Maket 2013:Layout 1.qxd


The Role of the Article in the Semantic Interpretation of

the Antecedent in Attributive Clauses

Nune Hayrapetyan
Yerevan State University

T
he study of the article in English has a long tradition in various disciplines,

including linguistics, philosophy, logics and psychology. It has been analyzed

from a variety of distinct theoretical perspectives – logical semantics, functionalism,
psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, to mention just a few. Nevertheless, pre-

vious analyses of the definite article the are remarkably similar in both the kinds of
data they examine and the general theoretical questions they attempt to answer. More

specifically, research has consistently focused on what we might call the “referential

function” of the article, that is, the use of a noun phrase with the to pick out an indi-
vidual, ‘‘to distinguish it from all other individuals in the universe of discourse” (Lyons

1977).

The article certainly plays a very important role in grammar. The paper focuses on the

use of the article in restrictive and non-restrictive attributive clauses. Grosu & Landman

(1998) interpreted restrictive (defining) relatives as intersective modifiers of the nominal

head which contribute to determining the restriction of the determiner, whereas non-

restrictive (appositive or non-defining) relatives modify the whole noun phrase head,

rather than contributing to the restriction.

According to Huddleston (1971) relative clauses are characterized by the presence in

their remote structure of an element that is co-referential with a preceding element, its

antecedent. Normally the relativized element and its antecedent are NPs.

The modification of the antecedent by the relative clause can be restrictive and non-

restrictive. In restrictive relatives, the relativized NP and its antecedent are both dominat-

ed in the  remote structure by a larger NP, which is the matrix NP.

In non-restrictive relatives the antecedent and the relative clause do not form a con-

stituent in the remote structure:

a) The doctor, who was the family physician, saluted him, but he scarcely took any
notice.

b) The doctor who was the family physician saluted him, but he scarcely took any
notice.

In (a) the speaker assumes that the hearer is able to uniquely identify which doctor he

is referring to. The hearer may make the identification on the basis of the preceding con-

text or of his knowledge of the situation, whereas in (b) the hearer is assumed to be able

to identify which doctor is being referred to. Thus, the doctor who was the family physi-
cian is a single constituent NP. The difference between these two types is that in restric-
tive relatives, the relativized NP and its antecedent are both dominated in the remote

structure by a larger NP, which is the matrix NP, whereas in non-restrictive relatives the

antecedent and the relative clause do not form a constituent in the remote structure.

The definite article expresses what is known, or what is not presented as new, and has

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

68



the function of identification, while the indefinite article expresses what is new and has

the function of relative generalization.

It is suggested that articles be represented in the deep structure as syntactic features

on the head noun. There is no such category as article in the phrase structure.

Views on definiteness are widely divergent. Perlmutter (1970) has given the impres-

sion that the comes solely from lexical insertion. Robbins (1968) states that all instances
of the arise transformationally. In considering the sources of definite articles, there are
several distinct types of them to be considered:

1. anaphoric (within a sentence),

2. definite description with a relative clause,

3. non-linguistically anaphoric (contextual).

These 3 types of uses do not exhaust the significant classifications, the lines between

them are easy to draw or to justify.

We consider that type 1 is simply a special case of type 3, i.e. there is the same process

of anaphora in both, and it is a relatively superficial matter whether the antecedent happens

to be in the same sentence or not. One might claim that the use of the definite article depends

on an implicit relative clause which ensures uniqueness and hence definiteness. 

It is assumed (Baker 1989) that  anaphora changes the kernel indefinites to derived

definite and the is inserted transformationally when an underlying existential relative
sentence is embedded with the determiner. 

In the case of the anaphoric definite article, the NP is assumed to be coextensive with the

previous NP which caused the definitization. When the definite article occurs with a relative

clause, it (the clause) defines the set. The fact that some occurrences of the definite article

are obligatory does not really provide justification for any of the above positions.

The definite article obligatorily accompanies superlatives, as well as other quantifiers

such as same, only, next which require a certain noun, as in: the best way, the same day,
etc. Articles operate identically with proper and countable common nouns except that the

definite article is zero before singular proper nouns.

