8

Fukui (1986) argues that the Japanese language is void of the functional determiner category and that the Japanese demonstratives “kono” (proximal “this”), “ano” (distal “that”) and “sono” (medial “that”) are actually prenominal modifiers in form. The Japanese demonstratives are lexical words, much like adjectives, as they do not close-off category ...


4

tl;ndr No, Japanese doesn’t have determiners. Since it is requested that “credible and/or official” sources be named in the answer, I would recommend taking a look at Bernard Bloch: 1970. Bernard Bloch on Japanese. 1970. R.A. Miller (ed.). New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Bloch had many lucid things to say about Japanese, and I doubt he assumed ...


4

The term you are looking for is Agreement. Here's the definition of Agreement: Agreement is a phenomenon in natural language in which the form of one word or morpheme covaries with the form of another word or phrase in the sentence. [...] Agreement is perhaps the quintessential morphosyntactic phenomenon, since it involves the morphological expression ...


4

I don't consider it easy to justify the distinction between demonstratives and determiners, since as far as I can tell, syntactically at least, there is none. But your example sentences show exactly why English has all these words: The person went to the store It's a good sentence to use in a context where there really is one obvious candidate for "...


3

I'm not aware of an improvement. Sometimes "any" is used in generalizations, like the universal quantifier of predicate logic, and sometimes it is used as a negative polarity word, as in "I want some caviar" versus "I don't want any caviar". Compare "I don't like any caviar", which makes a generalization. I think it was Robin Lakoff who observed that "Do ...


3

Once "a" is removed from the above sentence, it becomes ungrammatical as follows: *I made mistake. Now, is this sentence ungrammatical because now mistake isn't indefinite anymore without "a"? No, your example sentence is ungrammatical in English because the rules of English require that all singular countable nouns have some sort of ...


3

No language can have something one, there are no languages with one tense, or one case, or one number, etc. There always must be an opposition for the category to exist in a language. For example, Hungarian has only the definite article a/az (az before a vowel). But you cannot say Hungarian has just one article, because the absence of the article in ...


3

You are addressing two problems: why is there, apparently, a monotonicity reversal when negating your first example ("banana"), but not the second ("driving")? why is your first example upward-monotonic, while the second is downward monotonic? The problem has to do with understanding that general terms like "fruit" or "driving" may refer to elements of ...


3

I am not aware of literature that addresses the subject matter in the question directly. I have, however, thought about such cases quite a bit, and I have an unpublished paper that addresses some of the relevant data in part. The interrogative word how is often a predependent of an adjective. It is asking for the relevant degree associated with the property ...


3

A somewhat more useful way is to do what snailboat suggests above, namely ignore the DP Hypothesis, which is after all just a hypothesis that can't be disproved, and go for something that represents the data rather than the theory. For instance, McCawley 1998 distinguishes between two types of nouny constituent in English: Nʹ (pronounced "N-Bar" -- don't ...


3

Lots of languages precede proper names with a definite article. The phenomenon is called the 'preproprial definite article'. You can find an article with a quick survey of languages and some theoretical conclusions here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253773804_Why_Rose_is_the_Rose_On_the_use_of_definite_articles_in_proper_names The main ...


3

First, a note: this isn't the only possible way to answer the question. You can also argue for it being an NP with special restrictions that mean it can only combine with the null determiner. There are also some theories which don't use DPs at all, just different flavors of NPs with different restrictions. But to me, that adds extra complexity and headaches ...


3

I like that book. In the DP theory, the determinative "that" is head and the noun is the dependent. The demonstrative determinative "that" is just as much a determiner here as "the" is, so there is no structural difference between the book and that book; they are both NPs. There are a couple of facts to support the NP analysis. ...


2

They are inflected. It wouldn't make any sense to treat them as separate lexemes. In many languages, they also inflect for gender and/or case. In some languages, even the deixis is considered an inflectional category, e.g. in Macedonian: kuka-va "this house" vs. kuka-na "that house".


2

As Jlawler stated in his comment, the that in the sentence in the question is a singular distal demonstrative pronoun. a. Ginny likes that. It is a pronoun because it appears where a noun would often appear, e.g. Ginny likes cake, and because its content, i.e. what it refers to, is available in context. One can note in addition that the word that ...


2

In the case you've provided, `that' is a (demonstrative) pronoun, which only works if you already know what it references (or can ostensively define it)


2

From Ionin et al (2008). I think this explains it nicely (if the formalness doesn't scare you off): The distinction between 'the' and 'a' is one of definiteness. We adopt here a standard view of definites [e.g., 'the'] as presuppositional and indefinites [e.g., 'a'] as quantificational expressions, as shown in (1) (for more discussion of different ...


2

This is not a general answer to the title question, because the "determinative" (in Cambridge GEL terminology; or "determiner" in Comprehensive GEL terminology) word class seems to be heterogeneous and have a number of significant subdivisions. "Many" can be classified as a quantifier or with the term you use in your question, &...


2

The "indefinite article" is called that because it is an article* and it is used with indefinite noun phrases. It certainly isn't a necessary part of all indefinite noun phrases: the English indefinite article is specifially a singular article, unlike the definite article, so it isn't used with plural or non-count nouns. As you've noted, not all ...


2

No. It is just the rule for English, other languages differ, e.g., Russian and Chinese don't have articles at all (neither definite nor indefinite ones).


2

There are a number of possibilities for the X-bar analysis of the phrase so little. A central choice one has to make concerns viewing little as an adjective or as a derived noun, that is, as a noun derived from an adjective. My favored analysis would be to view it as the latter. Given this decision, the next decision one has to make concerns the status of so:...


2

Yes, you could do that. Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993) is a morphology framework in which you would have an abstract "they" and "'s" (in your case) which would finally be realized as one morpheme, "their". Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale, &...


1

'The men all have a {noun}' is fine, but 'the men all have {verb}ed' is not. The rule is probably the same one as the one that has us say 'they/we have all {verbed}' rather than 'they/we all have {verbed}'. Also, the other way around for a noun, 'they/we all have a {noun}' rather than e.g. 'they/we have all a hat'.


1

While the analysis of phrases like "the meek" and "the happy" is debated, one common strategy is to view them as containing some syntactic element without an overt phonological representation that belongs to the category "noun". This is sometimes argued to be a case of ellipsis (e.g. "The rich, the poor, the obvious: ...


1

I don't find your constituency tests convincing, so I would go with the complement analysis unless there are other arguments against it. You can insert a pause at "the paw — of the kitten" but not "the — paw of the kitten" I'm not familiar with this constituency test, but doesn't it definitely have exceptions? There are many morphemes ...


1

they are partly complementary (as every can not determine uncountable nouns) e.g. ...any harm will be eliminated..., but not every harm also in some contexts the use of any implies choice, e.g. We need to take every one of those things seriously... versus We need to take any of those things seriously... (though in this case every one is a specific phrase) ...


1

I would like to expand on the answer provided by David Vogt and supported by BillJ in the comments. The word both is often the first part of a two-part conjunction, called correlative conjunction. Correlative conjunctions are, for instance, both...and, either...or, neither...nor, etc. Correlative conjunctions exist in many languages. Often both parts have ...


1

Note that both is not a determiner here. Barring conversion (such as the you I knew), you cannot be modified by a determiner. In your case, both is part of a correlative conjunction. Other examples include neither… nor, either… or, not only… but (also). The term comes from traditional grammar. Linguistically, the first part would probably not be analysed ...


1

I think the actual question should be phrased like this: why articles at all, why not using demonstratives when you really need to say "this person, not that one", and otherwise, just "person"? I happen to natively speak a language which has no articles whatsoever, and never felt there's a hole in grammar. Most languages, it seems, have no definite article. ...


1

In English, articles are used to mark definiteness and often number, demonstratives are used to distinguish a particular entity between multiple entities (adding deixis to definiteness and number), and both are considered determiners. Some languages mark definiteness with articles or demonstratives, and some mark it morphologically. Some don't mark it at ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible