Sign Up Submit Enquiry

On the strong–weak status of the Akan definiteness marker

Home On the strong–weak status of the Akan definiteness marker

Related Articles

Contact us

Article Content

Abstract

This paper argues, based on novel evidence and data from the literature, that neither theories of weak familiarity (Arkoh and Matthewson 2013) nor situational uniqueness (Bombi 2018) adequately capture the empirical terrain of definiteness in Akan. I show that the distribution of the Akan definiteness marker nó spans the strong and weak article definite contexts described in Schwarz (2009). The only context where nó is not allowed is when the noun is semantically unique. To account for this distribution, I argue that nó carries a weak familiarity presupposition in line with Arkoh and Matthewson (2013), but it also carries an antiuniqueness presupposition as proposed by Robinson (2005), Dayal and Jiang (2022) for demonstratives. It takes a property and returns the unique familiar entity that satisfies that property on the condition that there is more than one satisfier of that property in the world. Regarding the definite readings of bare nouns in Akan, I contend that, in addition to nó, there is also a covert iota type-shift. The fundamental assumptions underlying this analysis are that type-shifters and their rankings are universal and that the blocking principle is activated if the lexical item and the type-shifter have the same meaning. The distribution of nó and bare definites, along with the demonstrative saa…nó, suggests a distinct determiner system that differs from languages with two definite determiners, like German (Schwarz 2009), and languages with bare nouns, like Mandarin (Jenks 2015).

 This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution  to check access.

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

  • Austronesian Languages
  • Linguistic Anthropology
  • Linguistics
  • Nomograms
  • Predictive markers
  • Theoretical Linguistics / Grammar

Notes

  1. Although see Coppock (2022) for arguments that the analysis necessarily predicts the empirical differences.

  2. For now, I will set aside this data, as the presence or absence of nó in (28) is poorly understood. Speakers generally do not produce this sentence with nó but they accept it with nó.

  3. In contrast to absolute superlatives, which express that an entity possesses a high level of a certain quality, relative superlatives express that an entity has a high level of a certain quality among others in a group.

  4. Skywalker is a fictional character from the original Star Wars movie, A New Hope.

  5. Traces and Pronouns Rule: If α is a pronoun or a trace, g is a variable assignment, and i ∈ dom(g) is defined, then  (Schwarz 2009, 49). This is a slightly modified version of Heim and Kratzer (1998, 110).

  6. This issue is part of a broader question concerning how the implicit argument of relational nouns is valued and how they acquire nonrelational readings (see Schwarz (2009) and references therein regarding the behavior of implicit variables).

  7. Thanks to Reviewer 1 for suggesting this context.

  8. The analysis predicts that the characters in this fictional world will use the bare noun when referring to the fictional president.

  9. Traces and Pronouns Rule: If α is a pronoun or a trace, g is a variable assignment, and i ∈ dom(g) is defined, then  (Schwarz 2009, 49). This is a slightly modified version of (Heim and Kratzer 1998, 110).

  10. It is worth noting that this position is not uncontested. Elbourne (2005) discusses cases of donkey interpretations of proper names and consequently endorses a description theory of proper names. I thank Reviewer 1 for bringing this to my attention.

  11. The analysis of saa that I present here has been developed jointly with Veneeta Dayal. See Dayal (in preparation) for a similar approach but with a somewhat different implementation.

  12. I would like to extend my gratitude to Reviewer 2 for suggesting the exploration of the connection between these sets of data.

References

  • Abbott, B. 1999. Support for a unique theory of definiteness. In Semantics and linguistic theory, Vol. 9, 1–15.

    Google Scholar

  • Aloni, M. 2012. On epistemic indefinites: A note on emphatic free choice uses. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, Vol. 16, 1–14.

    Google Scholar

  • Aloni, M., and A. Port. 2015. Epistemic indefinites and methods of identification. In Epistemic indefinites: Exploring modality beyond the verbal domain, 117–140. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar

  • Amfo, N. A. A. 2007. Akan demonstratives. In Selected proceedings of the 37th annual conference on African linguistics, 134–148. Sommerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar

  • Amfo, N. A. A. 2010. Indefiniteness marking and Akan bí. Journal of Pragmatics 42(7):1786–1798.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Arkoh, R. B. 2011. Semantics of Akan bí and nu, Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia.

  • Arkoh, R., and L. Matthewson. 2013. A familiar definite article in Akan. Lingua 123:1–30.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Baker, P. 1972. Kreol: A description of Mauritian Creole. C. Hurst.

  • Blumberg, K. H. 2020. Demonstratives, definite descriptions and non-redundancy. Philosophical Studies 177:39–64.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Bombi, C. 2018. Definiteness in Akan: Familiarity and uniqueness revisited. In Semantics and linguistic theory, 141–160.

    Google Scholar

  • Bombi, C., M. Grubic, A. Renans, and R. A. Duah. 2019. The semantics of the (so-called) clausal determiner nó in Akan (Kwa). In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, Vol. 23, 181–200.

    Google Scholar

  • Chierchia, G. 1995. Dynamics of meaning: Anaphora, presupposition, and the theory of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book Google Scholar

  • Chierchia, G. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6:339–405.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Christophersen, P. 1939. The articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

    Google Scholar

  • Clark, H. H. 1975. Bridging. In Theoretical issues in natural language processing.

