Summary
#e paper addresses some typical instances of the translator’s failure to recognize definite reference 
in Slovene, which, in turn, results in an inappropriate determiner selection in English. It is 
argued that errors of this kind are ascribable not solely to the fact that the Slovene determiner 
system lacks an overt non-selective determiner parallel to the definite article, but to the relatively 
scarce use of overt determiners in general. Since definiteness is typically signalled by an anaphoric 
relation, some factors are explored that may help identify textual co-reference despite the absence 
of explicit anaphoric markers. Besides the translator’s inability to recognize the given phrase 
as anaphoric, two other major causes of inappropriate determiner selection are discussed: the 
misconception that the absence of an anaphoric relation entails indefiniteness and the translator’s 
misinterpreting an anaphoric expression as an ascriptive, non-referential entity. #e second part 
of the paper focuses on the difference in use between the selective demonstrative pronoun and 
the non-selective definite article. 
Key words: definiteness, reference, anaphora, anaphoric markers/signals, determiner 
selection, definite article, demonstratives 
 Povzetek
Članek obravnava nekaj tipičnih primerov, ko prevajalec v slovenskem besedilu ne prepozna 
določne reference, kar se odraža v neustrezni rabi člena v angleškem prevodu. T ovrstnih napak ni 
pripisati le dejstvu, da slovenščina nima neselektivnega označevalca določnosti, ki bi bil nekakšna 
vzporednica določnega člena, temveč razmeroma redki rabi označevalcev (ne)določnosti na 
splošno. Zanesljiv znak za določno referenco je anafora, vendar je potrebno ob pomanjkanju 
eksplicitnih anaforičnih signalov upoštevati še nekatere druge dejavnike, ki pomagajo prepoznati 
anaforično razmerje. Poleg prevajalčeve nezmožnosti prepoznati anaforično rabo in s tem 
določnost dane besedne zveze sta v članku predstavljena še dva poglavitna vzroka za napačno 
izbiro člena v prevodu: zmotno prepričanje, da je odsotnost anafore znak nedoločne reference, in 
napačna interpretacija besedne zveze v anaforični rabi kot nekakšnega deskriptivnega elementa 
brez reference, katerega vloga spominja na predikativno rabo. Zadnji del članka se osredinja na 
razliko v rabi med selektivnim kazalnim zaimkom in neselektivnim določnim členom.   
Ključne besede: določnost, referenca, anafora, anaforični signali, izbira označevalca 
določnosti, določni člen, kazalni zaimki
 DOI: 10.4312/elope.5.1-2.23-38

Identifying the type of reference is of crucial importance for a translator faced with the task of 
determiner selection in the target language. Owing to the absence of articles in Slovene and 
in view of the fact that the structure of the Slovene noun phrase does not require an overt 
marker of (in)definiteness, a translator working from Slovene into English can be confronted 
with considerable indeterminacy in this regard. What is meant by ‘indeterminacy’ is not that a 
determinerless phrase has no definiteness value – a noun phrase, when used in a certain context, 
must be either definite or indefinite because the speaker (writer) chooses to use it as such – but 
rather that the translator is unable to identify it. #is may result in an inappropriate choice of 
determiner in the target language.
#e first part of the paper is practically orientated and examines some typical errors in this regard. 
#e examples are taken from the translation work of Slovene students of English and are discussed 
primarily in the light of textual reference, i.e. the possibility of establishing an anaphoric relation 
between the given noun phrase and an item in the preceding text. As pointed out by Halliday and 
Hasan (1976), the basic difference between definite and indefinite expressions is that the former 
are context-bound, signalling that the means of their interpretation is available somewhere in the 
environment, while the latter convey no implication that any further specification is available 
from elsewhere. #is means that anaphoric expressions are necessarily definite. In fact, definiteness 
is typically signalled by an anaphoric relation, with the definite article, demonstratives, personal 
and possessive pronouns functioning as explicit anaphoric markers. Since Slovene noun phrases 
are often used without any overt determiners, some factors are explored that may help identify 
textual co-reference despite the absence of anaphoric signals. 
#e second part of the paper focuses on the function of a demonstrative determiner as an 
anaphoric marker. Although the possibility of supplying a demonstrative determiner is one of the 
most advocated tests for definiteness, its function differs significantly from that of the definite 
article. It is shown in the paper that its use as a marker of definiteness is much more restricted. 
#e difference between the two types of determiner is explicable in terms of the selective nature 
of demonstratives, which reflects their primary, deictic function.
 To illustrate the point made in the Introduction, let us consider the underlined phrase below 
from the point of view of determiner selection.
 
(T1) Več kot četrt stoletja je minilo, odkar je bila 1978 v Narodni galeriji v Ljubljani postavljena 
razstava risb in oljnih slik Franca Kavčiča. Vzrokov za raziskavo njegovega življenja in dela je 
bilo več. Med prvimi je bila želja povečati vednost o slikarju slovenskega rodu in ga predstaviti 
na večji razstavi. 

T ranslation:
>> More than a quarter of a century has passed since an exhibition of drawings and oil paintings 
by the painter Franc Kavčič was mounted  in 1978 in the National Gallery of Ljubljana. Several 
reasons had prompted research into his life and work; one of the foremost was the desire to extend 
the knowledge about the painter of Slovene origin and to present him at a major exhibition.
#e definite article in the painter of Slovene origin is an explicit signal that the information about 
the referent is to be retrieved from elsewhere – a characteristic it shares with the demonstratives, 
personal and possessive pronouns (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976). As a typical anaphoric marker, the 
definite article signals co-reference of the given phrase with an item in the preceding text. In our 
case the painter of Slovene origin is anaphorically linked to the possessive determiner his (in his life 
and work), which is in turn anaphoric to the painter Franc Kavčič. #e reference of the latter is 
clear owing to the use of a name in apposition. #e information about the referent thus ‘climbs’ 
up the anaphoric chain the painter Franc Kavčič
i
 > his
i
 > the painter of Slovene origin
i
 > him
i
. 
Whereas the painter of Slovene origin is explicitly (ana)phoric, its Slovenian counterpart contains 
no overt marker of definiteness:
(1) Med prvimi je bila želja povečati vednost o slikarju slovenskega rodu in ga predstaviti na 
večji razstavi.                                                     painter
LOC
 Slovene
adj-GEN
 origin
GEN
#e translator must have inferred its definite reference from the context. #e definite 
interpretation is further supported by the acceptability of a demonstrative determiner. #e 
Slovene ta (‘this’) appears in (2a) in its locative form tem:
 
(2)
a. Med prvimi je bila želja povečati vednost o tem slikarju slovenskega rodu in ga predstaviti 
na večji razstavi. 
b. One of the foremost was the desire to extend the knowledge about the/this painter of 
Slovene origin and to present him at a major exhibition.
If, on the other hand, sentence (1) is considered in isolation, the noun phrase in question is 
likely to be understood as indefinite and non-specific, which yields the following translation:
(3) One of the foremost was the desire to extend the knowledge about a painter of Slovene origin 
and to present him at a major exhibition.
#e referent of a painter of Slovene origin can be anyone who fits the description ‘a Slovene 
painter’. #e possibility of (3) results from the ambiguity of reference of determinerless noun 
phrases in Slovene. #e crucial factor in resolving such ambiguities is the context. If (1) is regarded 
as an integral part of T1, the indefinite interpretation is much less plausible. #e hearer (reader, 
translator) adopts the following strategy. He/She assumes that the phrase in question is definite 

because he/she can find the means of its interpretation in the preceding text: Franc Kavčič, which 
is a name and as such self-identifying (cf. Anderson 2004). #is, nevertheless, does not suffice for 
establishing co-reference between slikar slovenskega rodu and Franc Kavčič, for it is theoretically 
still possible to understand the former as ‘a painter of Slovene origin’. But the indefinite, non-
specific interpretation would imply contrast, for example that too much attention was being paid 
to foreign painters and that people wanted to learn more about painters of home origin, and such 
implications do not really fit into the context of T1. #e conclusion is that slikar slovenskega rodu 
is a definite, anaphoric expression, co-referential with Franc Kavčič. 
It should be pointed out that sentence (3) is ambiguous too. From the speaker’s point of view, 
a painter of Slovene origin can be presented either in the non-specific sense (i.e. ‘anyone who fits 
the description’) or in the sense that the speaker has a specific referent in mind but would not, 
or cannot, identify it for the hearer. #is means that the ambiguity of (1), repeated below as (4), 
is in fact threefold (5a–c).
(4) Med prvimi je bila želja povečati vednost o slikarju slovenskega rodu in ga predstaviti na večji 
razstavi. (=1)
(5) 
a. One of the foremost was the desire to extend the knowledge about the/this painter of              
Slovene origin and to present him at a major exhibition.  
b. One of the foremost was the desire to extend the knowledge about a/some (‘no matter who’) 
painter of Slovene origin, and to present him at a major exhibition.  
c. One of the foremost was the desire to extend the knowledge about a/some (‘one specific’) 
painter of Slovene origin and to present him at a major exhibition.  
Compare the Slovene equivalents with overt determiners:
 