Chomsky (1965) adopted a formulation, on which the relative clause is generated as

a complement to the determiner. The proposed selectional relation between the determin-

er and the relative clause can straightforwardly account for the following co-occurrence

constraints:

a) the zero determiner introducing (unmodified) proper names allows only for non-

restrictive relatives and not for restrictives;

b) the definite and indefinite article allow for both non-restrictives and restrictives;

c) quantificational determiners allow only for restrictives, but not for non-restrictives.

It also accounts for the behaviour of certain abstract common nouns, like manner,
way, time, place, which can only occur when modified by a relative clause or by some
kind of demonstrative determiner.

Both men of childhood, of the elfin and adventurous time when tall weeds
close over us like woods had simultaneously a reminiscence.

(Chesterton “The Innocence of Father Brown” p.172)

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

69



As soon as I arrived I made an attempt to find my host but the two or three
people of whom I asked his whereabouts stared at me in such an amazed
way and denied so vehemently any knowledge of his movements that I
slunk off in the direction of the cocktail table –the only place in the garden
where a single man could linger without looking purposeless and alone.

(Fitzgerald “The Great Gatsby” p.57)

Similarly, it accounts for the observation that a proper name can be preceded by the

definite article when it is modified by a restrictive relative clause: the Paris (that I
love). A refers to what is unidentified, whereas the refers to what is identified. There is,
of course, no one-to-one correspondence between the use of the indefinite article and

what is unidentified on the one hand, and the definite article and what is identified on the

other. For example, with cataphoric determination, the definite article does not refer to

an identified element. Generic utterances provide another exception, and soon. However,

in this discussion,we propose to simplify and to state that:

the reference of an antecedent accompanied by the indefinite article is considered to

be non-retrievable in context/situation;

the reference of an antecedent accompanied by the definite article is considered to be

retrievable in context/situation.

Many if not most linguists and grammarians tend to use definite head examples when

analysing the properties of the restrictive relative clause. This leads one to assume that

no distinction needs to be made between restrictive clauses with definite heads and those

with indefinite ones. One assumes that both play the same role but in fact this is not the

case. The non-retrievable vs. retrievable parameter just mentioned has semantic and

pragmatic implications which, in turn, trigger off not only semantic and pragmatic dis-

tinctions but also syntactic ones.

It is a well-known fact that in written English the comma ought to be used if the utter-

er wishes to indicate that the relative clause is a non-restrictive one; this necessity is, of

course, explained by the fact that, with a definite head, there can be referential ambigui-

ty if the comma is omitted:

The storm was particularly cruel to the Spanish ships which had taken
the worst punishment in the battle.       (Thomson “Sir Francis Drake” p.57)

According to whether the comma was omitted or not, the storm was particularly cruel

to all the Spanish ships (non-restrictive); or else it was cruel only to those which had

taken the worst punishment (restrictive).

However, for a non-generic reference, there can be no referential ambiguity when the

comma is omitted if the head is indefinite. It is not possible for there to be any confusion

of reference for an element presented for the first time. There seems to be only one

exception to this – the case where the antecedent comprises more than one noun: 

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

70



These were, however, reassured by his confidential servant, Ivan, the
old man with a scar, and a face almost as grey as his moustaches, who
always sat at a table in the entrance hall – a hall hung with weapons. 

(Chesterton “The Innocence of Father Brown” p.30)

Here, the comma indicates that the whole noun phrase is referred to; in other words,

it is not the scar or the face that sat at a table but Ivan, the old man with a scar.
Since, for indefinite heads, the comma is normally not required to solve problems of

referential ambiguity, this means that for the most part they (relatives with indefinite heads)

have the syntactic and suprasegmental features of the attached relative clause. The example

just mentioned, provides an exception. Another exception is the continuative relative clause:

And every time the matrons of Atlanta gathered together to gossip, his
reputation grew worse, which only made him all the more glamorous to the
young girls. (Mitchell “Gone With the Wind” p.185)

Here, his being made more glamorous to the young girls cannot enter the description

of its referent at the time of the event referred to in the matrix clause (the gatherings of

the matrons of Atlanta); only on a subsequent occasion can it do so (his reputation grew

worse among the matrons of Atlanta which made him more and more glamorous to the

young girls).

This type of exception, where a comma indicates the non-restrictive status of the rela-

tive clause, helps one to understand why, for pragmatic reasons, it is necessary that there

be two main types of relative clause: restrictive and non-restrictive. The opening of a new

tone unit, marked by the comma and indicating the non-restrictive status of the clause

serves as a warning to the addressee. This warning can be interpreted as follows: the

information contained in the relative clause does not contribute towards the description

of the antecedent for purposes of identification. Parallely,in the interpretation of the ante-

cedent the role of the article is to be emphasized.

(1) The man,who has blue eyes, is very handsome.
(2) The man who has blue eyes is very handsome.
Sentence (1) assumes that we already know what man is being talked about–hence the

definite article the. That he has blue eyes is just an additional piece of information, pos-
sibly relevant to the judgment that he is handsome. Sentence (2) assumes that we have

been talking about more than one man and that we are singling out the one with blue eyes

for a favorable comment.

We are dealing with the one man on earth, perhaps, who has taken no
more than his due. (Chesterton“The Innocence of Father Brown” p.142)

Only Gatsby, the man who gives his name to this book, was exempt
from my reaction- Gatsby who represented everything for which I have an
unaffected scorn. (Fitzgerald “The Great Gatsby” p.4)

I am a man who has ever since boyhood believed in Nature and in all

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

71



natural functions and instincts, whether men called them moral or
immoral.                 (Chesterton “The Innocence of Father Brown” p.167)

And I thank God that I see the criminal clearly now  because he is a
criminal who cannot be brought to the gallows. 

(Chesterton “The Innocence of Father Brown” p.210)

The distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive applies to other forms of post-

modifiers as well, particularly to noun phrases:

(1) My brother Bill laughed.
(2) My brother, Bill, laughed.
(3) My brother who is a doctor laughed.
(4) My brother, who is a doctor, laughed.
(5) Bill, who is a doctor, laughed.
You would always use sentence (1) above if you have more than one brother and want

to specify which one. Sentence (2) implies that you have only one brother but want to remind

the listener or reader what your brother’s name is. Sentence (3) has a restrictive relative

clause implying that you have more than one brother, with only one brother being a doctor.

Sentence (4) implies either that you have only one brother or that your reader already knows

which brother is being talked about. Unless there were, say, a whole room full of people

named Bill, relative clauses modifying names, like (5) above, are always non-restrictive.
We can distinguish three functions of relative clauses:

a) identifying RCs enable reference identification

Which book did you buy? The book (that deals with syntax).
b) classifying RCs create new reference subclasses

What kind of book are you looking for? A book (that deals with syntax).
c) describing RCs provide additional information

What kind of book did you buy? A book (that deals with syntax).
Relative clauses that modify definite noun phrases can have a describing function in

which case they are non-restrictive in form. RCs that modify indefinite noun phrases on the

other hand, cannot have an identifying function. They can have a classifying function, in

which case they are restrictive in form, or they can have a describing function, in which

case they are non-restrictive in form. So articles should be represented in the deep structure

as syntactic features on the head noun. It is suggested that “kernel” sentences have only

indefinite articles and it is anaphora that changes the kernel indefinites to derived definites.

Thus definitization ensures the conversion of constituent indefinite articles to definite sta-

tus which embraces three types of definite articles: anaphoric (within a sentence), definite

description with relative clause, and non-linguistically anaphoric (contextual).

References:

1. Baker, C. (1989) English Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.                                                           
2. Chomsky,N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntex. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

72



3. Grosu, A. (2002) Strange Relatives at the Interface of Two Millenia. Tel Aviv: Tel
Aviv University.

4. Huddleston, R. (1971) The Sentence in Written English. Cambridge: CUP.
5. Jacobs, R. (1995) English Syntax.A Grammar for English Language Professionals.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

6. Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.
7. Perlmutter, D. (1970) On the Article in English. Cambridge: MIT Press.
8. Quirk, R.; Greenbaum, S.; Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985) A Comprehensive

Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
9. Robbins, B. (1968) The Definite Article in English Transformations. The Hague:

Mouton.

