Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-rjhn2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-20T10:27:51.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Definiteness and Existentials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Barbara Abbott
Barbara Abbott*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
*
Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and African Languages, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1027 [abbottb@pilot.msu.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Discussion Note
Information
Language , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 103 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbott, Barbara. 1992. Definiteness, existentials, and the ‘list’ interpretation. Proceedings of SALT II, ed. by Barker, Chris and Dowty, David, 1–16. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
(i) a. EH: We could not have very much, and then order dessert.Google Scholar
JA: Hmmm…there's always that. [Overheard conversation, 6/1/96]Google Scholar
b. FS: A lot of times interpreting what people are saying is a problem.Google Scholar
SS: There's that, but there's also the fact that the field is basically bullshit. [Overheard conversation, 5/31/96]Google Scholar
Abbott, Barbara. 1993. A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences. Journal of Pragmatics 19. 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty, and Ward, Gregory. 1994. Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English. Berkeley Linguistics Society 20. 93–102.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Marshall, Catherine R. 1981. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. Elements of discourse understanding, ed. by Joshi, Aravind K., Webber, Bonnie L., and Sag, Ivan A., 10–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy; and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2. 114–25.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 269–320.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8. 339–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. Radical pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 223–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fundraising text, ed. by Mann, William C. and Thompson, Sandra A., 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, and Birner, Betty. 1995. Definiteness and the English existential. Language 71. 722–42.Google Scholar