(6) 
a. Med prvimi je bila želja povečati vednost o tem slikarju slovenskega rodu in ga predstaviti na 
večji razstavi. <> (5a)                            
b. Med prvimi je bila želja povečati vednost o kakem slikarju slovenskega rodu in ga predstaviti 
na večji razstavi. <> (5b)                       
c. Med prvimi je bila želja povečati vednost o nekem slikarju slovenskega rodu in ga predstaviti 
na večji razstavi. <> (5c)                       
Supplying an overt determiner can be a reliable test for reference, as the acceptability of one form 
or another depends largely on the context. If, for example, sentence (4) is taken in isolation, it 
will probably be understood in the sense of (6b), whereas in the context of T1 its most plausible 
interpretation seems to be that of (6a).
It seems that the ambiguity of a determinerless noun phrase is more difficult to resolve if the 
phrase has in fact definite reference; in other words, it is usually the case that a definite phrase 

is misinterpreted as indefinite, rather than the other way round. What follows is an outline of 
three typical cases of the translator’s failure to recognize definite reference in Slovene and the 
consequent inappropriate determiner selection in English. 
 Example:
(T2) Zabodel ga je morski bič med snemanjem dokumentarnega filma o strupenih prebivalcih 
morja okrog avstralskih koralnih grebenov. Napad zanj bržčas ne bi bil usoden, usodno je bilo 
to, da ga je riba z repom zabodla naravnost v srce.
>> He was stung by a stingray during the filming of a documentary on venomous inhabitants 
of the sea around the Australian coral reefs. #e attack itself wasn’t fatal; what was fatal was that 
the/*a fish stabbed him with its tail directly in the heart.
Situation:
#e NP in question (riba/the fish) is anaphorically linked to an item in the preceding text. #e 
following anaphoric chain can be identified: a stingray
i
 > its
i
 (the non-overt subject of attack) > 
the fish
i
 > its
i
. 
Error:
#e translator perceives the phrase as a new entity introduced into discourse rather than an 
anaphoric expression. He/she cannot identify its antecedent because he/she fails to recognize the 
semantic (in our case hyperonymic) relation between the two: some of the students who had 
used the indefinite article argued that ‘a stingray wasn’t a type of fish and that there had in fact 
been two attacks: one by a stingray and one by some fish.’ 
It should be noted though that failing to identify the antecedent was not the only reason for the 
indefinite article in this case. Some students used a fish in another, ascriptive sense: ‘#e man was 
stabbed by the aforementioned stingray, which is a fish, so he was stabbed by a fish.’ A similar 
problem will be discussed in 2.3.
In either case the students completely overlooked some very obvious clues, especially the 
word order and the topic-comment structure. Riba is used in topic position, which implies 
identifiability and definite reference unless a new topic is being introduced into discourse. If riba 
appeared in the text as a new topic, its indefinite reference would be signalled overtly: neka riba 
(‘some fish’). Without the determiner, it would be shifted into a non-topic position. Similarly, 
the ascriptive interpretation suggested by some students would be possible only if the phrase had 
a non-topic function.
A similar problem can arise when the antecedent is not a phrase but a larger portion of text. 
Sometimes the anaphoric relation is not immediately clear because of the distance between the 
anaphor and the antecedent. #e following example (an excerpt from an original English text) 
is a combination of both:

(T3) (2nd paragraph) ... But, after easing over the river Inn, across a bridge curved like a taut 
bow, the train climbs at an angle so steep you’d think you were ascending vertically.  (...) 
(5th paragraph) ... #e train, divided into five neat little compartments, heads through a tunnel 
to emerge at Loewenhaus station, a carapace of glass built on an irresistible curve. It’s a delightful 
taste of what’s to come, the river Inn rippling up ahead, the big ascent still to come.
 Example:
(T4) Hladno je velo po dolini, ko sva v zgodnjem majskem jutru pred skoraj dvajsetimi leti s 
prijateljem stala pri izlivu Gačnika v T rebušico. Cesta se je na tistem mestu končala in naprej je 
čez leseno brv vodila le steza.
>> #e cold drifted along the valley when a friend and I stood at the outfall of the Gačnik into 
the T rebušica on an early May morning almost twenty years ago. #e/*A road ended there, and 
only a path led over a wooden footbridge.
Situation: 
#e noun phrase in question (cesta/the road) appears in the text as a first mention. 
Error: 
#e translator perceives the phrase as indefinite because there is no prior mention of the entity; 
in other words, nothing in the preceding text can be identified as its antecedent. 
It is true that an anaphoric relation entails definiteness, but it is not the necessary condition for 
it. In other words, if a phrase is recognized as an anaphoric expression, its reference is necessarily 
definite; if no anaphoric relation can be identified, its reference may be definite or indefinite. 
#e necessary condition for definiteness is identifiability. In our case, the existence of some kind 
of road or path is presupposed by the fact that the two friends had arrived somewhere. Its first 
mention in the text does not behave like a new entity introduced into discourse but rather as 
a perfectly identifiable entity, interpretable by virtue of implicit information associated with 
the travel frame. #e term frame is used to refer to ‘the set of propositions characterizing our 
conventional knowledge of some more or less autonomous situation’ (van Dijk 1980, 99).
Another clue to the definite reference of cesta in T4 is its syntactic function of a subject together 
with its role of sentence topic in the information structure of the sentence. If it represented a 
completely new entity introduced into discourse, it would occupy a non-topic position after the 
predicator and would be preceded by an indefinite determiner. Compare:
(7) Na tistem mestu se je končala neka cesta ...  
         on that spot          ended       some road
Sentence (7) is understood in the sense that ‘there was some road ending on that spot’, and the 
road is by no means interpreted as the road which had brought the two friends into the valley. In 

fact, nothing in the changed text states explicitly that they had travelled by road – perhaps they 
followed a forest path or a cycle trail, or were brought into the valley by a helicopter. #e travel 
frame implies only that they must have got there somehow, without specifying the means. 
An interesting observation can be made at this point. Implicit information associated with a 
certain frame becomes relevant when some phrase depends on it for interpretation. It is not 
necessary for all the implications to be true in the given context, but the phrase makes it explicit 
which of them is true. In the case of T4, the travel frame gives rise to different associations as 
to how the two friends came into the valley. But what actually happened is unknown to the 
reader until an entity appears in the text that can be interpreted only by association with one 
of these implications: the road.  
 Example: 
(T5) Carju v veselje je vznemirljiv kolaž plesnih oblik, ki jih je Forsythe ustvaril med svojo 
genialno umetniško kariero, in eden največjih dosežkov postmodernega plesa. Balet v treh 
dejanjih, ki vsebuje vse od klasičnega dvornega plesa, prek baleta do break-dancea, se vrti okoli 
zgodovine zahodne civilizacije. 
     Forsythe, ki je v obdobju 1984–2004 vodil Frankfurtski balet, z vsakim delom razburka 
mednarodno baletno javnost. S premikanjem baletnih mej in nepredvidljivimi tematskimi 
variacijami je na novo napisal jezik klasičnega baleta. Njegove prepoznavne predstave so postale 
sinonim za kontroverznost in drznost. Koreograf, ki je obrnil hrbet “lažnemu blišču klasičnega 
baleta”, kot pravi sam,  je v začetku lanskega leta ustanovil svojo plesno skupino.
>> Impressing the Czar is an exciting collage of dance forms created by Forsythe throughout his 
brilliant artistic career and one of the finest achievements of postmodern dance. #is ballet in 
three acts, which / *A ballet in three acts which has it all, from classical court dance and ballet 
to breakdancing, revolves around the history of western civilization. 
     Forsythe, who directed the Frankfurt Ballet from 1984 to 2004, evokes a strong response in 
the international ballet public every time he puts on a new piece. ... #e choreographer, who 
has turned / *A choreographer who has turned his back on, as he puts it, the ‘superficial glitter 
of classical ballet’, set up his own dance company at the beginning of 2005.
Situation:
#e noun phrase in subject position contains a descriptive postmodifier and is co-referential 
with a clearly identifiable noun phrase in the preceding text. 
Error: 
#e translator perceives the anaphoric, referential noun phrase as a description of the 
antecedent and treats it like a non-referential, ascriptive predicative complement. #is type 
of error typically involves misinterpreting a non-restrictive postmodifier as restrictive. #e 
difference between the referential and ascriptive uses is illustrated below. 

(8)
a. [#is ballet in three acts, which has it all, from classical court dance and ballet to 
breakdancing,]
R
 revolves around the history of western civilization. 
b. [#e choreographer, who has turned his back on, as he puts it, the ‘superficial glitter of 
classical ballet’,]
R
 set up his own dance company at the beginning of 2005.
<> referential (R), specific, definite
(9)                                            
a. Impressing the Czar
i
 is [a ballet in three acts which has it all, from classical court dance and 
ballet to breakdancing]. It
i
 revolves around the history of western civilization. 
b. Forsythe
j
 is [a choreographer who has turned his back on, as he puts it, the superficial glitter 
of classical ballet]. He
j
 set up his own dance company at the beginning of 2005. 
<> non-referential, ascriptive
#e error does not occur because the translator would have failed to recognize the specific, 
definite reference of the given phrase. If that were the case, the same type of error would be 
observed in cases without postmodification. #e inappropriate determiner selection is to be 
ascribed almost exclusively to the presence of a descriptive postmodifier, which lends the whole 
phrase a descriptive air and gives it the false look of a predicative. Compare: 
(10)       
a. [#e ballet]
R
 revolves around the history of western civilization. 
b. [#e choreographer]
R
 set up his own dance company at the beginning of 2005.
(11)
a. *[A ballet in three acts which has it all, from classical court dance and ballet to breakdancing,]
R
 
revolves around the history of western civilization. 
b. *[A choreographer who has turned his back on, as he puts it, the ‘superficial glitter of 
classical ballet’,]
R
 set up his own dance company at the beginning of 2005.
It has to be admitted, though, that the ‘clash’ between referentiality and ascriptive meaning 
could be resolved by the following interpretation: 
(12)
a. [a ballet in three acts which has it all, from classical court dance and ballet to breakdancing,]
R
  
