Can the word "said" be a determiner in written English?

Question

Consider sentences like this one. "Reluctant to place the dog and the children in the same houses as caretakers affected by the slobbering sickness, the authorities decreed that said children would be placed in the care of the Church of the Fiery Severed Fist of Our Beloved Deity while said dog would be placed in a large forest where the elimination of their waste would no longer constitute a public nuisance."

At first blush, "said" seems to function as a determiner in the last sentence. "the said children*" or "a said dog*" are both ungrammatical, although "the aforementioned children" is perfectly okay. This particular sense of "said" does not appear to belong to an open class. Participles that premodify nouns can be, and often must be, preceded by determiners, as in the phrases "the dwindling candles" or "a rotating planet." However, we don't see "the said candles*" or "the said rotating planet*." We do see "said dwindling candles" or "said rotating planet." So "said," in this context, looks like a determiner.

But I'm well aware that I could be missing something here, and so pose this question to the group. Is "said" really a determiner in the contexts that I've just mentioned?

Off the top of my head, it's clearly anaphoric. And as such it can only be used with the definite article. As for POS, it's the past participle of 'say', which although a verb has adjectival force. The form "the said" is quite common--google books shows many hits. — Gaston Ümlaut, Jun 20 '12 at 06:29
I just checked Google for this phrase, and am not seeing the form I'm addressing in my question. In most of the instances that I checked, "the said" was a noun phrase synonymous with "things that are said." I have never seen phrases like "the said child" or "the said dog." In the context in the example I provided, "said" is not acting like a participle. — James Grossmann, Jun 20 '12 at 06:52
What is more, interpreting "said" in my example as having adjectival force yields literal nonsense; neither the children nor the dog are being "said." — James Grossmann, Jun 20 '12 at 06:59
The first hit in Google Books for "the said" is: "...giving credit to the said last-mentioned assertion...". Searching for "said person" one hit is: "...who shall physicall examine said person...". Are these not similar? I have never seen "the said" as a NP. Rather, "said" in these examples is modifying the NP it precedes, indicating that it has already been mentioned (ie ="aforementioned"). — Gaston Ümlaut, Jun 20 '12 at 08:43
I think the said uses of said are strictly legal (and fake-legal) phraseology, and only those admitted to practice at the Bar should ever use them. /sɛd/ also makes a peculiarly poor determiner; it requires stress, it's easy to confuse with other stressed words, and the fact that it's related to say is signalled only in spelling and not perceivable in speech, and even there it's potentially ambiguous. — jlawler, Jun 20 '12 at 14:55
The first page of google results for "the said children" (quotes included) effectively disconfirm the claim that the construction is unattested. Given that fact, the hypothesis that "said" is a determiner is untenable. — Aaron, Jun 20 '12 at 16:36
@Gaston and Aaron: Well, I stand corrected. But that still doesn't answer my question with regard to this sense of "said" used without the definite article. The force is clearly not adjectival, and "said child" occurs without the definite article even though "child" is a count noun. For these reasons, I still think that my question has yet to be answered. — James Grossmann, Jun 20 '12 at 17:23
@jlawler: Legal or fake legal, and permissible only among lawyers or not, the construction I mentioned does indeed occur. I don't see what stress has to do with the status of a word as a determiner. "These" is a stressed word, yet it can also be a determiner, as in "These people are smiling." The rest of your comment seems to address whether "said" should be a determiner rather than whether it is is some contexts. — James Grossmann, Jun 20 '12 at 17:28
@JamesGrossmann, the answer is simple - it depends on your definition/theory of the determiner. — Alex B., Jun 21 '12 at 19:49
What is the difference between the said child and said child (with no the)? I suspect the only difference is that people who say the first don't treat said as a determiner, while people who say the second do. — Peter Shor, Jun 21 '12 at 22:38
Re your earlier comment that: 'interpreting "said" in my example as having adjectival force yields literal nonsense; neither the children nor the dog are being "said." ' You can't appeal to semantics to prove/disprove POS membership. Because 'said' seems to you to be different from most adjectives does not mean it's not behaving as an adjective. — Gaston Ümlaut, Jun 21 '12 at 23:06
@JamesGrossmann Regarding adjectival force: the dog and child may not be "spoken", but the are certainly "referred to". Consider also "aforesaid" which is clearly an adjective. — Mark Beadles, Jun 21 '12 at 23:56

score 5 · Accepted Answer · answered Jun 21 '12 at 19:14

5

Using a noun phrase without a determiner is already fairly common in certain registers of English -- notably newspaperese. I think that there you're also more likely to find formal-souding words like said used.

The OED Online gives said simply as an adjective (ignoring irrelevant senses) meaning "named or mentioned before". In the examples they give, said is always used with a preceding determiner.

