Re: Articles and the Givenness Hierarchy

Further... How Kash and Indonesian do these:
> The givenness hierarchy is as follows (going from least to
> greatest):
>
> 1. Type Identifiable
> 2. Referential
> 3. Uniquely Identifiable
> 4. Familiar
> 5. Activated
> 6. In Focus
>
>
> 1. Type Identifiable: An NP is type identifiable if it's brand new
> information.  Pretty much, you just have to know what it is.
>
> English: a(n) NP
> Example: I saw a bird.
Kash: 0.  matikas tukrim
Indo: 0  saya melihat burung
(Neither S is marked for tense; that's OK in Kash, in Indo. I'd feel more
comfortable using a time-word like dulu 'earlier' or tadi 'just a while
ago')
>
> 2. Referential: This is a reference to indefinite NP, but the
> hearer is supposed to understand that it's going to be the new
> topic of conversation, and that for the speaker, the entity is
> specified.
>
> English: this NP
> Example: I met this great guy yesterday.
Kash: 0. koprat matinja kaç ('person') or kaçut ('man')-- if you used tayu
'this' it would suggest the man were present. It definitely calls for more
explanatory material.

Indo: not sure, but I think 0; and with _ini_ 'this', the same caveat as for
Kash.; there may be a colloquial way. If it were a bird, possibly: kemaren
saya melihat seekor burung (seekor 'one-tail' the counter for birds; it
specifies _one_, so would be more definite than just "..melihat burung")

BTW I don't agree that "I met a great guy..." is any more def/indef. than
"...this great guy"; to me they're equivalent.
>
> 3. Uniquely Identifiable: The hearer can identify the referent
> just by hearing the NP.
> English: the NP
> Example: I saw the bird.
>
Kash: matikas tukrim iyu (main S stress on tuk-; iyu 'that; the')
also: ...tukriñi (tukrim+ni '3poss.') if the bird is topic of the discourse.

Indo: ...melihat burung itu (itu 'that'; the')
also: ...melihat burungnya (-nya 3poss.) as in Kash.
(Both S's might sound better with the perfective marker, mende/sudah resp.,
but it's not necessary)

In Kash, S stress on íyu would mean '_that_ (specific) bird'
In Indo., for this meaning, you could either stress itu more heavily, or
relativize it: ...burung yang itu

>
> 4. Familiar: An NP is, to a certain extent, in the hearer's long
> term memory.
> English: that NP
> Example: That dog kept me awake last night.
Kash would probably use iyu; Indo. itu; yes, this assumes the hearer already
knows from prior experience what you're referring to.
>
> 5. Activated: An NP is in the hearer's short term memory.
>
> English: that, this, this NP
> Example: I saw that.
Kash: matikas (more correctly _yu matikas_ but the neut. obj.pronoun can
always be omitted if context is clear. An anim.pron. could too, but only in
casual speech I think.
Indo: saya (sudah or other time-word) melihat itu. You can also say: saya
(..) melihatnya (using the 3poss. sfx as an obj. suffix-- I'm not sure how
colloquial that is, however)

And in both cases, also a NP with deictic.

>
> 6. In Focus: This is as prominent and relevant as an NP can
> be--it's "on stage".
>
> English: pronouns
> Example: It's on the table.
(Obviously this presupposes the question: "Where's the/my....?"

Kash: 0 -- ri laca ~ri nihiñi laca (on top of...); you could start with
_yale_ 'it is' but it's not necessary.
Indo: 0 -- di atas meja (on top of...). (Similarly, you could start with
_ada_ 'it is; there is' but I suspect that a westernized thing).

Note that it's not necessary in Kash to mark 'table' as definite; likewise
in Indo. I think. However, if there were several tables in the place, you
might have to:  ...laca yu, ...meja itu '_that_ table'

> Additionally, with this basic framework, you can also modify
> it.  This shouldn't be taken as *the* hierarchy, in my opinion
> (especially since, of all of the languages they sampled, *only*
> English had a separate lexical entry for each of the six categories.
Right-- I have a sneaky feeling it's missing something (or I'm missing
something in Kash)...Very interesting food for thought.