“Precisely determining what ‘determiners’ are”

[John Johnson]

As I have understood from your explanations, there are two types of determiners (identifiers and quantifiers), and both can be divided into subcategories: four types of determiners and two types of quantifiers. My questions are:

1) What determiners are in the first place? Is there any clear definition? After reading some sites I would think that it is half a part of speech and part a function… Or we can say that they are a part of speech?

2) Is it possible to consider ordinal numbers and some/any as a kind of identifiers (I’ve heard that some do it)? I think there is some resemblance: ‘he is my friend’/he is the second winner’ and ‘give me a pen’/give me some pens’.  

[Joe Carillo]

Like you, I have encountered many definitions of the term “determiners” and found that hardly any of them seems to capture its sense and function clearly. Perhaps because determiners are too fundamental an element of grammar, the process of defining the term tends to be recursive, needing words that just tend to fold repeatedly upon one another without yielding a clear sense or insight.

For example, take a look at this definition of “determiner” by the Oxford Dictionaries: “A modifying word that determines the kind of reference a noun or noun group has, for example a, the, every.” That isn’t a very illuminating definition, is it? And much less so because the sense of “the kind of reference a noun or noun group has” is unspecific and unclear; indeed, I must say that that phrase itself needs to be defined or explained to be useful at all in that definition.  

Or consider this decidedly convoluted and longwinded definition of that term in Wikipedia: “A determiner is a word, phrase or affix that occurs together with a noun or noun phrase and serves to express the reference of that noun or noun phrase in the context. That is, a determiner may indicate whether the noun is referring to a definite or indefinite element of a class, to a closer or more distant element, to an element belonging to a specified person or thing, to a particular number or quantity, etc.” Whew! That’s what I’d call a piling up of word upon word to explain something, only to end up sowing confusion instead.

I think the definition of “determiner” by the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary & Thesaurus comes closer to being clear and instructive: “A determiner is a word used before a noun to show which particular example of that noun is being referred to. In the phrases ‘my first boyfriend’ and ‘that strange woman’, the words ‘my’ and ‘that’ are determiners.” This is a very admirable attempt to explain something basic in simpler, not tougher terms.

But the clearest, most succinct, and most useful definition of “determiner” I’ve found is this one by the Macmillan Dictionary: “a word used before a noun for showing which thing or things you are talking about. The words ‘a’, ‘the’, ‘this’, ‘some’, and ‘every’ are determiners.” I think you’ll agree with me that this is a very concise, very instructive definition in clear, simple English—one that truly captures the sense and essence of the term.

With the term “determiner” defined as such, could determiners be considered “half a part of speech and half a part a function” as you’ve come to think based on your readings? I doubt very much. Recall that “parts of speech” is a term in traditional grammar for the eight categories into which words are classified according to their functions in sentences, namely nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections. Of course, some old-school grammarians used to consider the articles “the,” “a,” and “an” as a distinct part of speech, but modern grammarians no longer consider them as such, putting them instead in the category of determiners. And from the standpoint of modern grammar, determiners are not a formal word class or part of speech but just functional elements of structure.

SCHEMA FOR THE DETERMINERS IN ENGLISH

Now to your second question: Is it possible to consider ordinal numbers and “some”/“any” as certain kinds of identifiers?

Yes, definitely. Unlike cardinal numbers, in fact, ordinal numbers normally indicate the position of something in a list, such as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so forth; as such they function as definite identifiers. In the case of “some” and “any,” they normally function as indefinite quantifiers, but they can also function as indefinite identifiers when used in such expressions as “Some friend he is, making himself scarce when you most need his help!” (“some” here is used as an adjective meaning “remarkable” in a derogatory way) and “Any which way will do, so long as they are perfectly legal” (“any” here identifies an indefinite choice from among several choices).

The dynamics of English usage allows for a lot of overlap in the functionalities of identifiers and quantifiers, and these two types of determiners can actually form various combinations that yield even richer modifications of nouns, as in the phrases “my several little puppies in the kennel” and “some twenty of their first fifty choices turned out to be flukes.”

RELATED READINGS:
"Predeterminers are distinct from determiners" (September 19, 2014)
"Determiner Usage" (August 20, 2016)

[John Johnson]

Thanks a lot for such detailed answers! Of course, now I need some time to think about what you have written.

[John Johnson]

After your explanations it would be very interesting for me to know how we can use the term ‘determiner’ in practice, so to say. If we agree that determiner is a functional element, does it mean that it would be correct to say that ‘noun phrase has the structure: determiner + modifier + nominal head’? Or if it’s wrong, what are relations between determiners and clause elements: subject, verb, object etc?  

[Joe Carillo]

In practice, determiners as a functional element are always positioned at the beginning of the noun phrase to indicate whether the headword—you used the term “nominal head” for it—is being used in a specific or general sense. We can’t really predict what grammatical element will follow the determiner right before the headword; that grammatical element could be anything—an identifier, quantifier, adjective, adverb, another noun, or none at all—that the writer or speaker decides to use to achieve the desired level of modification. This is why the formula you suggested (noun phrase = determiner + modifier + nominal head) couldn’t be generally applicable for positioning the various functional elements in a noun phrase. Also keep in mind that determiners are in themselves modifiers—that is, modifiers subsume determiners as a functional element—so it’s not really proper to treat them as distinct elements in an equation or formula.

I think a more useful general formula for the grammatical components that constitute a noun phrase would be the following:

Noun phrase = premodifiers + headword (or nominal head) + postmodifiers

where:
the headword (or nominal head) is a noun
the premodifiers could be determiners, adjectives, adverbs, participles, or other nouns
and the postmodifiers could be prepositional phrases or relative clauses or combinations of these two

Consider the modification in the following noun phrase as an example:

“that exquisitely beautiful September day in the 1990s when we met entirely by chance in Rome”

The headword (or nominal head) is, of course, the noun “day.”

The premodifiers are as follows:
1.   “that” – determiner
2.   “exquisitely” – adverb
3.   “beautiful” – adjective
4.   “September” – another noun

The postmodifiers are as follows:
1.   “in the 1990s” – prepositional phrase
2.   “when we met entirely by chance in Rome” – relative clause

Now, to answer your question regarding the relations between determiners and clause elements, let’s use that noun phrase in the following complete sentence:

“We reminisced that exquisitely beautiful September day in the 1990s when we met entirely by chance in Rome.”

Here, the whole noun phrase “that exquisitely beautiful September day in the 1990s when we met entirely by chance in Rome” functions as the direct object of the verb “reminisced,” with the pronoun “we” as the doer of the action. We can see that the demonstrative “that”—a specific determiner—is pivotal to that sentence because it points to that particular and very specific day that the writer is referring to.

I hope this explanation will be of help to you in understanding the workings of determiners better.

[John Johnson]

Yes, and I like the scheme you gave very much, but I have a new question… You said: ‘the premodifiers could be determiners, adjectives, adverbs, participles, or other nouns’. As far as I can see all possible choices  in the list are parts of speech. Also you said that ‘ “parts of speech” is a term in traditional grammar for the eight categories into which words are classified according to their functions in sentences’ and I agree with it too, of course. But why in this case we can’t say that determiners are some kind of an ‘additional’ part of speech, so to say? Indeed, it is a function, but adjectives usually have a very similar function – they modify a noun.

Then we could say that the premodifiers are as follows:

1.   “that” – determiner
2.   “exquisitely” – adverb
3.   “beautiful” – adjective
4.   “September” – another noun

so ‘building bricks’ for a premodifier are parts of speech: determiners, adjectives, nouns etc.

[Joe Carillo]

The prevailing school of thought in English grammar is that determiners don’t constitute a part of speech in themselves; functionally, determiners are classified as a type of adjective because they do perform the same function of modifying nouns. However, some contemporary grammar theorists consider determiners as a distinct word class from adjectives. They argue that this should be the case because while adjectives are simple modifiers that express attributes of the thing being referred to, determiners do the uniquely different function of contextualizing a noun in terms of quantity, possession, or immediacy. As such, they consider determiners a lexically separate part of speech from adjectives, subsuming the following grammatical elements: the articles, possessive adjectives, demonstrative adjectives, interrogative adjectives, and quantifiers. I would think that you belong to this school of thought and I really won’t be taking issue with you on that.

In my case, however, I subscribe to what I think is the clearer, more systematic, and more instructive approach of categorizing words into two word classes according to what they do in language: content words and function words.

A content word, also known as a lexical word, is one that carries semantic content, bearing reference to the world independently of its use within a particular sentence. (This is the Random House Dictionary definition, which is the clearest and most instructive I can find.) To this class of words belong the nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.

On the other hand, a function word is one that works primarily to express a grammatical relationship between other words in a sentence. Function words are the primary operators in English for connecting ideas and establishing logical relationships; they combine clauses and phrases to form sentences or contextualize nouns in terms of specificity, quantity, possession, and immediacy. To this class of words belong the pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, determiners, and interrogatives.