So I think it's consistent with both of the above to say that:
(1) said is just an adjective in this case and
(2) some registers of English allow NPs to occur without Dets more frequently.

thus leading to NPs like "said children".

answered Jun 21 '12 at 19:14

Mark Beadles

6,860
2
24
46

1

While the OED Online may give a determiner in all its examples; said is not always used with a determiner. I don't see how "of said child" can be grammatical if you don't consider said a determiner. In fact, I think these Google Ngrams make it clear that said is a determiner in American English but not in British English – Peter Shor Jun 21 '12 at 22:45
You may be correct about the AmEng - BrEng difference. Regarding grammaticality, like I said, some registers don't require a Det, and there is no evidence from Ngrams that makes such a register difference clear. – Mark Beadles Jun 21 '12 at 23:53
1

@Mark B.: But if "said" in the sense that we're discussing here is an adjective, what can we make of constructions like "The child was said (meaning aforementioned)." and "the possibly said (meaning possibly aforementioned) child"? Inasmuch as these two examples are ungrammatical, "said" still looks like a determiner here. – James Grossmann Jun 22 '12 at 01:04
@JamesGrossmann Now that is indeed an interesting point! I wonder, though...if as Peter Shor points out, in BrEng "said" is not a determiner, it still can't be used predicatively. I.e., in BrEng you also can't say "The child was said (meaning aforementioned)." Also, we can say "the said child" but not *"the that child". – Mark Beadles Jun 22 '12 at 01:15
@JamesGrossmann I would not describe "said" (in the sense here) as an adjective. It's the past participle of "say"; past participles are commonly found acting adjectivaly, but are used in a variety of other ways as well. – Gaston Ümlaut Jun 22 '12 at 02:49
@JamesGrossmann I'm curious about your examples, both of which look ungrammatical to me: "the child was said." and "the possibly said child."--where did you find them? – Gaston Ümlaut Jun 22 '12 at 02:50
@GastonUmlaut: But again, if we analyzed "said" in this context as a participle, we could only take "said child" to be literal nonsense, namely "the child that was said." – James Grossmann Jun 22 '12 at 02:52
@JamesGrossmann (last one, I promise!) I would not want to analyse "said" as a determiner (I'm personally not convinced about the determiner POS category), but it does act anaphorically, which is one of the functions of (some) determiners, particularly the definite article, so it does overlap in function. – Gaston Ümlaut Jun 22 '12 at 02:53
1

@GastonUmlaut: But of them are ungrammatical, hence the asterisks at the end of each. I just cooked them up to show that it's unlikely that "said" in this context could be an adjective. – James Grossmann Jun 22 '12 at 02:54
@JamesGrossmann (sorry, back again) I disagree. "the said child" does in fact mean the child that has been mentioned ("said") previously. – Gaston Ümlaut Jun 22 '12 at 02:55
1

@Gaston: I know that "the said child" means "the child that has been mentioned." My point is that it could not have this reading if "said" were a participle in this context. People don't "say" children; they say words. So "said" in this context must be something other than a participle. – James Grossmann Jun 22 '12 at 02:58
@JamesGrossmann Re ungramamtical: ok, sorry, I misunderstood. But that's the point, it's not an adjective, it's a past participle. – Gaston Ümlaut Jun 22 '12 at 03:02
@GastonUmlaut: I explained why it couldn't be a past participle in my last response to your post. A child can be mentioned, but only linguistic output can be "said." Since children can't be "said," "said child" can't be a participle + noun. I've already stated the reasons why it can't be an adjective either. So what could it be? – James Grossmann Jun 22 '12 at 03:08
In my experience the OED never gives any but traditional "parts-of-speech" for their catchwords (headwords). They never use modern "word classes". This is because the OED is a work of lexicography and not a work of linguistics. I believe they even lists "a" and "the" as adjectives rather than articles or determiners for instance. Now in their definitions they may or may not include other linguistics terms, and they do define terms used in modern linguistics. This is typical for most dictionaries. – hippietrail Jun 22 '12 at 07:18
@JamesGrossmann Anaphora typically doesn't refer literally to a previous utterance, but to the referent of that utterance. So while it's literally true that it was words that were 'said', not 'the children', the words that were said refer to the children so 'said' as an anaphoric expression refers back to them (via those words). Expressions that refer directly to part of an utterance (as opposed to the referent of that utterance) are called 'discourse deixis'. – Gaston Ümlaut Jun 23 '12 at 06:22
@GastonÜmlaut: Isn't the whole expression "said children" anaphoric, rather than just "said"? And does this point establish that "said" is a participle in this context? – James Grossmann Jun 23 '12 at 06:55
@JamesGrossmann Yes, it's the whole phrase that's anaphoric. And no, it's not this point that establishes "said" as a participle. There are other past participles that can be used in the same way. And as we see from Alex B.'s answer, the fact that it's anarthrous (= lacking article) is a tradition of legalese. – Gaston Ümlaut Jun 23 '12 at 13:28

score 5 · Answer 2 · edited Jun 17 '20 at 09:49

At first, a couple of words on the origin of “said” in the sense of “above-mentioned”. The OED gives the following.

†8. To speak of, mention, enumerate, describe.

?c1225 (1200) Ancrene Riwle (Cleo. C.vi) (1972) 256 Lichte gultes beteð þus ananrich [read richt] bi ow seoluen. & þach seggeð ham inschrift.

c1390 (1350) Joseph of Arimathie (1871) l. 70, I am not worþi to seyn moni of his werkes.

a1400–50 Alexander 5551 And oþir sellis he saȝe at sai wald he neuir.

c1540 (1400) Destr. Troy 5204 The same yle I said you, Cicill is calt.

As you can see from the examples above, the verb “say” in this sense is used transitively, i.e. it takes a direct object. All dictionaries of Modern English mark this dated use as legalese or used humorously.

This agrees with data on “said” – the earliest quote in the OED is this one (by the way, note “þe” before “said”):

a1300 Cursor M. 14978 (Cott.) , Son þar went disciplis tua Vnto þe said [Gött. þis said] castel.

Incidentally, all of the nine examples in the OED do have a determiner before “said”. The tenth example is the absolutive use of “said”, as in

“... the said were sometimes lurking about the Islands of St. John.” (1648)

There is one important thing to remember about legalese. As Garner argues, “It is a convention in legal writing to omit both definite and indefinite articles [emphasis mine - Alex B.] before words such as plaintiff, defendant, petitioner, respondent, appellant, and appellee. It is almost as if these designations in legal writing become names, or proper nouns, that denote the person or persons referred to. The convention is a useful one because cutting even such slight words can lead to leaner, more readable sentences” (Garner 2011 :79).

Also, “There is a contagious tendency to in legal writing to omit articles before nouns, perhaps on the analogy of the special legal convention for party names. … There is a tendency, for example, in tax cases to refer to taxpayer without an article, as if it were a proper name” (p. 79)

Garner gives the following examples:

“Federal law also required that taxpayer [read the taxpayer] make contributions ….”

“In approaching solution [read the solution] to this problem we must look ….”

“We conclude that although the award as remitted by trial judge [read the trial judge] was generous ….”

Now about “said” used in legalese. Garner does mention that it is used as a substitute for the, that, this, or any other deictic or “pointing” word. Used for such a word, said typifies legalese and is often parodied by non-lawyers. And lawyers occasionally fall into self-parody” (p. 793). Here’s one of his examples:

“A considerable number of persons were attracted to said square by said meeting, and said bombs and other fireworks which were being exploded there. A portion of the center of the square about 40 to 60 feet was roped off by the police of said Chelsea, and said bombs or shells were fired off within the space so inclosed [sic!], and no spectators were allowed to be within said inclosure [sic!]. The plaintiffs were lawfully in said highway at the time of the explosion of said mortar, and near said ropes, and were in the exercise of due care” (1892).

Now, I asked you earlier about your theory/definition of the determiner. It is important to know such things because some linguists understand determiners as a lexical category (determiner1 in Chalker and Weiner 1998). There are linguists who understand determiners as a functional category (e.g. the authors of CGEL, determiner2 in Chalker and Weiner 1998), and that is why they also have determinatives. Under the latter proposal, which I happen to agree with, a determiner is not necessarily a determinative.

The authors of CGEL give the following three tests that help us distinguish between adjectives and determinatives in English (note that these tests may not work in other languages, esp. the first test).

Determinatives cannot combine with articles (*a this book).
Determinatives can be used with a single count NP (one book).
Determinatives can be used in a partitive construction (one of them).

Note that a word doesn’t need to pass all of those three tests to be considered a determinative – e.g. “one” doesn’t pass the first test (the one problem that remains).

Quite often the same word can belong to both word classes, adjectives and determinatives, e.g. “sufficient”.

sufficient as a determinative:

?the sufficient helpers

sufficient of helpers

sufficient as an adjective:

a sufficient reason

I think that “said” may behave like a determinative in legalese in writings of certain people (in whose idiolect "said note" is fine but "the said note" is not) - if there are such writers. However, in this case you’d have to address the following two questions:

How consistent are those writers in omitting articles before “said” followed by a singular count noun? Is "the said" followed by an NP ungrammatical in their idiolect?

Do you want to have the same word belong to different word classes in different registers in your theory of syntax? I personally would say yes to the second question. As Walter Bisang argues, there are languages where “lexical items are not necessarily preclassified for syntactic categories” (Bisang 2011: 293).

Can the word "said" be a determiner in written English?

2 Answers2