= [this piece/ballet, which is a ballet in three acts ... ]
R
    
b. [a choreographer who has turned his back on, as he puts it, the ‘superficial glitter of classical 
ballet’,]
R
 = [this artist/choreographer, who is a choreographer who ...]
R
    
According to (12), the indefinite determiner does not reflect reference but is triggered by the 

highlighting function of the modifier, which makes the whole phrase look like new information. 
#e interpretation, however, cannot be applied in (11) because an anaphoric sentence topic is 
incompatible with ‘newness’. #is special use of the indefinite article with anaphoric expressions 
seems to be restricted to non-topic positions. For example (Lipovšek 2007, 110):
(13) #e north-eastern region of Karamoja
i
 is the only arid region in a country rich in lakes 
and rivers
i
, and suffers from a cyclical problem of drought and famine.
 T raditional grammar (cf. Quirk et al. 1985) views the definite article and the demonstrative 
as occupants of the same structural position, i.e. the central determiner position in a nominal 
phrase. If the determiner position in front of balet or koreograf in T5 is filled by the demonstrative 
pronoun ta (‘this’), the phrase is immediately recognized as an anaphoric expression. As pointed 
out by Vidovič Muha (1996, 118), the anaphoric ta is an unambiguous signal of textual co-
reference. In either case the English translator has a relatively free choice between the definite 
article and a demonstrative: (ta) balet > the/this ballet; (ta) koreograf > the/this choreographer. 
Indeed, a demonstrative determiner and the definite article (or its non-overt counterpart in 
Slovene) are often interchangeable, and the possibility of applying a demonstrative is a very 
popular test for definiteness. A note of caution, however, should be added at this point. Definite 
reference does not automatically entail the acceptability of a demonstrative. In T4, for example, 
it is not possible to use a demonstrative with cesta (the same for its English counterpart) although 
the phrase has definite reference: 
(14) 
a. *Ta/*Tista cesta se je na tistem mestu končala in naprej je čez leseno brv vodila le steza.
b. *#is/*#at road ended there, and only a path led over a wooden footbridge.
We will return to this phenomenon in 3.3.  
#e definite article and the demonstratives signal that the phrase in question has specific, definite 
reference and that the means of its interpretation is available somewhere in the environment. 
If, for example, riba in T2 were preceded by a demonstrative, none of the students would have 
failed to recognize the phrase as anaphoric. #e overt anaphoric marker would have encouraged 
them to search the text for the antecedent and to eventually recognize co-reference between ta 
riba (‘this fish’) and morski bič (‘a stingray’), no matter how much their concept of stingray might 
differ from the concept of fish.
But while both types of determiner signal identifiability (cf. Halliday and Hasan 1976; Lyons 
1999), only the demonstratives are semantically selective, i.e. ‘they contain within themselves 
some referential element in terms of which the item in question is to be identified’ (Halliday 
nd Hasan: 1976, 71). #eir anaphoric uses reflect their primary, deictic use, where the item 
in question is identified in terms of proximity. In this respect they differ significantly from the 

definite article, for they ‘mark the anaphoric relationship more clearly and explicitly’ (Huddleston 
and Pullum 2002, 373). #is functional difference is also reflected in the generative view (cf. 
Alexiadou et al. 2007; Bruge and Giusti 1996; Campbell 1993) that the definite article and 
the demonstrative occupy different structural positions: the former is found in the head of the 
determiner phrase, the latter in its specifier. Some typical manifestations of the selective nature 
of the demonstratives are presented in 3.1.–3.3. below. 
 #e following text provides an example of two phrases which are headed by the same noun 
(plovilo) but are not co-referential. In terms of cohesion (cf. Halliday and Hasan 1976), the tie 
between plovilo (‘the spacecraft’) and to plovilo (‘this spacecraft’) is lexical only, not anaphoric. #e 
translation makes use of the head nouns probe and rocket respectively, which are more specific in 
meaning than spacecraft and make reference immediately clear.
 