    Google Scholar

  • Coppock, E. 2022. On definite descriptions: Can familiarity and uniqueness be distinguished? 109–136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

  • Coppock, E. and B. Beaver. 2015. Definiteness and determinacy. Linguistics and Philosophy 38(4):377–436.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Dayal, V. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(4):393–450.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Dayal, V., and L. J. Jiang. 2022. The puzzle of anaphoric bare nouns in Mandarin: A counterpoint to index! Linguistic Inquiry 54(1):147–167.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Duah, R., M. Grubic, and A. Renans. 2021. The combination of indefinite and definite ‘determiners’-a cross-linguistic study. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, Vol. 25, 238–255.

    Google Scholar

  • Elbourne, P. 2001. E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Semantics 9(3):241–288.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Elbourne, P. D. 2005. Situations and individuals, Vol. 90. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar

  • Elbourne, P. 2013. Definite descriptions, Vol. 1. London: Oxford University Press.

    Book Google Scholar

  • Hawkins, J. A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar

  • Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases, PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Heim, I. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2):137–177.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Heim, I. 1991. Artikel und definitheit. In Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen forschung, 487–535. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Chapter Google Scholar

  • Heim, I., and A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar

  • Jenks, P. 2015. Two kinds of definites in numeral classifier languages. In Semantics and linguistic theory, Vol. 25, 103–124.

    Google Scholar

  • Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation Formal methods in the study of language. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar

  • Keshet, E. R. 2008. Good intensions: Paving two roads to a theory of the de re/de dicto distinction, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • King, J. C. 2008. Complex demonstratives as quantifiers: Objections and replies. Philosophical Studies 141:209–242.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Löbner, S. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4(4):279–326.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Martínez, M. L. M. 2003. Contextual variables. University of Connecticut.

  • Musan, R. I. 1995. On the temporal interpretation of noun phrases, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Nowak, E. 2021. Complex demonstratives, hidden arguments, and presupposition. Synthese 198(4):2865–2900.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Owusu, A. P. 2019. A closer look at the Akan determiner bí: An epistemic indefinite analysis. In African linguistics across thedisciplines, 257–280.

    Google Scholar

  • Percus, O. 2006. Antipresuppositions. Theoretical and empirical studies of reference and anaphora: Toward the establishment of generative grammar as an empirical science 52:52–73.

    Google Scholar

  • Philipp, M. 2022. Quantifier Scope Ambiguities in English, German, and Asante Twi (Akan): Structural and Pragmatic Factors, PhD thesis, dissertation, Universität Potsdam.

  • Roberts, C. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(3):287–350.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Robinson, H. M. 2005. Unexpected (in)definiteness: Plural generic expressions in Romance, PhD thesis, Rutgers University.

  • Russell, B. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14(56):479–493.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, P. 2012. Maximize presupposition and gricean reasoning. Natural Language Semantics 20(4):391–429.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Schwarz, F. 2009. Two types of definites in natural language: University of Massachusetts, PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Schwarz, F. 2013. Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(10):534–559.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Stalnaker, R. C. 1976. Propositions. In Issues in the philosophy of language, 79–91. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar

  • Strawson, P. F. 1950. On referring. Mind 59(235):320–344.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Wespel, J. 2008. Descriptions and their domains: The patterns of definiteness marking in French-related creoles, PhD thesis, Universität Stuttgart; Universität Stuttgart.

  • Wolter, L. 2003. Demonstratives, definite descriptions, and definiteness, Master’s thesis, University of California at Santa Cruz.

  • Wolter, L. 2004. Demonstratives, definiteness, and determined reference. In Proceedings of NELS 34, Vol. 34, 603–618.

    Google Scholar

  • Wolter, L. K. 2006. That’s that: The semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun phrases, PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I want to thank my consultants, Felix Kpogo, Dr. Abrefa, Dr. Korsah, my parents, and numerous others for their valuable time. I also wish to express my sincere appreciation for the invaluable contributions of Veneeta Dayal in enhancing this paper. I would also like to express my gratitude to my advisor, Simon Charlow, and my committee members, Viviane Deprez and Malte Zimmerman, for their profound insights and remarks that have significantly influenced this work, derived from a section of my dissertation. Thanks to the Rutgers Semantics Reading group, especially Lydia Newkirk and Ang Li, for providing feedback on different stages of this work. Thanks again to Lydia for providing extensive copy editing. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to the three anonymous reviewers and the editor of this paper for their insightful comments and suggestions, which have contributed to an improved outcome of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA

    Augustina P. Owusu

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Augustina P. Owusu.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The data for this article comes from five consultants and the author’s judgment as a native speaker. Three of the five consultants are trained linguists, while the remaining two are monolingual Akan speakers with no training in linguistics. All consultants speak the Asante-Twi dialect of Akan. Data from other sources will be cited explicitly, and page and author information will be provided.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Owusu, A.P. On the strong–weak status of the Akan definiteness marker. Nat Lang Linguist Theory (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-025-09665-5

  • Received
  • Accepted
  • Published
  • DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-025-09665-5

Keywords

  • Akan
  • (in)definite determiners
  • Weak/strong determiners
  • Bare definites
  • Semantic uniqueness
  • Antiuniqueness
  • Demonstratives

Copyright © All rights reserved Designed and Developed by Digital Flavers

WhatsApp