I saw a blackbird vs I've read a book (reference and article usage)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Jutfrank, I would appreciate it if you would clarify for me some things:

1. On the one hand you consider "a blackbird" in "I saw a blackbird" a referring expression. On the other hand, you argue that "a book" in "I've read a book" is non-referential.

I've started reading the book you suggested ("The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases" by Irene Heim). To be honest, I can barely understand 25-30% of the text: too much symbolic logic, too many terms and long complex sentences. It would be difficult even in Russian. But some paragraphs are quite clear. She mentions Kripke's approach. He distinguishes two types of reference: semantic and speaker's:"No utterance of an indefinite has semantic reference. But this does not mean that no such utterance has speaker’s reference. Whether there is speaker’s reference and what the speaker’s referent is depends on the intentions that the speaker of the utterance happens to have. The speaker’s referent is that individual which the speaker “wishes to talk about” (or “has in mind”) on the occasion of the utterance. The notion applies to utterances of indefinites as follows."

Surprisingly, I distinguish these two types of indefinite NPs' reference too:

You:Tell me everything you already know about why we use indefinite articles.
Me: 1) A thing represents an instance of a class/set of objects. The speaker has a certain image of the object in his mind, but the listener doesn’t: “I have a car (= a certain object belonging to the class of cars).” In terms of Kripke's approach, this is speaker's reference.
a) The thing is mentioned for the first time = unknown and/or unidentifiable to the listener.
b) The thing is mentioned more the once, but its indefiniteness is maintained for the sake of logic and semantics:
“I have a car” - “What car?” - “A fast one (= a certain, known only to me example belonging to the set of fast cars).”

2) A thing represents an instance of a class/set of objects. The speaker doesn’t have a certain image of the object in his mind: “I need a car (= any object belonging to the class of cars).”
In terms of Kripke's approach, there is no semantic or speaker's reference here.
a) The thing is mentioned for the first time = unknown and/or unidentifiable to the listener.
b) The thing is mentioned more the once, but its indefiniteness is maintained due to its genericness:
“I need a car” - “Why do you need a car?” - “I need a car because there is no public transport here.”

3) A thing represents a whole class: “A lion is a dangerous animal.” It doesn't matter how many times it has been mentioned in this sense. Its indefiniteness is maintained due to its genericness.
In terms of Kripke's approach, there is no semantic or speaker's reference here.

2. You say "the book" in "I bring with me the book N gave me" is referential. At the same time, you allow for this book being: a) unknown to the listener, b) one of many books: "Even the use of a definite NP here does not allow the listener to conclude that jutfrank gave me only one book (although that is very likely the case). It could be that the purpose of reference here is to distinguish the book from other non-book items rather than from other books. In other words, the point of using 'the' could be just to point out this particular book, regardless of how many other books, if any, jutfrank gave me."

This strikes me as unfathomable. In this case, "the book" is not so different from "a book". I mean if the book is one of many and hasn't been mentioned before/unknown to the listener, I see no reason for using "the" at all. There must be some good reason for pointing such a book out. The quotation above sounds as if the choice of article in this case depended only on the speaker's mood or subjective purposes, whereas many grammar books tell us it's necessary to take into consideration if the listener is aware of the thing we are talking about. I find it quite convincing and follow this advice. I never use articles randomly or intuitively and always have an explanation for myself. And I see only two reasons for using "the" in this case: the speaker already knows of the object or to let him/her know that there is only one book.

As you can see, these are not just theoretical questions for me.

Please correct me if my reconstruction of your statements is wrong.
I hope this thread won't be too long. I believe 40-50 replies would be enough.;-)
 
Last edited:

Charlie Bernstein

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Have you tried clicking on Jutfrank's name to send him private messages? (I know it doesn't always work.)
 

Tarheel

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Alexy, you and jutfrank like those really long posts. That makes two of you.

Frankly, I'm doubtful about how much good that does.
:-|
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Have you tried clicking on Jutfrank's name to send him private messages?

Other members' opinions are also welcome.

Alexy, you and jutfrank like those really long posts. That makes two of you.

Frankly, I'm doubtful about how much good that does.

I wouldn't say that I like long posts. It just happens that way.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Alexy, you and jutfrank like those really long posts. That makes two of you.:-|

:lol:

I'm dedicating the next one to you, Tarheel.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I wouldn't say that I like long posts. It just happens that way.

Believe it or not, I try very hard to keep them as short as possible.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
1. On the one hand you consider "a blackbird" in "I saw a blackbird" a referring expression. On the other hand, you argue that "a book" in "I've read a book" is non-referential.
Don't let this contradiction puzzle you. In the other post that you're referring to, my aim was to explain things very simply. I certainly wasn't going to even mention this complicated question there.

[Kripke] distinguishes two types of reference: semantic and speaker's

Yes, that's a very good distinction, right? I think it's quite widely accepted these days.

The speaker has a certain image of the object in his mind, but the listener doesn’t: “I have a car (= a certain object belonging to the class of cars).” In terms of Kripke's approach, this is speaker's reference.
Yes.