Sources of Data:

1. Chesterton,G. (2001) The Innocence of Father Brown. London: Penguin Book Ltd.
2. Fitzgerald, S. (1991) The Great Gatsby. Cambridge:CUP.
3. Mitchell, M. (1936) Gone with the Wind.New York: MacMillan.

Ðá¹Ç ¹»ñÁ áñáßÇã »ñÏñáñ¹³Ï³Ý ݳ˳¹³ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ñ³ñ³μ»ñÛ³ÉÇ
ÇÙ³ëï³ÛÇÝ ÁÝϳÉÙ³Ý Ñ³ñóáõÙ

²ÝíÇ×» ÉÇ ¿ Ñá¹Ç áõÝ»ó³Í Ù»Í ¹»ñÁ ù»ñ³Ï³Ý³Ï³Ý μáÉáñ ϳéáõÛóÝ»ñáõÙ: ´³-
ó³éáõÃÛáõÝ ã»Ý ϳ½Ùáõ٠ݳ¨ áñáßÇã »ñÏñáñ¹³ Ï³Ý Ý³Ë³¹³ ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ, áñáÝó
ѳñ³μ»ñÛ³ÉÇ Ñ»ï û·ï³·áñÍí³Í Ñá¹Á Çñ áõñáõÛÝ ÇÙ³ëï³ÛÇÝ Ý»ñ¹ñáõÙÝ ¿ ϳ-
ï³ñáõÙ »ñÏñáñ¹³ Ï³Ý Ý³Ë³¹³ ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ  ï³ñáñáßÙ³Ý Ñ³ñóáõÙ: 

àñáßÇã »ñÏñáñ¹³ Ï³Ý Ý³Ë³¹³ ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ϳñáÕ »Ý ÉÇÝ»É Ù³ëݳïáõÝ³Ï ¨
³ÝÙ³ëݳïáõݳÏ: ì»ñçÇÝÇë ѳñ³μ»ñÛ³ÉÁ ë»ñï ϳåí³Í ¿ Çñ»Ý μÝáõó·Çñ
ѳݹÇë³óáÕ Ã»Ù³ïÇÏ ß³ñáõݳÏáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ»ï ¨ ϳñÇù ãáõÝÇ Ñá¹Ç û·ï³·áñÍÙ³Ý
ë³Ñٳݳ÷³ÏÙ³Ý, ³ÛëÇÝùÝ` ³Ûëï»Õ ϳñáÕ »Ý û·ï³·áñÍí»É ¨° áñáßÛ³É, ¨° ³ Ýá-
ñáß Ñá¹»ñ: Æ ï³ñμ» ñáõÃÛáõÝ ³ÝÙ³ëݳïáõÝ³Ï Ý³Ë³¹³ ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ, Ù³ëݳ-
ïáõÝ³Ï áñáßÇã »ñÏñáñ¹³ Ï³Ý Ý³Ë³¹³ ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ñ³ñ³μ»ñÛ³ÉÇ Ï³åÁ Çñ
ëïáñ³¹³ë ß³ñáõݳÏáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ»ï ³Û¹ù³Ý ¿É ë»ñï ã¿, ù³ÝÇ áñ ³Ûëï»Õ ÙdzÛÝ Ñ³-
í»ÉÛ³É ï»Õ»ÏáõÃÛáõÝ ¿ Ý»ñϳ۳óíáõÙ: гñ³μ»ñÛ³ÉÇ  ÇÙ³ëï³ÛÇÝ ß»ßï³¹ñáõÙÁ
å³Ñ³ÝçáõÙ ¿ ÙdzÛÝ áñáßÛ³É Ñá¹Ç û·ï³·áñÍáõÙ, áñÁ ϳñáÕ ¿ ѳݹ»ë ·³É ݳ¨
½ñáÛ³Ï³Ý Ï³ñ·áí áñå»ë ѳñ³μ»ñ۳ɪ û·ï³·áñÍí³Í  ѳïáõÏ ·á۳ϳÝÝ»ñÇ
³éϳÛáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»åùáõÙ:  

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

73