Definitness vs. specificness of articles

[jal]

I'm studying Atlantic creoles, mostly Jamaican since there are many on-line resources, and one of the things that is important is the specificness of articles rather than the definiteness. However, though I think I more or less grasp the distinction, I cannot find much about article specificness and what it entails precisely. Does anyone here know?


JAL

[cromulant]

I can't speak to Atlantic creoles specifically, but here's my understanding of the basic concepts you're asking about:

"Definite" means the thing is identifiable to the addressee. It has been previously introduced to the speaker addressee, either through real-life experiences shared with the speaker, or simply through a previous mention in the conversation..

"Specific" means the thing is identifiable to the speaker.

Definiteness is a pragmatic distinction, dealing with old (definite) vs new (indefinite) information. Specificness is more moodlike, akin to realis (specific) vs irrealis (nonspecific).

Specificness works something like this:

"I'm looking for SPEC car." I have a particular, individual car in mind. Other cars--even of the same year, make, model, color, mileage, etc.-- will not satisfy my criteria; they are not the unique one I am looking for. If you show me a car, it either is or is not the car I'm looking for.

"I'm looking for NONSPEC car." I might say this if I'm car-shopping. I might just be looking for any car at all. I might have a general idea of what kind of car I'm looking for. I might even have a very specific idea of what kind of car I'm looking for. But the license plate number and VIN number are unimportant.

Both of these would be expressed in English as "I'm looking for a car," because in both cases, the identity of the car is unknown to the addressee. (It happens that in the second example, the identity of the car is also unknown to the speaker, but that's not what definiteness is concerned with). Note the ambiguity.

EDIT: Correction to second paragraph.

[TomHChappell]

Mostly what cromulant said.

"Specific" and "referential" mean that the speaker is referring to a particular one or particular ones s/he has in mind.

"Definite" means specific/referential AND the speaker believes the addressee knows which one(s) the speaker is referring to.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

The rest of cromulant's post is news to me; but it sounds right to me, and since I've never heard different and he might know more than me, I'm willing to take his word for it.

Although, @cromulant? Can you provide a reference? An on-line one would be nice.

Thanks.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

@JAL:

See, perhaps, (in descending order by how certain I am they're relevant to your question);

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/tionin/www/My ... yEntry.pdf
http://linguistlist.org/issues/13/13-1014.html
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/Events/PLC/plc23/gundel.html
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=2401100
http://www.lingref.com/cpp/gasla/6/paper1039.pdf
http://ling.snu.ac.kr/ko/publications/P ... er-web.pdf

In some cases you should search the article for keywords to find the part relevant to your query.

But I didn't look up anything about Atlantic creoles. I only looked up articles and/or determiners that are indefinite yet nevertheless are specific and/or referential.

[cromulant]

Although, @cromulant? Can you provide a reference? An on-line one would be nice.

The SIL definition will agree with my own. Beyond that, all the elaboration and examples is just my understanding of what those words mean and imply. It's what I would say if we were at a bar, no computer around, and you asked me to explain the distinction. My reference is the lack of anyone telling me I'm wrong so far.

[spats]

So, in hypothetical creole:

Me try fin' car = I'm looking for a car. Any car. (non-specific)
Me try fin' one car = I'm looking for one, specific car, which may not have been introduced in conversation. (specific)
Me try fin' de car = I'm looking for the car that has already come up in conversation. (definite)

[jal]

So, in hypothetical creole:

Me try fin' car = I'm looking for a car. Any car. (non-specific)
Me try fin' one car = I'm looking for one, specific car, which may not have been introduced in conversation. (specific)
Me try fin' de car = I'm looking for the car that has already come up in conversation. (definite)

Basically, where at least in Atlantic creoles, non-specific readings default to present tense (with a likely habitual aspect, even without an overt particle), whereas specific readings default to past tense (with a likely perfective aspectual reading). So e.g. in JC:

Di uman sel di manggo has +spec/+def and therefore +past, and Di uman sel manggo has -spec/-def and therefore -past. A sentence like "Di uman sel wan manggo", +spec/-def, has also +past (to support +spec, not +def is important for tense reading). See also here (PDF).


JAL

[Bryan]

Hi Cromulant,

Really well put. Good post. Cleared my mind slightly.

[jal]

Thanks to everyone so far, it has indeed become a lot clearer.


JAL

[Astraios]

Lakota does exactly this too.

[jal]

Lakota does exactly this too.

"This" as in what Jamaican does?


JAL

[Astraios]

No, I meant something entirely unrelated.

It has a non-specific indefinite, a specific indefinite, and a definite.

