The fox or Mr Fox?: particularization of the bare noun
List of Authors
  • Borah, Gautam K.

Keyword
  • bare noun, general term, particularization, numeral classifier language, proper name, personification

Abstract
  • In numeral classifier languages a dog-type noun (i.e. a noun that refers to a kind subsuming some similar individuated entities or things) is also an NP by default. This in turn means that unlike in an English-like language, the move from the general (as is indicated by a noun) to the particular (as is indicated by an NP) is not grammatically marked in such a language. The current paper demonstrates how Assamese, a numeral classifier language spoken in Assam, a north eastern province of India, allows the bare noun to be used at the sentential level for different degrees of particularity. Thus, in the following example from Assamese (taken from a popular folk tale) tetiā xiāl-e kole…. [tetiā ‘then’; xiāle ‘fox-NOM’; kole ‘said’] the bare noun xiāl ‘fox’ is used as an NP, precisely as a proper name. The paper thus argues that we have a better English translation of the concerned Assamese sentence in “Mr Fox then said…” rather than in “The fox then said….”. The Assamese data used in the paper comes from the author’s native speaker competency in the language.

Reference
  • 1. Borah, G. K. (2006). Macbeth, the Birnam Wood, and the meaning of [s]. CIEFL Bulletin (New series), 16 (2), 52-68.
    2. Borah, G. K. (2010). Are classifiers redundant? Discourse functions of classifiers in Assamese. Paper presented at NEILLS-5.
    3. Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology: syntax and morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    4. Dahl, Ö., & Fraurud, K. (1996). Animacy in grammar and discourse. In T. Fretheim, & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 47–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    5. Fraurud, K. (1996). Cognitive ontology and NP form. In T. Fretheim, & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 65–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    6. Garrod, S., & Sanford, T. (1988). Thematic subject hood and cognitive constraints on discourse structures. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 519-534.
    7. Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1993). Linguistic relativity vs. universal ontology: cross linguistic studies of the object/substance distinction. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 29, 171-86.
    8. Lakoff, G, & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    9. Locke, J. (1689/1999). An essay concerning human understanding. Edited by J W Yolton. London: Everyman’s Library.
    10. Lucy, J. A. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    11. Timberlake, A. (1977). Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In C. N. Li. (Ed). Mechanisms of syntactic change (141-177.). Austin, London: University of Texas Press.
    12. Yamamoto, M. (1999). Animacy and reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.