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.;-)
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: