Cover not available

Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 16:1 (2024) ► pp.1–29

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Ruled by construal?

Framing article choice in English

ORCiD logo with link | University of Birmingham | University of York
 | University of Sheffield
 | University of Birmingham
 | University of Birmingham
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Birmingham.

Published online: 4 April 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22005.rom
Abstract
In cognitive linguistics, grammatical structure is known to be representative of meaning. This is also true of English articles. In this paper, we argue that the choice of article, when the grammar allows it, is dependent on the wider discourse context and most importantly on how the speaker construes this context. Using survey data from 181 native speakers of English, we show that the choice of article depends on the activation of semantic frames and how speakers may choose to highlight different elements of a frame to construe the situation differently. We rely on Entropy to measure the restrictiveness of a context and to identify particular contexts in which choice is allowed or inhibited. We find that some contextual features such as the specificity of the referent are more restrictive while Hearer Knowledge is more open to construal.
Article outline
  • 1.Aims and objectives
  • 2.State of the art
    • 2.1Articles as grounding elements
    • 2.2Mental spaces and semantic frames
    • 2.3Construal operations
    • 2.4This study
  • 3.Data collection and annotation
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Data classification
    • 4.2Entropy
    • 4.3Variation at participant and stimulus level
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Entropy: Constraint and construal
      • 5.1.1Entropy and specificity of the referent
      • 5.1.2Entropy and Hearer Knowledge
      • 5.1.3Entropy and other constraints
    • 5.2Variation at participant and stimulus level
      • 5.2.1Participants and items
      • 5.2.2Deviation from the mode
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Data availability statement
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (39)
References
Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24(1), 65–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders T., J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 29–88). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1984). The Language Bioprogram Hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(2), 173–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Communal lexicons. In K. Malmkjaer & J. Williams (Eds.), Language learning and language understanding (pp. 63–87). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2015). Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Dagmar (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 650–668). Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2016). Corpus of News on the Web (NOW).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in language. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D., Romain, L., & Milin, P. ( 2023). From their point of view: The article category as a hierarchically structured referent tracking system. Linguistics, 61(4), 1027-1068. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Epstein, R. (2002). The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(4), 333–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farmer, T., Misyak, J. B., & Morten, H. C. (2012). Individual differences in sentence processing. In M. Spivey, K. McRae & M. Joannisse (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 353–364). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (2007). Mental spaces. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 351–376). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Korea, The Linguistic Society of (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1992). The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 301, 5–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horton, W. S., & Boaz, K. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59(1), 91–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Karoma.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985). System and variability in interlanguage syntax. Language Learning, 35(2), 141–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2004). Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language, 11(1), 77–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Nominal structure in Cognitive Grammar. The Lublin lectures. Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1990). Formalization of two puzzles involving knowledge. In V. Lifschitz (Ed.), Formalizing common sense: Papers by John McCarthy (pp. 158–166). Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Milin, P., Đurđević, D., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2009a). The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Language and Memory, 60(1), 50–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Milin, P., Kuperman, V., Kostic, A., & Baayen, H. (2009b). Paradigms bit by bit: An information theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation. In J. P. Blevins & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition (pp. 214–252). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulder, K., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2011). Linguistic skills of adult native speakers, as a function of age and level of education. Applied Linguistics, 321, 475–494. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 4.1.1 edn. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rudas, T. (2018). Lectures on categorical data analysis. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. R. (1972). Meaning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E. (1948). The processing of lexical sequences. University of Alberta PhD Dissertation.
Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 315–332). Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. (2018). Article emergence in Old English: A constructionalist perspective. Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (1989). The acquisition of English articles by first-and second-language learners. Applied psycholinguistics, 10(3), 335–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Romain, Laurence, Petar Milin & Dagmar Divjak
2025. Order Effects in Second Language Learning. Language Learning 75:3 ► pp. 623 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue