smörgås till lunch.
she ate ED sandwich for lunch
‘She had some (kind of) sandwich for lunch.’
The most natural interpretation of (15b) is one where the speaker expresses
uncertainty about the kind of sandwich she had for lunch. Yet another variation
on the ‘lack of information’ theme can be found in cases where there is
uncertainty about whether the head nominal is applicable to the referent at all:
(16) Jag fick prata med någon assistent eller (någon) sekreterare.
I got-to talk with ED assistant or (ED) secretary
‘They let me talk to some assistant or (some) secretary.’
Although it is possible to interpret (16) as saying that the person spoken to
was either an assistent or a secretary but the speaker does not know which, it is
9
probably more commonly used to express uncertainty about the person’s correct
title (assistant, secretary or something else).
In all the cases considered so far, the use of the existential determiner någon
instead of the indefinite article en is most naturally interpreted as signaling lack
of information on the part of the speaker. In other cases, the information may not
be lacking but is rather considered less important:
(17) Jag läste i någon tidning att besinpriset skulle gå upp.
I read in ED newspaper that gas-price-DEF should go up
‘I read in some newspaper that the gas price should go up.’
In uttering (17), the speaker may very well know in which newspaper he got
the information but wants to signal that the important piece of information is the
prediction about the gas price, not which newspaper it was found in. This ‘lack
of importance’ use is often found in derogatory remarks, especially when
applied to human beings:
(18) a.
b.
Hon skulle gå ut med någon överklasstönt.
she should go out with ED upper-class-jerk
‘She was going out with some upper class jerk.’
Jag blev påkörd av någon jävla idiot på cykel.
I was run-over by ED damn fool on bicycle
‘I was run over by some damn fool on a bicycle.’
One way of bringing out the difference in interpretation between en and
någon in specific noun phrases is to add a phrase beginning in nämligen
(namely) which gives more information about the referent. In (19) we have two
variations on an earlier example:
(19) a.
b.
Jag talade med en medicinsk expert, nämligen doktor Frisk
I spoke with IA medical expert, namely doctor Frisk
‘I spoke to a medical expert, namely Doctor Frisk’
??
Jag talade med någon medicinsk expert, nämligen doktor Frisk
I spoke with ED medical expert, namely doctor Frisk
‘I spoke to some medical expert, namely Doctor Frisk.’
10
(19a) is a perfectly natural sentence, where the speaker uses the indefinite
noun phrase en medicinsk expert to introduce a referent and goes on to identify
the referent also by name. By contrast, (19b) gives a very odd impression,
apparently because the addition of more information about the referent is
incompatible with the ‘lack of information’ interpretation of the noun phrase
någon medicinsk expert.
The contrast between en and någon in referential noun phrases is not limited
to the case of specific reference. A very similar contrast can be observed in nonspecific referential uses:
(20) a.
b.
(21) a.
b.
De vill att jag ska gå en kurs.
they want that I shall go IA course
‘They want me to take a course.’
De vill att jag ska gå någon kurs.
they want that I shall go ED course
‘They want me to take some course.’
Alla borde läsa en bok då och då.
Everyone should read IA book then and then
‘Everyone should read a book from time to time.’
Alla borde läsa någon bok då och då.
Everyone should read ED book then and then
‘Everyone should read some book from time to time.’
A sentence like (20a) is ambiguous between a specific and a non-specific
interpretation for the noun phrase en kurs. The same kind of ambiguity is present
in (20b) but the use of the existential determiner någon adds a further
component to each interpretation. If någon kurs is given a specific interpretation
then the effect of using the existential determiner någon is the same as in the
examples discussed earlier, that is, the speaker indicates that he cannot or will
not say which particular course it is. If, on the other hand, we interpret någon
kurs as non-specific, then the implication is that the persons referred to by they
do not know or do not care which course it is. This may seem surprising at first
but has a straightforward explanation if we assume that the non-specific
11
interpretation is a de dicto interpretation, that is, the noun phrase någon kurs is
not the speaker’s description of the referent but a description attributed to the
referent of they. Thus, the common element in both interpretations is that någon
signals lack of information; in the specific (de re) case this lack of information is
attributed to the speaker; in the non-specific (de dicto) case it is attributed to
whomever is the source of the noun phrase description.
In (21) we have another kind of ambiguity due to the universally quantified
noun phrase alla (everyone). In this case, the non-specific interpretation of en
bok/någon bok is simply a narrow scope reading and the noun phrase description
cannot be attributed to anyone else than the speaker. The use of någon in this
case seems to indicate that the speaker does not put any constraints on which
books people should read (any book will do), but the contrast with the indefinite
article is less salient than in the examples discussed earlier, presumably because
the non-specific reading in itself implies that the speaker has very little
information about the possible referents, regardless of which determiner is used.
Let us now turn back to the contrastive analysis and examine the situation in
Danish and Norwegian. The most striking fact about these languages, when
compared to Swedish, is that the cognates of the existential determiner någon,
Danish nogen, Norwegian noen, are not used at all outside negative polarity
contexts. Thus, regardless of whether the noun phrase is meant to have specific
or non-specific reference, we do not get an acceptable sentence by replacing the
indefinite article with the existential determiner. Instead, the Swedish examples
involving the existential determiner någon can only be rendered using the
complex determiner en eller anden (one or another) in Danish and the
corresponding en eller annen in Norwegian. This is illustrated by the Norwegian
examples in (22–23), with (22) exemplifying the case of specific reference,
while the examples in (23) are ambiguous between a specific and a non-specific
interpretation (‘a particular student’ vs. ‘any student’). (The Danish facts are
exactly parallel.)
12
(22) a.
b.
c.
(23) a.
b.
c.
Hun møtte en student.
she met IA student
‘She met a student.’
*Hun møtte noen student.
she met ED student
Hun møtte en eller annen student.
she met one-or-another student
‘She met some student (or other).’
Hun lette etter en student.
she searched for IA student
‘She was looking for a student.’
*Hun lette etter noen student.
she searched for ED student
Hun lette etter en eller annen student.
she searched for one-or-another student
‘She was looking for some student (or other).’
Simplifying somewhat, we may say that Swedish någon in referential noun
phrases corresponds to its cognates Danish nogen and Norwegian noen when
used as an NPI, and to Danish en eller anden and Norwegian en eller annen in
other uses.
3
Quantitative Noun Phrases
In addition to the referential uses discussed in section 2, indefinite noun
phrases also have a quantitative use. Here are a few illustrative examples::
(24) a.
b.
Lisa var här för en vecka sedan.
Lisa was here for IA week since
‘Lisa was here a week ago.’
Lisa var här för någon vecka sedan.
Lisa was here for ED week since
‘Lisa was here about a week ago.’
13
(25) a.
b.
(26) a.
b.
Vi fortsatte en kilometer genom skogen.
we continued IA kilometer through forest-DEF
‘We continued for a kilometer through the forest.’
Vi fortsatte någon kilometer genom skogen.
we continued ED kilometer through forest-DEF
‘We continued for a kilometer or two through the forest.’
Han brukade hälsa på en gång i månaden.
he used-to visit PRT IA time per month
‘He used to come visit once a month.’
Han brukade hälsa på någon gång i månaden.
he used-to visit PRT ED time per month
‘He used to come visit about once a month.’
In (24a), the noun phrase en vecka is not used to refer to a particular week
(neither real or imagined, actual or possible) but to a particular quantity of time.
Therefore, it would normally be rather odd to use en vecka as the antecedent of a
subsequent anaphoric pronoun. In this kind of noun phrase, the indefinite article
en retains its original meaning ‘one’, while the existential determiner någon
expresses an approximation paraphrased by Teleman et al (1999) as ‘about one,
hardly more than two’.
In Danish and Norwegian, only the indefinite article can be used in this way.
The existential determiners nogen (Danish) and noen (Norwegian) are
completely out, and the ‘approximate numeral’ meaning of Swedish någon can
only be expressed using a paraphrase. Below is an example from Danish:
(27) a.
b.
c.
Det tager en uge.
it takes IA week
‘It takes a week.’
*Det tager nogen uge.
it takes ED week
Det tager en uges tid.
it takes IA week-GEN time
‘It takes about a week.’
14
4
Conclusion
When viewed from a contrastive Scandinavian perspective, the Swedish
existential determiner någon appears to have three fairly distinct uses, where it
contrasts with the indefinite article en in slightly different ways:
1. In NPCs någon is the unmarked determiner in noun phrases with indefinite
reference. The closest equivalent in Danish and Norwegian is nogen and
noen, respectively, although the latter have a more restricted distribution.
2. In other contexts någon is a marked alternative to the indefinite article in
noun phrases with indefinite reference, usually indicating that the speaker is
unable or unwilling to give further information about the referent (or the
class of possible referents). In Danish and Norwegian a similar effect can be
achieved only by using a complex determiner (Danish en eller anden,
Norwegian en eller annen).
3. In quantitative noun phrases någon can be described as an ‘approximate
numeral’, meaning ‘about one’ and contrasting with the indefinite article en
in its numeral sense of ‘(exactly) one’. In Danish and Norwegian there is no
single determiner that expresses this sense.
References
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellber & Erik Andersson 1999. Svenska Akademiens
Grammatik. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.
Joakim Nivre
Växjö University
SE 351 95 Växjö
15