(T6) Kitajska namerava v okviru svojega prvega lunarnega raziskovalnega programa popisati 
vsak centimeter Luninega površja. Pri tem ji bo pomagal orbiter Chang’e One
i 
,
 
ki ga bodo v 
vesolje poslali v drugi polovici letošnjega leta. Plovilo
i
 bo posnelo tridimenzionalne fotografije 
Luninega površja, do leta 2010 pa bodo kitajski znanstveniki izstrelili vesoljsko raketo brez 
človeške posadke
j
, ki bo na Luni pristala. To plovilo
j
 bo imelo nalogo s površja Meseca prinesti 
vzorce kamnin.
>> China is about to examine every inch of the moon’s surface. #e project is part of the 
country’s first lunar exploration programme and will be carried out with the help of the orbiter 
Chang’e Onei
 
, which is scheduled to be launched in the second half of the year. #e probe
i
 
will take 3-D photographs of the moon’s surface, and there are also plans afoot to send an 
unmanned space rocket
j
 to the moon by 2010. #e rocket’s
j
 mission will be to bring back 
samples of rock from the moon’s surface.   
Here it is worth repeating the last two sentences of T6 to consider the reference of to plovilo 
(translated as this spacecraft in (15b) in order to maintain the parallel with Slovene) and the 
possibility of omitting the demonstrative determiner. #e reference is clear with or without 
the demonstrative: if the spacecraft is expected to bring back samples of rock from the moon, 
it can refer only to the rocket because orbiters do not land on celestial bodies.  
(15)
a. Plovilo
i
 bo posnelo tridimenzionalne fotografije Luninega površja, do leta 2010 pa bodo 
kitajski znanstveniki izstrelili vesoljsko raketo brez človeške posadke
j
, ki bo na Luni pristala. 
To plovilo
j
 / Plovilo
j
 bo imelo nalogo s površja Meseca prinesti vzorce kamnin.
b. #e probe
i
 will take 3-D photographs of the moon’s surface, and there are also plans afoot 
to send an unmanned space rocket
j
 to the moon by 2010. #e mission of this/the spacecraft
j
 
will be to bring back samples of rock from the moon’s surface.   

Compare: 
(16) #e probe
i
 will take 3-D photographs of the moon’s surface, and there are also plans afoot 
to send an unmanned space rocket
j
 to the moon by 2010. #e spacecraft
???
 will be launched 
from the space centre in Xichang. 
In (16), by contrast, the context offers no clue as to whether the spacecraft refers to the probe 
(i.e. the orbiter) or to the rocket. #e definite article has no semantic content and merely states 
that the item in question is specific and identifiable. A demonstrative, on the other hand, 
‘selects’ the closest potential target as the intended antecedent and is as such a reliable means 
of disambiguation:  
(17) !is spacecraft
j
 will be launched from the space centre in Xichang. 
Ambiguity is, of course, best avoided by choosing a noun whose lexical meaning does not 
include the meanings of both potential antecedents: 
(18) #e rocket
j
 / #e probe
i
 will be launched from the space centre in Xichang. 
As to (17), it must be pointed out that the selection of the target that is nearer the anaphor has 
nothing to do with the fact that proximal this is used rather than distal that. #e distinction 
between ‘near’ and ‘not near’ is often observed when proximity is interpreted in terms of time 
or association with the speaker, but ‘this and that cannot be used contrastively in the anaphoric 
use as they can in the deictic use’ (Huddleston/Pullum 2002, 1506). Example (ibid.):
(19) *I went Christmas shopping and bought a t-shirt
i
 and a CD
j
; that
i
 is for Kim and this
j
 is 
for Pat. 
#e Slovene system, too, provides both forms: proximal ta (‘this’) and distal tisti (‘that’), but 
in the purely anaphoric, non-deictic use only the proximal form is used. #e difference in use 
between proximal and distal forms as anaphoric markers is beyond the scope of this paper.
 #e selective nature of the demonstratives manifests itself also in the dependence of their 
acceptability on the semantic relation between the anaphor and the antecedent. Lexical 
superordination is a case in point. Let us consider the following example: 
(20)
a. Pri tem ji bo pomagal orbiter Chang’e One
i
,
 
ki ga bodo v vesolje poslali v drugi polovici 
letošnjega leta.  _?_
i
 bo posnel tridimenzionalne fotografije Luninega površja.
b. ... with the help the orbiter Chang’e One
i
, which is scheduled to be launched in the second 
half of the year. _?_
i
 will take 3-D photographs of the moon’s surface.

