A survey into the teaching and learning of english articles at english faculty, university of social sciences and humanities

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY
UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

A SURVEY INTO THE TEACHING AND LEARNING
OF ENGLISH ARTICLES AT ENGLISH FACULTY,
UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature
in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL

By
DINH THIEN LOC

Supervised by
NGUYEN THI KIEU THU, Ph.D.

HO CHI MINH CITY, AUGUST 2015


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I hereby certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled:
A SURVEY INTO THE TEACHING AND LEARNING OF
ENGLISH ARTICLES AT ENGLISH FACULTY,
UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
in terms of the statement of Requirements for the Thesis in Master’s Program issued
by the Higher Degree Committee. The thesis has not been submitted for the award of
any degree or diploma in any other situation.
Ho Chi Minh City, August 2015

Đinh Thiên Lộc

i


RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS
I hereby state that I, Đinh Thiên Lộc, being the candidate for the degree of Master in
TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of
Master’s Theses deposited in the Library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the
Library should be accessible for the purpose of study and research, in accordance with
the normal conditions established by the library for the care, loan or reproduction of
the thesis.
Ho Chi Minh City, August 2015

Đinh Thiên Lộc

ii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my advisor,
Dr. NGUYEN THI KIEU THU for the continuous support to my thesis, for her
invaluable guidance, strong motivation, and extensive expertise. I am wholeheartedly
grateful to her deep devotion even when she was on Tet holiday. I simply can not
wish for better supervisor.
I owe a big debt of gratitude to Dr. Nguyen Thu Huong who inspired me to
come up with the thesis topic. He also spent a lot of his time to develop my
background on English articles and he was always willing to support me with his
helpful documents as well as immense knowledge.

I would like to acknowledge all members, teachers and students of the Faculty
of English Linguistics and Literature who directly and indirectly contribute to the
fulfillment of this thesis.
I am deeply thankful to my friends Ba Tong and Thuy Anh who gave me
indispensable advices and unceasing encouragement during my most difficult time. I
also appreciate every single support I received from my other friends at USSH.
Last but not least, my deepest gratitude goes to my parents, my sister, my aunt
and her son who are truly a miracle of my life. Without them, the whole thesis would
still be far from finished.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ................................................................................ i
RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS ................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... ix
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ............................................................. 1
1.2 RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY ................................................................ 2
1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................... 2
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................................... 3

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ............................................................. 3
1.5.1 Theoretical significance .................................................................. 4
1.5.2 Practical significance ...................................................................... 4
1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ........................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................... 6

2.1 THEORETICAL ISSUES ON ARTICLES .................................................. 6
2.1.1 Definition of Articles ...................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Meaning of English Articles ........................................................... 7
2.1.2.1 Definiteness ...................................................................... 8
2.1.2.2 Specificity ....................................................................... 14
2.1.2.3 Genericity ....................................................................... 16
2.1.3 Types of English articles .............................................................. 17
2.1.4 Meaning of Vietnamese Article-like Determiners ........................ 20
2.1.4.1 Countability and Plurality ............................................... 21
2.1.4.2 Definiteness and Maximality .......................................... 22
iv


2.1.5 Types of Vietnamese Article-like Determiners ............................ 23
2.1.5.1 Một .................................................................................. 24
2.1.5.2 Những/ Các ..................................................................... 26
2.1.5.3 Zero articles .................................................................... 29
2.2 CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS .................................................................... 31
2.3 GRAMMAR TEACHING & THE METHODS TO TEACH ARTICLES 31
2.3.1 Grammar teaching......................................................................... 31
2.3.2 Methodologies to teach articles .................................................... 32
2.3.2.1 Traditional methods ........................................................ 33

2.3.2.2 Cognitive method............................................................ 34
2.4 ACQUISTION OF ARTICLES .................................................................. 36
2.4.1 Types of Articles Errors ................................................................ 36
2.4.2 Causes of Articles Errors .............................................................. 38
2.5 ERROR ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 40
2.6 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................... 40
CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY ............................................................. 42