[jal]

It has a non-specific indefinite, a specific indefinite, and a definite.

Interesting. Can you elaborate a bit about their use?


JAL

[Astraios]

I would have before, but I didn't have time. Now I do, so I will.

non-specific indefinite = waŋží (sg.), etáŋ (pl.)
specific indefinite = waŋ (sg.), eyá (pl.)
definite = kiŋ (sg. and pl.)

The New Lakota Dictionary gives this example:

Šúŋkawakȟáŋ waŋ bluhá.
šúŋka-wakȟáŋ=waŋ | wa-yuhá
dog-mysterious=DET | 1S.ACT-have
I have a horse.

Šúŋkawakȟáŋ waŋží luhá he?
šúŋka-wakȟáŋ=waŋží | ya-yuhá
dog-mysterious=INDF | 2.ACT-have
Do you have a horse?

In sentence 1, the horse is realis and the speaker knows of its existence. In 2, it's a hypothetical or irrealis horse, because the speaker doesn't know of its existence.

So that's the same.

Then it goes on to say that "[r]eal objects, events and facts are those that exist now or existed in the past. Topics that are real only in the speaker's mind also belong here, even if they are not actual facts." So, examples:

Táku waŋ waŋbláka čha líla háŋske.
táku=waŋ | waŋ<wa>yáŋkA=čha | líla | háŋskA
thing=DET | see<1S.ACT>=REL | very | long
I saw a thing that was very long. (object that really exist(s/ed), speaker knows it does/did)

Wičháša waŋ aíwahaŋble.
wičháša=waŋ | a-i-wa-haŋblé
man=DET | APPL[upon]-APPL-1S.ACT-quest.for.a.vision
I dreamt about a man. (object that really existed in his/her mind, speaker knows it did)

"Hypothetical topics [...] are those not yet real, or not real to the speaker. Sentences with hypothetical topics often occur in questions (Do you have a knife?), or commands (Bring me a knife. i.e. any knife) or wishes (I wish I had a knife)." So, to illustrate the difference a bit:

Míla waŋží olé.
míla=waŋží | olé
knife=INDF | search
He is looking for a knife. (no particular knife in mind, he's just looking for any one)

Míla waŋ olé.
míla=waŋ | olé
knife=DET | search
He is looking for a knife. (a particular specific knife, he's looking for one that is known to exist)

Míla waŋží čhíŋ.
míla=waŋží | čhíŋ
knife=INDF | want
He wants a knife. (any knife - neither the speaker nor the addressee know which, but the 'he' may or may not know)

Míla waŋ čhíŋ.
míla=waŋ | čhíŋ
knife=DET | want
He wants a knife. (there's a particular one he wants - the speaker knows which, but the addressee doesn't, and the 'he' may or may not know)

Míla waŋží k'ú kte.
míla=waŋží | k'ú=ktA
knife=INDF | give=IRR
He will give her a knife. (any knife - he'll just give her a knife and it's not important which)

Míla waŋ k'ú kte.
míla=waŋ | k'ú=ktA
knife=DET | give=IRR
He will give her a knife. (a specific one - perhaps he'll give it to her as a signal/symbol for something)

You can't use waŋ in questions:

*Míla waŋ yuhá he?
*Does he have a knife? (a specific one - speaker knows which one but the addressee doesn't and the 'he' may or may not know)

It doesn't make sense. A knife which is known to exist by the speaker, even though the speaker is asking about its existence? Quoi?

*Míla waŋ olé he?
*Is he looking for a knife? (a specific one)

It doesn't make sense. How can the speaker have any particular knife in mind if s/he doesn't know in the first place whether the third person is looking for a knife at all?


Sorry, that was a bit of a rambling elaboration...


EDIT: Oh, and the definite article is just like any other definite article, marking topics that both the speaker and the addressee know to exist.

Míla kiŋ olé.
míla=kiŋ | olé
knife=DEF | search
He is looking for the knife. (the one that both the speaker and the addressee know about)

It's used a little differently to the English the, but not so differently that it needs huge explanations.

[jal]

I would have before, but I didn't have time. Now I do, so I will.

Thanks, cool stuf!


JAL

[TomHChappell]

I would have before, but I didn't have time. Now I do, so I will.

Thanks, cool stuf!

Yes it is! Thanks.
Until this thread I knew of languages that explicitly marked specific vs nonspecific, but not definite vs indefinite; and I knew of languages that explicitly marked definite vs indefinite, but not specific vs nonspecific.
But, until this thread, I did not know of any natlangs that explicitly marked all three of nonspecific and definite and specific indefinite.
It's nice to see couple of examples of each of those in a couple of natlangs.