I think this approach of classifying words into content words and function words does away beautifully and systematically with the thorny and sometimes acrimonious debate on whether there are eight, nine, or even ten parts of speech in English. The fact is that it doesn’t really matter how many; what counts is a clear understanding of what a word by itself does and how it works in combination with other kinds of words to form the tapestry of language.

One more thing: Commenting on my previous statement that “the premodifiers could be determiners, adjectives, adverbs, participles, or other nouns,” you said: “As far as I can see all possible choices in the list are parts of speech.” I’ll grant you that determiners could legitimately be considered a separate part of speech according to the contemporary school of thought I described above, but participles certainly wouldn’t qualify as another part of speech. Most grammatical authorities consider the two forms of the participle, namely the past participle and the present participle, as adjectives in function. For instance, in the noun phrase “collected works,” the past participle “collected” clearly functions as an adjective modifying the noun “works,” and in the noun phrase “disintegrating structure,” the present participle “disintegrating” clearly functions as an adjective modifying the noun “structure.”

It is obviously instructive to identify participles and determiners separately from adjectives in an array of premodifiers, but the fact remains that all three of them are actually adjectives performing a modifying function. As such they can be legitimately considered as falling under just one part of speech, not three.

[John Johnson]

Thank you very much for such detailed and interesting explanations! It is very helpful to get such advice from a professional and I think that now I've begun to understand the subject much better.

And I have one more question (maybe so far the last one about determiners). I have encountered the term ‘Distributives’ (ALL, BOTH, HALF, EACH, EVERY, EITHER, NEITHER). Do you think that it is worth learning? And if yes, what is this category for?

[Joe Carillo]

Yes, distributives are a subclass of determiners and they consist of six of the seven terms you listed, namely “all,” “both,” “each,” “every,” “either,” and “neither.” (“Half” being too particular and specific a distributive, I think it doesn’t properly belong to this league of generic distributives.) And yes, distributives are definitely worth learning to be able to write and speak grammatically correct English.

A distributive indicates how individuals or things are divided or shared within a group. Each of the six generic distributives functions as an adjective when placed before the noun or noun phrase, as in the sentence “All mammals have hair, three middle-ear bones, and glands that secrete milk” and “Either route will be too roundabout for comfort.”

All of the six generic distributives except “every” can function as a pronoun when linked with a plural noun or another pronoun by the preposition “of,” as in “Both of the women finished in the marathon,” “We can hire either of the two applicants for the job,” and “Neither of the twins is interested in a modeling career.” When the context is clear or previously established, each of these generic distributives—again except “every”—can function as a pronoun working as a stand-alone subject, as in “Both finished in the marathon,” “We can hire either for the job,” and “Neither is interested in a modeling career.”

The distributive “every” is unique in that it can only be placed before the noun or noun phrase and work as an adjective, never as a pronoun functioning as a stand-alone subject. We can say “Every shipment must pay customs duties at the port” but not “Every of the shipment must pay customs duties at the port” nor “Every must pay customs duties at the port.”

I think this is about all that’s worth learning about the distributives from the nonspecialist standpoint.

[John Johnson]

Thanks a lot, Joe!

By the way, it was very flattering for me to appear in the Manila Times.   Only I should have chosen as a nickname ‘Ivan Ivanov’ or something like this, probably some readers think now that John is a typical Russian name  .

[Joe Carillo]

I did think that by assuming the username "John Johnson," you were a North American national or British subject based in some city in Russia, probably engaged in diplomacy, academic studies, or overseas business. But if you are indeed a native Russian, it would be great if you will use an authentic Russian name. That way, other Forum members would have a more precise referent or mental picture of you when they engage you in a discussion. It's not really too late to do it; just informally declare your change of username in any discussion thread and then formally register that username in the Forum. That's all.

[John Johnson]

Yes, you are right. I thought about it but then decided that it would be clear from my English that I am not a native speaker  . Indeed, I’ll think up some Russian username (or maybe will use my real name) so that there will be no misunderstanding. Actually, Ivan Ivanov is a Russian counterpart of John Johnson.   Maybe it would be OK? I think that 'Ivan' is quite known as a typical Russian name.

Alexey.

[Joe Carillo]

"Ivan Ivanov" is a very catchy username that I think would fit you to a T. I suggest you register that username now and start using it before somebody else beats you to it.

[John Johnson]

Great! What should I do? Do I have to fulfil a new registration or it is technically possible to change 'John Johnson' to 'Ivan Ivanov'?

[Joe Carillo]

Forum members might be confused if the system unilaterally replaces the username "John Johnson" in your previous postings with your new username. Just register again under your new username and make all of your new postings in that name. That way, your previous postings will remain intact under "John Johnson" and their discussion threads will remain undisturbed.