Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T18:04:18.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three Perspectives on Swedish Indefinite Determiners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Joakim Nivre
Joakim Nivre
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Systems Engineering, Växjö University, SE-351 95 Växjö, Sweden. E-mail: Joakim.Nivre@msi.vxu.se
Get access

Abstract

This article investigates the meaning and use of singular indefinite determiners in Swedish, in particular the way in which the existential determiner någon/något contrasts with the indefinite article en/ett in different contexts. The problem is approached from three different perspectives, the first being a contrastive Scandinavian perspective, where the Swedish data are reviewed in the light of contrastive data from the closely related languages Danish and Norwegian. Secondly, corpus data are used to substantiate the results of the contrastive analysis both quantitatively and qualitatively. The last section adopts a more theoretical perspective and tries to present a formal semantic analysis of the two determiners under study, drawing on typological work on indefinites and studies of the historical development of indefinite determiners.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , June 2002 , pp. 3 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Abusch, Dorrit. 1994. The Scope of Indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2: 83–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allwood, Jens. 1999. The Swedish Spoken Language Corpus at Goteborg University. In Fonetik 99: Proceedings from the Twelfth Swedish Phonetics Conference. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics. (Available at: http://www.ling.gu.se/fonetik99/manus/31.ps.)Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Cooper, Robin. 1981. Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Perry, John. 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1988. The Role of Deduction Rules in Semantics. Journal of Semantics 1988, 1–18.Google Scholar
Dyvik, Helge. 1979. Omkring framveksten av artiklene i norsk. [On the emergence of articles in Norwegian.] Maal og minne 1979: 40–78.Google Scholar
Edmondson, Jerrold A. 1981. Affectivity and Gradient Scope. Chicago Linguistic Society 17, 38–44.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975a. Polarity and the Scale Principle. Chicago Linguistic Society 11, 188–199.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975b. Pragmatic Scales and Logical Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 353–375.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1978. Implication Reversal in Natural Language. In Guenthner, Franz & Schmidt, Siegfried J. (eds), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1980. Pragmatic Entailment and Questions. In Searle, John R., Kiefer, Ferenc & Bierwisch, Manfred (eds), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean & Sag, Ivan A. 1982. Referential and Quantificational Indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geach, Peter. 1962. Reference and Generality. An Examination of Some Medieval and Modern Theories. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1981. On the development of the numeral ‘one’ as an indefinite marker. Folia Linguistica Historica 2, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases in English. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1987. A Note on Negative Polarity and Downward Entailingness. NELS 14, 98–107.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1968. Quantifiers in English. Foundations of Language 4, 422–442.Google Scholar
Jackson, Eric. 1995. Weak and Strong Negative Polarity Items: Licensing and Intervention. Linguistic Analysis 25, 181–256.Google Scholar
Horn, Larry. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation. In Groenendijk, Jeroen, Janssen, Theo M. V. & Stokhof, Martin (eds), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematical Centre Tract 135, 277–322. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Klima, Edeward S. 1964. Negation in English. In Fodor, Jerry A. & Katz, Jerrold J. (eds), The Structure of Language. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or Pseudoscope? Are There Wide-Scope Indefinites? In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1991. Some Remarks on Polarity Items. In Zaefferer, Dietmar (ed.), Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics. Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Items. Linguistic Analysis 25, 209–257.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1979. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1983. Logical Form and Conditions on Grammaticality. Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1970. General Semantics. Synthese 22, 18–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1973. The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English. In Hintikka, Jaakko, Moravcsik, Julius M. E. & Suppes, Patrick (eds), Approaches to Natural Language: Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford Workshop on Grammar and Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nivre, Joakim. 1999. Modifierad standardortografi (MSO6). Göteborg University: Department of Linguistics. (Available at: http://www.ling.gu.se/SLSA/Postscripts/MSO6.ps.)Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. H., ter Meulen, Alice & Wall, Robert E. 1993. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. (1997) Quantifier Scope: How Labor is Divided Between QR and Choice Functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenska Akademiens Ordbok [Dictionary of the Swedish Academy] 1898–. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik. 1999. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik [Grammar of the Swedish Academy]. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Terner, Erik. 1922. Studier över räkneordet en och dess sekundära användningar, förnämligast i nysvenskan. [Studies of the numeral en and its secondary uses, primarily in new Swedish.] Uppsala: Akademiska bokhandeln.Google Scholar
Warfel, Sam L. 1972. Some, Reference, and Description. In Battle, John H. & Schweitzer, John (eds), Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers. Stillwater: Oklahoma State University, pp. 41–49.Google Scholar
Webber, Bonnie Lynn. 1978. A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora. Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Westerståhl, Dag. 1985. Logical Constants in Quantifier Languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 387–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Yoad. (1997) Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 399–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Wouden, Ton. 1997. Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Frans. 1995. Nonveridical Contexts. Linguistic Analysis 25, 286–312.Google Scholar