“I need a car (= any object belonging to the class of cars).” In terms of Kripke's approach, there is no semantic or speaker's reference here.

Well, there's no speaker's reference. Whether Kripke thinks there's semantic reference is not clear. I don't think he would commit either way. I'll try to check up on this point. Russell would certainly say there isn't.

“A lion is a dangerous animal.” In terms of Kripke's approach, there is no semantic or speaker's reference here.

As above, I'm not sure what Kripke would say as to whether there is semantic reference. I agree that there is no speaker reference.

2. You say "the book" in "I bring with me the book N gave me" is referential. At the same time, you allow for this book being: a) unknown to the listener, b) one of many books
Yes.

This strikes me as unfathomable. In this case, "the book" is not so different from "a book". I mean if the book is one of many and hasn't been mentioned before/unknown to the listener, I see no reason for using "the" at all. There must be some good reason for pointing such a book out. The quotation above sounds as if the choice of article in this case depended only on the speaker's mood or subjective purposes, whereas many grammar books tell us it's necessary to take into consideration if the listener is aware of the thing we are talking about. I find it quite convincing and follow this advice. I never use articles randomly or intuitively and always have an explanation for myself. And I see only two reasons for using "the" in this case: the speaker already knows of the object or to let him/her know that there is only one book.

Okay, I see what you're saying, and it's all very reasonable. In response, I'd say that although the use of the does depend very much on whether the speaker knows that the hearer
is aware of the existence of the referent, it does not depend entirely on such knowledge.

We quite frequently use definite noun phrases when the hearer is unaware of the existence of their referents, such as when mentioning them for the first time. The act of referring to them is a way of introducing their existence to the hearer. I don't think your example about the book is a good example to illustrate this, however, so here are some different examples:

You're a guest in my house and I say this to you:

The supermarket's closed so we'll have to get a pizza delivered.

It's not necessary that you know which supermarket I'm talking about. Maybe this is your first time at my house and you have no idea about the neighbourhood where I live. You have been completely unaware of the existence of the supermarket up until that point. Part of the information that you can now gather from my utterance is that there is a supermarket. It's also possible, (in fact, quite likely) that there exist other supermarkets in the area, but that, for whatever reason, I have made no mention of them. There could be many imaginable reasons for that. Does that make sense?

Another, literary, example. Imagine this as the first line of a novel:

The old man put on his rubber gloves and locked all the doors of the house.

The writer is beginning to introduce the character to the reader. This use of the cataphoric reference here is a literary device. It's not uncommon. It doesn't mean that there are no other men in the story.

Anyway, despite these examples, it's a pretty good rule of thumb to say that we don't usually refer to something with the if we think the hearer is unaware of the referent's existence, and also to say that we very often use the when the referent is in some sense unique. But neither of these conditions are necessary for specific reference to be made.

Have I understood what you're asking?

 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Have I understood what you're asking?

Yes, you have. But your examples are quite different from mine. I'm familiar with them but didn't mention so as not to complicate things and for the sake of brevity (sounds funny, right?). But I think it's time to analyze them.

The old man put on his rubber gloves and locked all the doors of the house. The writer is beginning to introduce the character to the reader. This use of the cataphoric reference here is a literary device. It's not uncommon. It doesn't mean that there are no other men in the story.

This example perfectly illustrates what I call "a good reason": via this literary device the writer immerses readers into the old man's life from the beginning as if they already knew him and what happened earlier. So, the choice of article here is not a whim, it is essential for creating the right atmosphere. Returning to my "book" example, there is no cataphoric reference there. It's not a joke or a piece of poetry, just an ordinary utterance.

The supermarket's closed so we'll have to get a pizza delivered. It's not necessary that you know which supermarket I'm talking about. It's also possible, (in fact, quite likely) that there exist other supermarkets in the area

This is a well-known example of using "the" with an object that can be objectively non-unique and unfamiliar to the listener. The list goes on: the hospital, the church, the bank, the dentist, the gym and so on. Since the case is very common, many learners have asked for an explanation. Happily, there are some:

1) The reference shifts from physical objects/locations to their functions and people's activity there.
2) The speaker means the nearest place or the one he/she visits routinely.
3) In a given situation there is/was only one supermarket/bank at hand. (I added it after Tarheel replied)

Each of these or their combination is a good reason for using "the". If you change it to "a/an" the utterance will sound unidiomatic, which is not the case in the "book" example, right?

Part of the information that you can now gather from my utterance is that there is a supermarket.

That's the point! I also get some extra information I mentioned above in 1-3).

So, the whole discussion can be effectively boiled down to one simple question: what might be a good reason for using "the" in my example, if the book is unknown to the listener and non-unique? By "reason" I mean context forcing the speaker to use "the".
 
Last edited:

Tarheel

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
A brief note. If I say "The supermarket is closed" I have one particular store in mind.(I am probably unwilling to look around until I find one that's open, or I have reason to believe the others are closed too. (Or I just want a pizza. ;-) ))
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
So, the whole discussion can be effectively boiled down to one simple question: what might be a good reason for using "the" in my example, if the book is unknown to the listener and non-unique? By "reason" I mean context forcing the speaker to use "the".

