I revisit the interpretation of the so-called definite determiner,\u00a0n\u00f2\u00a0<\/i>in Akan. I contend that contrary to previous analyses,\u00a0n\u00f2\u00a0<\/i>is not a definite determiner of type <<e,t>e>. Rather, I claim it is as a partial identity function which triggers an anaphoric presupposition. The main advantage of the present theory is that it presents a uniform semantics of the use of\u00a0n\u00f2\u00a0<\/i>in examples (1a) and (1b). In example (1a)\u00a0n\u00f2\u00a0<\/i>follows an NP, I will refer to this as the nominal\u00a0n\u00f2.\u0300\u00a0<\/i>In (1b) it is at the end of a\u00a0wh<\/i>-question, and this will be referred to as the clausal\u00a0n\u00f2.<\/i><\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Me-t\u0254-\u0254\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0ataade\u025b\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0ne\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0mpaboa bi. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Mpaboa n\u00f2 y\u025b\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0f\u025b.<\/p>\n
1SG-buy-PST dress\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0CONJ shoe \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0INDEF shoe\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0n\u00f2 COP nice<\/p>\n
\u2018I bought a shoe. The shoe was nice.\u2019<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Hena na\u00a0\u00a0\u0254-ba-a\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0ha\u00a0\u00a0n\u00f2.
\nWho foc. 3sg-come-pst here n\u00f2<\/p>\n
`What came here?\u2019<\/p>\n
The nominal and clausal\u00a0n\u00f2\u00a0<\/i>are\u00a0assumed to be underlyingly the same morpheme by Amfo (2006), and Arkoh & Mathewson (2013), a.o.\u00a0\u00a0This talk will focus on the nominal\u00a0n\u00f2<\/i>. I show that as an anaphoric expression, the antecedent of the\u00a0n\u00f2\u00a0<\/i>phrase should only be\u00a0weakly familiar<\/i>, (Roberts 2003). In other words, it does not necessarily require a linguistic antecedent. The only requirement is that the descriptive content of the antecedent is compatible with the descriptive content of the anaphoric expression.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"