This article investigates how adult Korean-speaking learners of English interpret English definite descriptions (the book, the books) and demonstrative descriptions (that book, those books). Korean lacks articles, but has demonstratives, and it is hypothesized that transfer leads learners to (initially) equate definites with demonstratives. Following J Hawkins (1991), Roberts (2002) and Wolter (2006), it is assumed that definite and demonstrative descriptions have the same central semantics of uniqueness, but differ in the domain relative to which uniqueness is computed: while the book denotes the unique book in the discourse, that book denotes the unique book in the immediately salient situation. A written elicited production task and a picture-based comprehension task are used to examine whether Korean-speaking learners of English are aware of this distinction. The results indicate that learners distinguish definites and demonstratives, but not as strongly as native English speakers; low-proficiency learners are particularly likely to interpret definite descriptions analogously to demonstrative descriptions, in both tasks. These results pose interesting conceptual and methodological questions for further research into the second language acquisition of article semantics.
AbbottB (2003) Definiteness and indefiniteness. In: HornLWardG (eds) Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 122–49.
2.
AsherN (1993) Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
3.
ChangC (2003) A study of the determiner phrase of Spanish, English and Korean. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA.
4.
ChangK-H (1980) Semantic analysis of demonstrative i, ku, ce. Ehakyenku16: 167–84.
5.
ChangS-J (1984) Cisiwa coung [Reference and anaphora, written in Korean]. Hangul186: 115–49.
6.
ChoH-S (1999) Interpretation and function of the Korean demonstrative ku. Studies in Modern Grammar18: 71–90.
7.
EllisR (2005) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition27: 141–72.
8.
García-MayoM del P (2008) The acquisition of four nongeneric uses of the article the by Spanish EFL learners. System36: 550–65.
9.
García-MayoM del PHawkinsR (eds) (2009) Second language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
10.
GencBBadaE (2006) Oral narrative discourse of anaphoric references of Turkish EFL learners. The Reading Matrix6: 2–135.
11.
GoadHWhiteL (2004) Ultimate attainment of L2 inflection: Effects of L1 prosodic structure. In: Foster-CohenSSharwood SmithMSoraceAOtaM (eds) EUROSLA Yearbook 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 119–45.
12.
GoadHWhiteL (2008) Prosodic structure and the representation of L2 functional morphology: A nativist approach. Lingua118: 577–94.
13.
GriceP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: ColePMorganJ (eds) Speech acts: Syntax and semantics 3. New York: Academic Press, 41–58.
14.
HawkinsJ (1978) Definiteness and indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.
15.
HawkinsJ (1984) A note on referent identifiability and co-presence. Journal of Pragmatics8: 649–59.
16.
HawkinsJ (1991) On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics27: 405–42.
17.
HawkinsJ (2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
HawkinsRAl-EidSAlmahboobIAthanasopoulosPChaengchenkitRHuJ. (2006) Accounting for English article interpretation by L2 speakers. In: Foster-CohenSMedved KrajnovicMMihaljević DjigunovićJ (eds) EUROSLA Yearbook 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 7–25.
19.
HeimI (1982) The semantics of definite and indefinite Noun Phrases. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA.
20.
HeimI (1991) Artikel und definitheit [Articles and definiteness]. In: StechowAWunderlichD (eds) Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: De Gruyter, 487–535.
21.
HornL (1972) On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of California at Los Angeles, CA, USA.
22.
HuangS (1999) The emergence of a grammatical category definite article in spoken Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics31: 77–94.
23.
HuebnerT (1983) A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.
24.
IoninT (2006) This is definitely specific: specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics14: 175–234.
25.
IoninTMontrulS (2010) The role of L1-transfer in the interpretation of articles with definite plurals in L2-English. Language Learning60: 877–925.
26.
IoninTBaekSKimEKoHWexlerK (2011) That’s the meaning: interpretation of definite and demonstrative descriptions in L2-English. In: PirvulescuMCuervoMCPérez-LerouxATSteeleJStrikN (eds) Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2010). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 122–38.
27.
IoninTKoHWexlerK (2004) Article semantics in L2-acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition12: 3–69.
28.
KadmonN (1990) Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy13: 273–324.
29.
KangJ (2005) Written narratives as an index of L2 competence in Korean EFL learners. Journal of Second Language Writing14: 259–79.
30.
KimH (2000) Acquisition of English nominal reference by Korean speakers. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Hawai’i, HI, USA.
31.
KimK (2006) The interpretation and processing of English articles by native speakers of Korean. Unpublished master’s thesis, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL, USA.
32.
KimKLakshmananU (2009) The processing role of the article choice parameter: Evidence from L2 learners of English. In: García-MayoM del PHawkinsR (eds) Second language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 87–113.
33.
KingJ (2001) Complex demonstratives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
KoHIoninTWexlerK (2010) The role of presuppositionality in the second language acquisition of English articles. Linguistic Inquiry41: 213–54.
35.
LeeS-HSongJ-y (2010) Annotating Korean demonstratives. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop, ACL 2010. The Association for Computational Linguistics, 162–65.
36.
LiCThompsonS (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
37.
LiuDGleasonJ (2002) Acquisition of the article the by non-native speakers of English: An analysis of four nongeneric uses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24: 1–26.
38.
LöbnerS (1985) Definites. Journal of Semantics4: 279–326.
39.
LyonsC (1999) Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
MaclaranR (1982) The semantics and pragmatics of the English demonstratives. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
41.
ModyanovaNWexlerK (2007) Semantic and pragmatic language development: children know ‘that’ better. In: BelikovaAMeroniLUmedaM (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 297–308.
42.
MurphyS (1997) Knowledge and production of English articles by advanced second language learners. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA.
43.
PrinceE (1981) On the inferencing of indefinite-this NPs. In: JoshiAWebberBSagI (eds) Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 231–50.
44.
PrinceE (1992) The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness and information status. In: ThompsonSMannW (eds) Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund raising text. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 295–325.
45.
RobertsC (2002) Demonstratives as definites. In: van DeemterKKibbleR (eds) Information sharing. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 89–136.
46.
RobertsC (2003) Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy26: 287–350.
47.
RobertsonD (2000) Variability in the use of the English article system by Chinese learners of English. Second Language Research16: 135–72.
48.
RussellB (1905) On denoting. Mind14: 479–93.
49.
SharvyR (1980) A more general theory of definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review89: 607–24.
50.
SnapeN (2008) The acquisition of the English determiner phrase by L2 learners: Japanese and Spanish. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.
51.
SnapeNLeungY-KITingH-C (2006) Comparing Chinese, Japanese and Spanish speakers in L2 English article acquisition: Evidence against the Fluctuation Hypothesis? In: Grantham O’BrienMSheaCArchibaldJ (eds) Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition conference (GASLA 2006). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 132–39.
52.
SohnH-M (1999) The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
SwierzbinB (2004) The role of cognitive status in second language acquisition of English noun phrase referring expressions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, MI, USA.
54.
SwierzbinB (2010) Demonstratives’ special place in the English reference system: Why that’s important for English language learners. Language and Linguistics Compass4: 987–1000.
55.
ThomasM (1989) The acquisition of English articles by first- and second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics10: 335–55.
56.
TrademanJ (2002) The acquisition of the English article system by native speakers of Spanish and Japanese: A cross-linguistic comparison. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of New Mexico, Mexico.
57.
TrenkicD (2007) Variability in L2 article production: Beyond the representational deficits vs. processing constraints debate. Second Language Research23: 289–327.
58.
TrenkicD (2008) The representation of English articles in second language grammar: Determiners or adjectives?Bilingualism: Language and Cognition11: 1–18.
59.
WakabayashiS (1998) Systematicity in the use of the definite article by Japanese learners of English. Gunma Prefectural Women’s University Bulletin19: 91–107.
60.
WolterL (2006) That’s that: The semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun phrases. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of California at Santa Cruz, CA, USA.