Okay, that's fair enough.

Can you remind me what the example was again? With the situational context you had in mind.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Okay, that's fair enough. Can you remind me what the example was again? With the situational context you had in mind.

Suppose I come to visit a friend of mine and say, "By the way, I've brought the book with me N gave me for my birthday." My friend wasn't aware of the book. The book is one of several N gave me. What might be the reason for using "the"?
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I'd say the fact that I can't think of one means that it's not a good example. But it doesn't mean there couldn't be one in principle.

In principle, using the would mean that this book is the only one you're thinking about at that particular moment of utterance, not that this was the only book N gave you. I think that's the point I was making in the previous thread. The uniqueness principle doesn't require that a referent be ontologically unique (it doesn't have to be the only one in existence), only psychologically unique (the only one in mind at the moment of reference).
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
The uniqueness principle doesn't require that a referent be ontologically unique (it doesn't have to be the only one in existence), only psychologically unique (the only one in mind at the moment of reference).

I can hardly consider this a good reason. There are two forces in action here: subjective uniqueness and conversational courtesy, so to speak. By the latter I mean: if you can avoid confusing your interlocutor, then avoid it. I see no urgent need for prioritizing psychological uniqueness. Imagine that we are sitting at a table with many books on it. I'm thinking about one of the books of which you're unaware of, and then I say, "Jutfrank, give me the book please." What would be your reaction? Does the subjective uniqueness of the book justify using "the"?
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Yes, that's a good point that you make about conversational courtesy. We have a certain responsibility to make our references clear for the purposes of effective communication.

You're absolutely right, of course. I'd say "Which one?"

The difference between that and the previous example is that in the previous example it doesn't matter which one. It's clear to the listener which book is being referred to.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
The difference between that and the previous example is that in the previous example it doesn't matter which one. It's clear to the listener which book is being referred to.

Do you mean it's clear because the listener can see it?
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Possibly.

Look, I don't want to confuse you and I really don't want to mislead you. My main aim here, as always, is to help you get a better sense of how to use articles. I think we're getting to a point where what I'm saying isn't doing any good. The teacher in me just wants to give in and agree with everything you're saying about the 'the book N gave me' sentence, which is all very reasonable. You're thinking about this in a much more practical way than I am.

Analytic philosophers and logicians alike have been puzzling over and arguing about reference for well over a hundred years. It has baffled even the greatest of minds, so I don't think I'm in a position to tell you how things truly are. I read quite a lot of philosophy of language and I can tell you that arguments over how words refer to things represent a very large share of the academic discourse. At this point in the discussion, I'm really just sharing my own personal insights. I hope you understand that.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
I think we're getting to a point where what I'm saying isn't doing any good.

Please, don't think that way. This is a difficult question I didn't have anyone to discuss and clarify with. I've learnt that the process of clarifying can be confusing sometimes.;-) So, all you are saying is doing good.:)

I'm really just sharing my own personal insights.

And I'm happy with that.:)

Now, I'd like to discuss whether the fact that the listener can see the object the speaker is talking about is enough for using "the" or not.

Context 1:
- Jurfrank, I'd like to show you something.
- I'm intrigued.
- (I take a book out of my bag and hold it in my hands. You can see it at this moment.) I've brought with me the book that N gave me for my birthday.
(I've never mentioned it before. N gave me several books.)

Context 2:
- Jurfrank, I'd like to show you something.
- I'm intrigued.
- (I take a book out of my bag and hold it in my hands. You can see it at this moment.) I've brought the rare book with me. (I've never mentioned it before.)

I think your ability to see the book in context 2 isn't enough for using "the" at all. Do you agree with that? If so, how could it be enough in context 1?
 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Context 1:

Since the referent is immediately and visibly present, it is very easily identifiable. Therefore, a definite noun phrase is appropriate. The best determiner I can think of here is this. I've brought this book that N gave me. That's not to say that an indefinite NP is not also possible and natural. However, when I imagine the utterance, I've brought a book ..., I imagine that you are reaching into your bag at that moment and I can't physically see it yet. The use of an indefinite NP gives the referent a kind of 'openness'. Although you know that I know that the referent exists, you also know that I haven't seen it yet, and that I cannot properly identify it until you have whipped it out and I've laid eyes on it.

I think that there's a complicating factor at play here, though. I think that the relative clause N gave me makes a difference in some way. What I mean is, there's a difference in this context between I've brought a book ... and I've brought a book N gave me. I'm having trouble explaining what this is exactly. I think it's because it seems to be on the one hand open and indefinite (a book) but on the other hand defined (that N gave me). If the relative clause were non-defining (, which N gave), there would be no problem. I think this is why I don't like this example very much.

Context 2:

I think the qualifier rare adds a sense of openness to the book's identity, so an indefinite article is very appropriate there. You could of course also use this, with a slightly different effect. I can't imagine any way that the could be used here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top