Page 84 - Lazar, Irena, Aleksander Panjek in Jonatan Vinkler. Ur. 2020. Mikro in makro. Pristopi in prispevki k humanističnim vedam ob dvajsetletnici UP Fakultete za humanistične študije, 2. knjiga. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem.
P. 84
The partitive article yields an ambiguous interpretation, as the nomi-
nal phrase (NP) in which it is located may yield a specific or a non-specific
reading, while the omission of the article in plural NPs is interpreted only
as non-specific. The article-free structure is a consequence of an unfinished
grammaticalization process of the indefinite article and may only occur
with subjects in the post-verbal position in sentences with unaccusative
verbs or in sentences with accusative objects. However, even in such con-
texts, the distinction between the specific and non-specific reading of NPs
in some cases is lost due to phonological, syntactic, or semantic restric-
tions. Almost all the analysed grammars tend to avoid this issue, explain-
ing this linguistic phenomenon only superficially and with approximate or
generalized explanations that may apply to other structures and uses of the
article. The terminology differs among authors, often the structure with the
partitive article and the one without it result as synonymous, which might
be misleading. Explanations and rules – when they are included at all –
are only partially true, too general or differ from grammar to grammar.
Examples that support such explanations and rules do not show all the pos-
sibilities of use and restrictions. They focus mostly on some structures con-
sidered as "typical", such as negative sentences – although there are no re-
strictions on use in positive sentences – a fact that might lead to a mistaken
generalization of rules. Only the grammar written for university students
shows the situation clearly and lists all contexts of use and semantic dif-
ferences between them. All other grammars do not describe this linguistic
phenomenon sufficiently in detail and consequently, they leave doubts as to
the differences in the meaning and correct use of this structure.
460
nal phrase (NP) in which it is located may yield a specific or a non-specific
reading, while the omission of the article in plural NPs is interpreted only
as non-specific. The article-free structure is a consequence of an unfinished
grammaticalization process of the indefinite article and may only occur
with subjects in the post-verbal position in sentences with unaccusative
verbs or in sentences with accusative objects. However, even in such con-
texts, the distinction between the specific and non-specific reading of NPs
in some cases is lost due to phonological, syntactic, or semantic restric-
tions. Almost all the analysed grammars tend to avoid this issue, explain-
ing this linguistic phenomenon only superficially and with approximate or
generalized explanations that may apply to other structures and uses of the
article. The terminology differs among authors, often the structure with the
partitive article and the one without it result as synonymous, which might
be misleading. Explanations and rules – when they are included at all –
are only partially true, too general or differ from grammar to grammar.
Examples that support such explanations and rules do not show all the pos-
sibilities of use and restrictions. They focus mostly on some structures con-
sidered as "typical", such as negative sentences – although there are no re-
strictions on use in positive sentences – a fact that might lead to a mistaken
generalization of rules. Only the grammar written for university students
shows the situation clearly and lists all contexts of use and semantic dif-
ferences between them. All other grammars do not describe this linguistic
phenomenon sufficiently in detail and consequently, they leave doubts as to
the differences in the meaning and correct use of this structure.
460