#ere are several ways of supplying the anaphor:
(21)
a. Ta bo posnel / Posnel bo tridimenzionalne fotografije Luninega površja.
b. Orbiter / Ta orbiter bo posnel tridimenzionalne fotografije Luninega površja.
c. Sonda / ?Ta sonda bo posnela tridimenzionalne fotografije Luninega površja.
d. Plovilo / To plovilo bo posnelo tridimenzionalne fotografije Luninega površja.
(22)
a. It will take 3-D photographs of the moon’s surface.
b. #e orbiter / #is orbiter will take 3-D photographs of the moon’s surface. 
c. #e probe / ?#is probe will take 3-D photographs of the moon’s surface. 
d. #e spacecraft / #is spacecraft will take 3-D photographs of the moon’s surface.
Of interest here is the determiner selection in examples (21b–d, 22b–d). It seems that the 
acceptability of a demonstrative increases with generalization in meaning. If the anaphor is 
synonymous with the antecedent, the demonstrative is redundant because there is no need for 
any additional means of identifying the anaphoric relation. If, on the other hand, the anaphor 
is lexically superordinate to the antecedent, the link between the two may be less evident 
(cf. the fish and a stingray in T4); in fact, the more general the meaning, the less evident the 
relation. By using a demonstrative, the writer ‘points’ to the closest potential target, assuring 
the reader that the ‘selected’ phrase is the item targeted by the anaphor. 
#is also explains why in cases where the anaphor is a description with a more general meaning 
rather than an item in the hyperonymic relationship with the antecedent, a demonstrative is 
normally used:
(23)
a. To čudo tehnologije bo posnelo tridimenzionalne fotografije Luninega površja.
b. !is technological miracle will take 3-D photographs of the moon’s surface.
Compare:
(24)
a. Pa pojdite na Jezersko. Kraj / Ta kraj je res vredno obiskati.
b. Why not visit Jezersko? #e place / #is place is really worth seeing.
(25)
a. Pa pojdite na Jezersko. *Biser narave / Ta biser narave je res vredno obiskati.
b. Why not visit Jezersko? *#e jewel / !is jewel of nature is really worth seeing.
 (T7=T4) Hladno je velo po dolini, ko sva v zgodnjem majskem jutru pred skoraj dvajsetimi 
leti s prijateljem stala pri izlivu Gačnika v T rebušico. Cesta se je na tistem mestu končala in 
naprej je čez leseno brv vodila le steza.

>> #e cold drifted along the valley when a friend and I stood at the outfall of the Gačnik into 
the T rebušica on an early May morning almost twenty years ago. #e road ended there, and 
only a path led over a wooden footbridge.
#e above example was discussed in 2.2 as an instance of failing to recognize definite reference 
because the phrase in question appears in the text as a first mention. What is sometimes 
mistakenly put forward as an additional argument in favour of indefiniteness is the 
unacceptability of a demonstrative determiner:
(26)
a. *Ta/*Tista cesta se je na tistem mestu končala in naprej je čez leseno brv vodila le steza.
b. *#is/*#at ended there, and only a path led over a wooden footbridge.
#e argument should be dismissed because, as shown in 3.1–3.2, a demonstrative and the definite 
article (or its non-overt counterpart in Slovene) are not necessarily interchangeable. #e use of a 
demonstrative determiner in (26) is precluded by the fact that the noun phrase in question has 
no antecedent in the preceding text (in which case only the proximal form could be used), nor 
does it point to an item directly accessible for the hearer in the extratextual context of situation 
(in which case either form could be used). #e need for an antecedent supports the view that 
demonstratives in anaphoric use can be seen as markers of topic (Alexiadou et al. 2007, 105). #e 
phenomenon is perfectly explicable in terms of the primary, deictic function of demonstratives: 
a demonstrative signals that the referent is not only identifiable, but also directly accessible to 
the hearer. In (26), by contrast, the reader cannot identify the referent without activating his/her 
non-linguistic knowledge associated with the travel frame (cf. 2.2.). 
#e following text provides two additional examples of the kind:
(T8) Ko smo ob pomolu čakali na ladjico, sem se šele začel zavedati, da gremo v neznano, 
čeprav mi Južna Avstralija že nekaj časa ni bila več tuja. Pust dan se je počasi bližal večeru, naša 
pot pa je bila negotova, saj so valovi neusmiljeno butali v obrežje.
>>  Not before waiting for a boat at the pier did I begin to realize that we were going into 
the unknown, although South Australia had not been foreign to me for quite some time. A 
dreary day was slowly turning into dusk, and our voyage was uncertain with the waves beating 
mercilessly against the shore.
Although the pier has not been mentioned before, the reference of pomol (the pier) is specific 
and definite because waiting for a boat presupposes a kind of structure used for getting on and 
off boats (cf. 2.2). But the fact that the phrase appears as a first mention precludes the use of 
a demonstrative determiner: 
(27)
a. Ko smo ob *tem/*tistem pomolu čakali na ladjico, ...
b. Not before waiting for a boat at the/*this/*that pier ...

#e demonstratives in (27) would, of course, be perfectly acceptable if the phrase in question referred 
exophorically to a specific pier present in the context of situation. #ey would also be possible in 
very informal conversation, where so-called ‘false definites’ are used  as a means of introducing a new 
entity into discourse which is present neither in the text nor in the context of situation but only in 
the speaker’s mind (cf. Halliday and Hasan 1976, Huddleston and Pullum 2002).  
Similarly, pust dan (a dreary day) refers to a specific, definite day. It should be pointed out that 
the indefinite form of the adjective in (28a) and the indefinite determiner in (28b) do not reflect 
reference. #eir use is triggered by the highlighting function of the adjective, which presents 
the whole phrase as new information: It was a dreary day. #is explains why (28a,b) are strongly 
preferred to (28c,d).
 
(28)
a. Pust
INDEF
 dan se je počasi bližal večeru. 
b. A dreary day was slowly turning into dusk. 
c. ?Pusti
DEF
 dan se je počasi bližal večeru.
d. ?#e dreary day was slowly turning into dusk.
#e definite reference becomes obvious if the adjective is omitted: 
(29)
a. Dan se je počasi bližal večeru.
b. #e day was slowly turning into dusk.
c. *A day was slowly turning into dusk.
#e use of a demonstrative is precluded in either case (i.e. with or without the adjective): 
(30)
a. *Ta/*Tisti pusti dan se je počasi bližal večeru.
b. *#is/*#at dreary day was slowly turning into dusk.
c. *Ta/*Tisti dan se je počasi bližal večeru.
d. *#is/*#at day was slowly turning into dusk.
Let us consider the following example for comparison:
(T9) Barry the dinosaur was being put through his paces last week. Over and over, he would 
rear up on his massive hind legs, bare rows of needle-sharp teeth, and then pounce at the robot 
fish slithering across his plywood plinth. #en the huge creature – baryonyx, or Barry, to staff at the 
Natural History Museum – would return to his starting position and begin his hunt again. 
(31)
a. #en the/this huge creature would begin his hunt again.
b. Potem se je (ta) ogromni
DEF
 stvor ponovno lotil lova. 
c. *#en a huge creature would begin his hunt again. (* in T9)
d. *Potem se je ogromen
INDEF
 stvor ponovno lotil lova.  (* in T9)

As illustrated by (31a), the definite article in the huge creature is completely interchangeable 
with a demonstrative determiner. #e necessary condition for the use of a demonstrative 
is fulfilled: the phrase is anaphoric to an item in the preceding text, the anaphoric chain 
beginning with Barry the dinosaur. #e same acceptability of a demonstrative can be observed 
in the Slovene translation (31b). 
 
It should be noted that the indefinite article in (31c) is an indisputable signal of indefinite 
reference. In contrast to (28b) above, it cannot be triggered by the adjective because an 
anaphoric expression in topic function is incompatible with a reading that would present it as 
new information. #is explains why (31c) and (31d) are unacceptable in the context of T9. 
In colloquial Slovene, the meaning combining topichood and newness (‘this creature, which is 
a huge creature’) can be conveyed by using a demonstrative together with the indefinite form 
of the adjective:
(32) $ Potem se je ta ogromen
INDEF
 stvor ponovno lotil dela. 
#e use is rather restricted though, for the indefinite form of a Slovene adjective is distinguishable 
from its definite counterpart only in Nom-Masc-Sg (with all nouns) and Acc-Masc-Sg (with 
inanimate nouns). 
 A Slovene noun phrase without an overt marker of (in)definiteness can pose a problem for 
translation into English from the point of view of determiner selection in the target language. 
Errors in this regard typically involve the translator’s failure to recognize definite reference, 
which is ascribable to three main reasons: (i) the translator’s inability to identify an anaphoric 
relation, i.e. recognize coreference between the noun phrase in question and an item in the 
preceding text; (ii) the misconception that the absence of an antecedent entails indefiniteness; 
(iii) misinterpreting an anaphoric expression as an ascriptive, non-referential entity.
A popular test for definiteness is the acceptability of a demonstrative determiner. Due to its 
selective nature, nevertheless, the use of a demonstrative is often precluded by other factors. 
With no overt determiners to rely on, the translator has to search the text for other clues 
that will help him/her identify reference: anaphoric chains, lexical cohesion, the word order 
and the topic-comment structure, the topic of discourse and the implications of the previous 
discourse. It should be kept in mind that although an anaphoric relation entails definiteness, 
it is not the necessary condition for it. #e main criterion for definiteness is identifiability, 
which can derive also from non-linguistic, conventional knowledge shared by the speaker and 
the hearer.