3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................ 42
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................ 43
3.2.1 Context of the study ...................................................................... 43
3.2.2 Participants.................................................................................... 43
3.2.3 Research Materials ........................................................................ 47
3.2.3.1 Coursebooks ................................................................... 47
3.2.3.2 SOC, TLU and UOC ...................................................... 48
3.2.4 Research Methods and Research Tools ........................................ 50
3.2.4.1 Coding system ................................................................ 51
3.2.4.2 Contrastive analysis ........................................................ 53
3.2.4.3 Error analysis .................................................................. 54
3.2.4.4 Questionnaire .................................................................. 55
3.2.4.5 Proficiency test ............................................................... 57
v


3.2.4.6 Interviews ....................................................................... 59
3.3 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE ...................................................... 61
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ............................................................ 61
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................... 63

4.1 ANALYSIS OF DATA AND DISCUSSION ............................................ 63
4.1.1 The teaching of English articles ................................................... 64
4.1.1.1 Coursebooks ................................................................... 64
4.1.1.2 Teaching methodology ................................................... 68
4.1.2 The learning of English articles .................................................... 71
4.1.2.1 Learners’ perception on English articles ........................ 71
4.1.2.2 Learners’ errors in using English articles ....................... 77
4.1.2.2.1 Learners’ errors based on article types ............. 78
4.1.2.2.2 Learners’ errors based on contexts ................... 80
4.1.2.3 Causes of learners’ errors in using English articles ........ 92
4.2 MAJOR FINDINGS ................................................................................... 96
4.2.1 Answers to research question RQ1 ............................................... 96
4.2.2 Answers to research question RQ2 ............................................... 97
4.3 SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 100
CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION................................................................. 101

5.1 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 101
5.2 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS ......................................................... 102
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES ............................ 105
REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 106
APPENDIX 1: Syllabus for Advanced Grammar course .......................................... 114
APPENDIX 2: Questionnaire .................................................................................... 122
APPENDIX 3: Proficiency Test ................................................................................ 124
APPENDIX 4: Interview ........................................................................................... 125
APPENDIX 5: Answer keys for the Proficiency Test ............................................... 126

vi


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CA

Contrastive Analysis

CL

Classifier

EF

the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature

ELT

English Language Teaching

ESL

English as a Second Language

HK

Hearer’s Knowledge

L1

First language

L2

Second language

NEG

Negative

PASS

Passive

PhD

Doctor of Philosophy

SLA

Second Language Acquisition

SPSS

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

SR

Specific Referent

SOC

Supplied in Obligatory Context

TESOL

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

TLU

Target Like USe

TOEFL

Test of English as a Foreign Language

UOC

Used in Obligatory Context

USSH

University of Social Sciences and Humanities – Ho Chi Minh city

vii


LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Classification of English Articles by Master (1994)

Table 2.2: Classification of English Articles Contexts by White (2009)
Table 2.3: Classification of Vietnamese article-like determiners by Nguyen (2005)
Table 2.4: Differences between Những and Các concerning Definiteness
Table 3.1: Description of Student Participants
Table 3.2: Description of Teacher Participants
Table 3.3: Synthesis of Research Tools and their Functions
Table 3.4: Coding System for the Correct Uses of English articles
Table 3.5: Coding System for the Incorrect Uses of English articles
Table 3.6: The Function of Items in the Questionnaire
Table 3.7: The Distribution of Number of Items within 5 Article Contexts
Table 3.8: The Aim of the Questions in the Interview
Table 4.1: Reliability Statistics of the Questionnaire
Table 4.2: Statistics of Questionnaire’s Items
Table 4.3: Statistic of Students’ Perception on English articles
Table 4.4: Reliability Statistics of the Proficiency Test
Table 4.5: Accuracy in Article Uses among 4 Groups of Participants
Table 4.6: Accuracy in Article Uses according to Article Types
Table 4.7: Combination of Students’ Accuracy according to Article Types and Article
Contexts
Table 4.8: Analysis of All Test Items
Table 4.9: UOC Score in Generic Context
Table 5.1: Articles Types within Four Semantic Contexts

viii


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: The Difference between Những and Các
Figure 2.2: Synthesis of Issues related to the Teaching and Learning of English
Articles

Figure 4.1: Accuracy of Article Uses according to Article Contexts
Figure 5.1: Differences in Generic Sense under the View of Cognitive Grammar by
Nguyen (2005)

ix


ABSTRACT
Since the birth of the communicative approach, more and more attention have
been paid to the article system in English language which was partly considered as
function words, hardly carry any message and partly believed to determine users’
level of proficiency. Therefore, the study done for and reported in this thesis was
conducted with the aim to investigate (i) the teaching practices of the English article
system at EF, USSH and (ii) the learning of English articles of 127 EF juniors. To
ensure the validity and consistency of the data collected, the five following research
methods and research tools were applied (i) error analysis, (ii) contrastive analysis,
(iii) proficiency test, (iv) questionnaire and (v) interviews.
The findings, although provisional, revealed some problems with EF teachers
and students’ performance in regards to the rules of English articles. The main
concerns were the shortcomings in the coursebooks and the pedagogies being applied
for Advanced Grammar course that might create a false perception on the learners.
Besides, EF students also caused quite many errors which were later classified into 11
types of errors with the application of a statistical software. Discussing learners’
causes of errors, the two main sources were confirmed including (i) the complicated
nature of English articles and (ii) the interference of learners’ mother tongue which
was believed to be an article-less language.
The study, therefore, urged for a proper attention on the English articles at EF,
USSH. It also suggested some applicable techniques that (i) facilitate the
understanding of confusing concepts, (ii) balance the concentration on all article types
and (iii) simplify the long list of rules.

x


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
The articles, in some way, are one of the most commonly used words in
English. To be more accurate, a recent analysis from the Oxford English Corpus of
nearly a billion English words has shown that “the” is the most common word and “a”
is the sixth one. This leads to the fact that articles play a very important position in the
English language system. However, English articles have been believed to be one of
the most difficult grammar aspects for L2 learners, especially for learners whose
native language is article-less (Master 1997; Thomas 1989). According to a research
of Bardovi- Harlig & Bofman (1989) and later Bitchener et al. (2005) inaccurate use
of articles is one of the most frequent errors committed by ESL students. Therefore,
mastering articles is always a challenging task for English learners. For over 50 years,
countless studies were published to clarify the acquisition of English articles of L2
learners and to suggest the most suitable methodology to teach articles as well.
However, in a recent corpus study of nearly 700 L2 learners’ TOEFL essays, Han et
al. (2006) gave a shocking number that one per every eight noun phrases had errors
with articles. These findings somehow upset the previous works of many authors and
encouraged more studies to be conducted.
In his PhD dissertation, Nguyen (2005) raised his concern that articles were
overlooked by both teachers and learners due to the appearance of communicative
approaches in most English classroom. It could be noted that articles are function
words; unlike content words, they do not often carry the key information of a
sentence. In speaking, articles are often unstressed. In writing, especially in news
headlines or SMS messages, articles are even omitted. This fact, according to Master
(2002), might become a trigger that caused the mistreatment of articles in English

language teaching. With respect to learners’ errors in using articles, Barrett & Chen
1


(2011) suggested that teachers should not ignore those minor mistakes for they may
lead to a false perception in learners’ mind. Especially, as stated by Miller (2005),
native speakers tended to be sensitive with articles’ errors made by foreigners.
According to his research, three most frequent errors caused by non-native speakers
were the choice of tense, subject-verb agreement and the use of articles. While the
first two issues can be overcome, the problems with articles are still the common
errors which can be used to distinguish a native speaker and a non-native one. In a
same manner, Nguyen (2005) called for a special attention to the teaching and
learning of English articles because they reflected the proficiency of learners.

1.2 RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
This study is carried out based on the Doctor dissertation of Nguyen (2005),
namely “Vietnamese learners mastering English articles”. Although Nguyen had
made an experimental teaching, his conclusion seemed yet to be verified by a survey.
It is quite clear that English articles have been discussed in many contexts of L2
speakers with article-less native language; the case in Vietnam is still new. Besides,
the Vietnamese counterparts of English articles were different and the absence of
articles is common in usage. Students, therefore, may lean on a false perception when
using English articles which is believed to lead to a majority of errors on articles. Due
to the reasons above, the current study was conducted by doing a survey on the
teaching and learning of English articles at University of Social Sciences and
Humanities- Ho Chi Minh city, a leading university in English language teaching in
Vietnam to see whether English articles are treated properly. It is obvious that in such
an academic environment where students mostly express themselves in written form,
errors related to articles should be controlled.

1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
It should be apparent that errors in using articles still exist at the advanced
level of L2 speakers where there is no equivalence to the English article system
2


(Master 1995). This encouraged the researcher to conduct a survey to explore how
articles are taught and learnt at EF, USSH. The focus will be on the teachers, the
students and the course books being used in the Advanced Grammar courses. Then, it
is expected that possible causes for the common errors related to students’ use of
articles could be figured out. Besides, in order to overcome the situation, the
traditional as well as the contemporary pedagogical practice will be analyzed to find
out some useful and applicable solutions. In general, the aim of this study is to
explore the current learning and teaching practice of English articles at USSH. The
main focus will be on full-time English major students at the Faculty of English
Linguistics and Literature.
The objectives below have been set out in order to achieve the aims above:
1. To investigate the understanding of English articles of students at EF,
USSH.
2. To find out how the system of English articles is taught at EF, USSH
3. To find out how students at EF, USSH apply their knowledge in using
English articles.
4. To find out some common errors with articles made by students at EF,
USSH.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
To serve the aforementioned significance and to accomplish the aims above,
the research questions were given as follows:
RQ1. What are the current teaching practices of English articles at EF, USSH?
RQ2. What is the current situation of learning English articles at EF, USSH?

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The study is hoped to fill the gap in the literature review so that some
significance to the study could be as follows:

3


1.5.1 Theoretical significance
Chapter 2 of this thesis gave an overview as well as some detailed information
on the understanding of the complicated system of English articles and Vietnamese
counterparts. Some common pedagogical practices to teach articles from the past to
the present were also collected. The study strived to arrive at some errors that L2
learners often made as well. Furthermore, the process of learning articles would be
clarified which was expected to reflect the effectiveness of the current teaching
method at EF, USSH.

1.5.2 Practical significance
Detailed description of learners’ errors and the possible causes would bring
some certain benefits to the teaching of articles at EF, USSH and also at other
universities in Vietnam in general. The teaching and learning implications as well as
suggestions were attempted to provide both teachers and learners the most suitable
and effective method to master the English articles.

1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
Regarding the framework of the study, the whole thesis is divided into 5 main
chapters (i) Introduction, (ii) Review of Literature, (iii) Methodology, (iv) Results and
Discussion and (v) Conclusion, apart from the Acknowledgements, Abstract,
References and Appendixes.
The first chapter, the Introduction, presents the rationale of the study, the

reasons that persuade the researcher to conduct the survey. A discussion of the
background and the significance of the study are also addressed in this chapter.
Chapter two, the Review of Literature is divided into two parts. The first one
deals with the theoretical background as well as the definitions of major terms and
concepts. Then comes the second part which reviews the prior studies on the topic. A
wide range of literature is also mentioned in this chapter. As a guideline for the
following chapter, the conceptual framework is introduced as well.
4


The third chapter, entitled Methodology, describes the methods employed to
conduct the study. Detailed research questions, research designs and relevant
procedures to collect and analyze the data are the other sessions of the chapter.
The next one is Results and Discussion. This can be considered as the most
valuable part of the study. Chapter four reports the results from the data collection
procedure and gives discussions on the findings. The purpose of this part is not only
to seek for the answers of the aforementioned research questions but also to serve as a
basis of the last chapter.
Chapter five, Conclusion, is a brief summary of the study. It states the
conclusion of the whole thesis. Some suggestions for the suitable approaches of
teaching and learning English articles are also included. Recommendations for the
further research are the last parts the author would like to contribute in the thesis.

5


CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 THEORETICAL ISSUES ON ARTICLES
2.1.1 Definition of Articles

Although numerous studies have been conducted on the system of English
articles, there seemed to be a widespread agreement on the definition of articles that
very few authors tried to redefine the term. Traditionally, articles are considered as
adjectives due to the fact that their function is to modify the nouns standing right after
them. However, with times, the linguists realized the differences between the
functions of adjectives and articles. The most common explanation of articles is that
articles are used to indicate whether a noun refers to a specific or a general item. This
way of defining articles can be found in most grammar books and also documents on
the internet. Using specificity to define articles, to some extent, is to determine the
definiteness of a noun which is widely accepted by many authors (Chaudron &
Parker, 1990; Chesterman, 1991; Nguyen 2005). Besides the role of marking the
specificity of noun phrases, Foster (2010) added that articles can also be used to
“signify the level of definiteness or knowness”.
A more general definition could be found in (Berry, 1993) that “articles are
determinatives which serve to give precision to the nouns/noun equivalents to which
they are attached” (p. 23). Similarly, in his book about English grammar, Alexander
(1998) defined that “articles are determiners which affect the meaning of the noun and
make it clearer by showing which particular thing we are referring to” (p. 55). Latter,
Neldelcu (2003) supported the idea of Berry (1993) and stated that the definitions of
English articles do not, in general, “go beyond” Berry’s description.

6


2.1.2 Meaning of English Articles
While most scholars and linguists agreed on the definition of English articles,
they based on different ways to categorize the system of articles. When talking about
articles in English, it comes to our mind that a/an, the and zero article are the main
categories. The word zero article is used to describe the state in which no article is
used before nouns or noun phrases. Some authors also suggested putting one more

type to describe the state of non-use article, which is named null article (Chesterman
1991, Nguyen 2005). The line to distinguish the two terms is also based on
definiteness. As explained by Master (2003), zero article is applied with the most
indefinite nouns like non-count nouns (e.g. ∅ sugar) or plural count nouns (e.g. ∅
tables); meanwhile, null article is the most definite form of English articles.
Chesterman (1991) stated that “null article represents “entities that have distinctive
exterior form”, a complete external boundary” (p. 86). Or in other words, null article
often occurs before proper nouns or some specific count nouns (e.g. ∅ Paris). This
means zero and null article stand at two opposite poles, one represents the most
indefinite nouns, one indicates the most definite nouns. However, because the
distinction between zero and null article is fairly vague and not very necessary, it is
still not mentioned in most current grammar books. Thus, in the scope of the thesis,
zero article is the only word used to refer the situation in which no article is needed.
With regards to the approaches on studying of English articles, Chesterman
(1991) summarized the linguistics history into three main trends. The first one was
triggered by Russell (1905) who considered the role of definiteness as the core of the
system of English articles. Those who followed this trend mainly based on the
meaning and the role of definiteness in the grammar system. The second trend tended
to generate the uses of articles in various contexts. Although this approach revealed a
certain number of weaknesses, quite a lot of scholars do not stop their ambition on
finding the more exact generated rule of choosing articles. And those who learn about
the articles from the articles themselves, i.e. the meaning and distribution of each
article belong to the third group.
7


Within the limited scope of this study, only the very selected literature would
be reviewed among numbers of valuable ones. The focus would mainly on the first
trend of studying on English articles, i.e. discussing the role of definiteness as the core
of English articles. The reason comes from the current situation in Vietnam that when

a student or a teacher is required to classify articles, it would be common that they list
the two types: definite and indefinite articles. The popularity and trueness of the first
approach is another reason that persuaded the author to navigate his study to this
direction. Many linguists and scholars spent thousands of pages to investigate every
corner of the notion of definiteness and up to now, there have not been a common
agreement on all elements that create the definiteness of English articles. So as to give
a sound classification of the system of English articles, three main notions that carry
the meaning of English articles would be reviewed: (i) definiteness, (ii) specificity
and (iii) genericity.

2.1.2.1 Definiteness
Unlike most teachers who classify English articles by the name of a/ an, the or
zero article, researchers always base on one or some particular terms to arrange those
articles in smaller groups. Firstly, the literature review comes up with the most
famous notion which was mentioned in most of studies throughout the history of
English linguistics, ‘definiteness’. Although the term was considered as the core of
the system of English articles by many scholars (Master 1990, Lyons 1999, Butler
2002, Ionin 2004 among others), Nguyen (2005) believed it is not easy to give a clear
definition on definiteness. Using up to six notions to discuss the meaning of
definiteness, Nguyen explained the term based on three different levels. The first one
was about definiteness itself, the second was the intersection between definiteness and
specificity and the intersection between definiteness and genericity was the last level
of this complex definition. Similarly, Chesterman (1991) showed that there are
numbers of issues need to be examined so as to answer the core question on
definiteness. He used a metaphor image “a labyrinth of problems” to express his
8


feeling on definiteness in his book of over 250 pages (Chesterman 1991, p. 3). To
some degree, the study of Lyons (1999) on definiteness was quoted by a handful of

studies of various researchers. Thus, in order to clarify the meaning of definiteness,
three following elements suggested by Lyons (1999) would be discussed (i)
familiarity, (ii) identifiability and (iii) inclusiveness.

Familiarity
Among the other ways of defining definiteness, Yang & Ionin (2009)
considered the notion both in semantic and pragmatic aspect. This is somehow in line
with a famous study on definiteness of Lyons (1999) who assumed that the simplest
and most common ways to mention this issue should base on both view of logicians
(or semanticists) and pragmaticists. Firstly, discussing the semantic feature of
definiteness is not new, however failure to recognize it may result in
misunderstanding of articles. Ionin (2004) claimed that definiteness is a “discourserelated semantic feature” or in other words, it linked with the knowledge of both
speaker and hearer in a specific discourse (p. 325). Likewise, Guillemin (2011)
considered a definite noun as it refers to an entity that is both known to the speaker
and the hearer while indefinite noun is familiar only to the speaker. Though the term
‘familiarity’ Guillemin gave for this distinction between definite and indefinite may
differ from Ionin, Nguyen (2005) tended to have the same way to discuss familiarity.
Nguyen (2005) even traced back to the age of ancient Greek that familiarity can be
simply translated as “the thing you know”. That is why this notion is also called
knowness as suggested by Bolinger (1977). The following examples given might
clarify the semantic feature of definiteness in terms of familiarity:
(1a) Can you give me the book?
(1b) Can you give me a book? – Which one?
The difference between the two sentences above lies in the notion of
familiarity of the hearer. It can be understood that in (1a), the hearer has already
known the book that the speaker mentioned. However, in (1b), there might be a lot of
9


books that the use of “a book” from the speaker confused the hearer. To some extent,

the misunderstanding of familiarity is the main cause of the overgeneralization rule in
choosing the correct articles. With regards to definiteness, the element of familiarity is
also known as “Familiarity theories of Definiteness” and is believed to be first
mentioned by Christophersen (1939) and latter is supported by Heim (1983).
However, the linguist community would not pay much attention to familiarity without
the works of Heim (1983) and his famous ‘donkey example’ (Abbott 2006). In most
literature, the role of familiarity is defined as to decide whether definite or indefinite
should be put before a noun. As the father of the Familiarity theories, Christophersen
also recognized its weakness that he warned learners should pay attention to the
‘unambiguous relation’ between the noun and an entity related to the noun that has
already been known by the hearer. The expression of The author is unknown is a
prominent example when we talk about a certain book. To make it short,
Christophersen (1939) suggested “For the proper use of the, it is necessary that it
should call up in hearer’s mind the image of the exact individual that the speaker is
thinking of” (p. 28).
Interestingly, Hawkins (1978) who was inspired by the quantification theories
of Russell claimed that sometimes the is linked with unfamiliarity rather than
familiarity. Take the example below as an example.
(2) They’ve arrived in Ho Chi Minh city. The plane was five hours late.
Because to reach Ho Chi Minh city, a passenger have many other choices
beside using air way, the appearance of the plane is obviously not known to the hearer
before it was uttered by the speaker. Thus, there was the appearance of ‘unfamiliarity’
in the choice of definite article the in this case. The Familiarity theories of
Christopheren were challenged again when Perrion (1989) finally pointed out the
weakness he found in indefinite NPs. In his dissertation, Nguyen (2005) restated the
example of Perrion to illustrate this interesting idea:
(3) You have a fine daughter.

10

The point here is that the hearer must have known who his daughter is but the
way the speaker addressed the girl using a instead of the is totally correct. It means
that the element of familiarity seems to have problem in this situation. As the result,
this led the linguists to coin a new term: ‘identifiability’.

Identifiability
According to Lyon (1999), identifiability appears when the hearer can refer the
entity that the speaker mentioned “by signaling that he [the hearer] is in a position to
identify it” (p. 6). The use of identifiability, as explained by Lyons (1999) does not
deny the element of familiarity. Without the prior knowledge of familiarity, the hearer
can hardly apply identifiability. The combination of the two terms allows the hearer to
match the noun mentioned by the speaker with the real entity that the hearer knows
about its existence. Although the speaker does not directly mention that entity, the
hearer can refer to the exact entity because he has seen it, heard about it or he can
base on common senses. From the definition of Russell (1905), Guillemin (2011)
simply explained identifiability as a “discourse referent that belongs to a set that the
hearer must be able to identify for clear interpretation” (p. 4). Here is an example
taken from a study of Russell (1905).
(4) I took a taxi to the airport, but the driver was new to the area. So I missed
the flight.
In this case, although the hearer does not know about the driver, he can refer to
the existence of the driver of the taxi. This happens thanks to his knowledge that he
has had before in his life. Or we may say he can identify the driver due to the link
between the taxi and the driver. But the situation is not that simple, Lyons (1999)
suggested that it also required hearer’s readiness to identify the real entity of the noun
phrase indicated by the definite article the. To explain the idea of Lyons, Nguyen
(2005) introduced two examples as follows:
(5a) Just give the shelf a quick wipe, will you, before I put the television on it.
(5b) Pass me the hammer, will you?

11


At this stage, some linguists start to look at definiteness under pragmatics
viewpoint. So as to understand the situation, the physical condition of the utterances
needs to be regarded as well. In (5a), both the speaker and hearer are in a same room,
the speaker asks for a favor and of course the hearer can immediately refer to the shelf
that visible in his eyesight. However, the setting for (5b) is when the speaker stands
on a ladder and intends to drive a nail into the wall and the hammer is out of his reach.
At that very moment, the hearer entered the room and immediately the speaker utters
the suggestion to the hearer. In this case, the hearer does not have any idea about the
hammer but he can quickly realize the current situation with the speaker on the ladder.
The hearer then can look around and find the chair. The quick response action of the
hearer can be understood as the “hearer’s readiness” when he hears the definite article
the before hammer as supposed to exist by Lyons (ibid). The example also proves the
interchange between familiarity and identifiablity. As in “The author is unknown”,
where familiarity fails to explain the choice of article, identifiability can bring
evidence.
It might be noted that Hawkins (1999) used to suggest the use of ‘locatability’
in which the location joins the steps of deciding the definiteness as well. This means
in some cases, the speaker and the hearer do not communicate in harmony because the
relationship between speaker’s referent and hearer’s identifiable entity in real life can
not be established. The suggestion of Hawkins was that location needed to be
considered. The theory was soon directly criticized by some prominent authors like
Lyons (1991) and Chesterman (1991) as another way to define the alrealdy-known
notions of uniqueness and identifiability. Conversely, Nguyen (2005) still believed it
would be worth discussing the examples raised by Hawkins.

Inclusiveness
According to Lyons (1999), to criticize the idea of uniqueness, Hawkins (1978)

suggested that with plural nouns or mass noun, the definiteness was affected by
‘inclusiveness’ rather than uniqueness. In terms of uniqueness, Russell (1905)
12


concluded that definite the must be applied before unique entities, the entities that
happened to be the only on Earth. In contrast, when indefinite article a is used, there
must be more than one entity of that kind found on Earth. Therefore, Hawkins (1978)
proposed that if something is marked definite, it is not necessary a unique entity but it
needs to carry the element of inclusiveness. Lyons (1999) seems to stand on both
sides that inclusiveness and uniqueness have a mutual affection. The most important
thing Lyons (1999) reminded was that it would be a wrongly assumption that “the
signals uniqueness with singular noun phrases and inclusiveness with plural and mass
noun phrases” (p. 11& 12). However, inclusiveness, according to Hawkins, did not
directly belong to a list of category of definiteness but just a part of identifiability or
to be more exact, inclusiveness took care of the quantity aspect of identifiability. To
discuss the link between quantity and inclusiveness, Chesterman (1991) based on both
semantic and pragmatic view. And from the viewpoint of Chomsky, Chesterman
(1991) somehow added the feature [+all] to inclusiveness. Or in Lyons (1999)’s
words, the is a “universal quantifier” which has the same meaning with all. The
following example is taken from Hawkins (1978)
(6) We have to ask you to move the sand from our gateway.
The use of definite article before the mass noun here requires the hearer to
consider the feature [+all] in this case. This means in a common sense, the hearer
would remove all the sand away. In the same manner, Lyons (1999) compared “I’ve
washed the dishes” and “I’ve washed all the dishes” to emphasize the very link
between the and all.
But again, the theory of Hawkins was not supported by quite a lot authors.
Among those, Chesterman questioned the link between mass noun/ plural noun with
the feature [+all] included in inclusiveness. Nguyen (2005) demonstrated this debate

by an example of Chesterman (1991)
(7) The Americans have reached the moon.
It is as clear as crystal that not all Americans have reached the moon. The
definite article the in this example can not be understood correctly within its
13


inclusiveness. Thus, the theory of Hawkins needs to be modified. One way to revise
inclusiveness, in Chesterman’s opinion, is that [+all] might be just “more or less all”.
Talking about definiteness, there are tons of paper to discuss and debate on
every small aspects of its. However, in this paper, only the prominent literatures on
some main features of familiarity, identifiability and inclusiveness are reviewed.
Although this is just an overall review, Lyons (1999) and Nguyen (2005) believed the
core of definiteness somehow can be understood with the knowledge on those
aforementioned notions.

2.1.2.2 Specificity
According to Lyons (1999), specificity is a term applied for an indefinite
singular noun phrase to decide whether it refers to a particular entity or a general one.
Later, Briton (2000) supported the idea by defining a specific article as an article that
denotes “a particular entity in the real world” and an article that denotes “no particular
entity in the real world” is a nonspecific article (p.292). It is also well documented in
SLA that specificity is linked with “particular entity in the real world” (ibid.).
Huebner (1983) seemed to trigger this trend and his idea was highly appreciated by
many authors like Roberson (2000). Another way to distinguish specificity and nonspecificity is to identify the two notions of reference and denotation (Guillemin
2011). As explained by the author, the purpose of a specific expression is to “refer”
while a non-specific expression is to “denote” (p. 6). The examples bellows were
given to demonstrate his idea.
(8a) A/ the cat purrs. (non-specific)
(8b) A/ the cat purred. (specific)

In (8a), the meaning of the sentence is applied for all cats or it can be viewed
as a universal truth. Hence, sentence (8a) denotes a generic sense which does not aim
to any specific cat. In contrast, sentence (8b) directly asserts a/ the cat that purred.
Hearer, in this case, can refer to the existence of such cat.

14