Hostname: page-component-75d7c8f48-ghqh7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-14T18:38:05.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the generic indefinite article

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Noel Burton-Roberts
Noel Burton-Roberts*
Affiliation:
University College London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is proposed that NP's determined by the generic indefinite article represent abstract concepts, and as such are not inherently different from indefinite NP's appearing in copulative predicates. A derivation for generic indefinite NP's that reflects this is formulated (and evidence is adduced to show that any cannot underlie generic a); this is shown to be explanatory as regards the phenomenon itself, its relationship to other kinds of generic NP's, and its relationship to other kinds of indefinite NP's. It also enables us to formalize the notion of ‘generic sentence’.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , June 1976 , pp. 427 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by 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

Bach, Emmon. 1967. Have and be in English syntax. Lg. 43. 462–85.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110877786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 1975. Nominal apposition. Foundations of Language 13. 391–419.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. MS. Generic sentences and analyticity. To appear in Foundations of Language.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Ueber Begriff und Gegenstand. Vierteljahrsschrift für Wissenschaftliche Philosophie 16. 192–205. (Translated as ‘On concept and object’, in Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege, ed. by Geach, Peter & Black, Max, 42–55. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1960.).Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1968. Speculations on presentences and determiners. MS.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1974. Introduction to the X̄ convention. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1964. Analyticity and contradiction in natural language. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, Jerry & Katz, Jerrold J., 519–43. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1970. On the article in English. Progress in linguistics, ed. by Bierwisch, Manfred & Heidolph, Karl, 233–48. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlotta S. 1961. Determiners. MIT Research Laboratory in Electronics, Quarterly Progress Report 63. 139–48.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P., Schachter, Paul; and Partee, Barbara H. 1973. The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1950. On referring. Mind 39. 320–44. (Reprinted in Philosophy and ordinary language, ed. by Charles E. Caton, 162-93. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963.)Google Scholar