English determiners has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 18, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Singular forms of nouns are often used with zero determiners in such phrases as Hand to mouth and man versus machine. Any thoughts? Tumpalion ( talk) 17:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
This is gibberish: "....words or phrases that precede a noun or noun phrase and serve to express its reference in the context." Can anyone re-write this in understandable English?
Dominic Cronin ( talk) 15:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I did a complete rewrite that clarifies the distinction between the category of words and their typical function in noun phrases. I also added citations throughout and removed the Refimprove tag.-- Brett ( talk) 02:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Colin M ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Stay tuned for initial thoughts/feedback. :)
Colin M (
talk) 00:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey Brett, I'm excited to take on this review, as English grammar is a topic dear to my heart. I have a lot of comments, though that's not to say I think the article is in a bad state - it's just a long article (and appropriately so for such a big topic!).
These comments are mostly at the level of the trees rather than the forest. I still want to spend some time thinking about the overall shape of the article, and whether there are any major areas that are {un,under}-explored, so I will likely have at least one more round of comments on that within the next day or so.
I tried to keep these points in order wrt the article text, but apologies if any are out of order - I did some backtracking and jumping around. Feel free to intersperse replies inline if you find that easier.
Also, feel free of course to push back if you disagree with me on the substance of any of these comments, or if you think they're outside the scope of the WP:GACR.
I proactively made some small fixes as I went (mostly typo fixes, and adding a couple wikilinks). I expect them to be uncontroversial, but you may want to review them to be sure.
The earliest inkling of this idea was expressed by Leon Kellner in 1892, using the term "determinative":Not entirely clear from context what "this idea" is referring to. Done
Leonard Bloomfield (1933) introduced the term determiner used in this article.Bold is not appropriate here. See MOS:BOLD. Done
<strong>
(again, per
MOS:BOLD). DoneUntil the late 80s...Just to be safe, should probably specify 1980s. People might be reading this in 2121! Done
The key difference between adjectives and determiners in English is that adjectives cannot function as determinatives.This feels almost circular, since the only definition given so far for determinative is "the function that determiners and possessives typically perform in a noun phrase". Tried to clarify
For example, *I live in small house is ungrammatical because it is a singular countable NP lacking a determinative.I would take "it" to be referring to the whole example sentence, which I assume is not what you mean. (Maybe "because it contains a singular countable NP..." instead?) Done
Morphologically, adjectives often inflect for grade, while few determiners do.Meaning of "inflect for grade" might not be clear to average reader. Example and/or wikilink could help. Done
These characteristics have led linguists and grammarians like Ray Jackendoff and Steven Paul Abney to categorize such uses of we and you as determiners.It seems CGEL also takes this stance. Might be worth mentioning/citing (since it's a pretty authoritative/recognizable source, and the most cited work in the article) Done
On the other hand, these words can show case contrast (e.g., us teachers), a feature that, in Modern English, is typical of pronouns but not of determinersShouldn't modern be lowercase? No (see Modern English)
For the sake of this section, Abney's DP hypothesis (see §History) is set aside.When referring to another section within the article, it's good to include a hyperlink. You can do this with a plain wikilink that includes an anchor, though I personally like the {{ slink}} template. Done
A determiner heads a determiner phrase (DP).Maybe clearer to say that it can head a DP? My understanding is that (in this analysis) determiners will often not have any dependents. But I don't think the text makes that clear. (Or are we taking the view that a bare determiner like the also forms a trivial DP? Edit: based on some later reading, it seems like this is the case. Maybe worth calling out? Doesn't even need to be explicitly stated as such, could just say that a DP is headed by a determiner and optionally takes dependents) Done yes, single branching is assumed
while "determinative" is the function most typically performed by that determiner phrasesWording issue Done
(in the same way that "noun" denotes a category of words while "subject" denotes the most typical function of noun phrasesI found this claim a little eyebrow-raising. CGEL functionally describes NPs as "prototypically capable, when placed in an appropriate case-form, of functioning as a complement in clause structure, i.e. as subject, object, or predicative complement". So referring to the subject function alone seems a little overly narrow? I changed it to adjectives and modifiers.
In most cases, a singular, countable noun requires a determinative to form a noun phrase, though plurals and uncountables do not.Probably worth mentioning proper nouns here as well. Also worth including at least one example. Done specified common noun
Quirk et al. and Aarts also recognize the function of predeterminative (or predeterminer). Some linguists and grammarians offer different accounts of these constructions. Huddleston and Pullum, for instance, classify them as a kind of modifier in noun phrases.It's not clear how these approaches are different. I've simplified and tried to distinguish between Quirks subclasses and H&P's function.
In many grammars, both traditional and modern, and in almost all dictionaries, such words are considered to be pronouns rather than determiners.Worth citing if possible. No Seems like you'd have to cite a lot of sources that lack it.
Article and demonstrative, then, can be considered subclasses or types of determiners.Reason for italics here isn't clear. I imagine it can be dropped. Done
Articles include the followingThis makes it sound like the list is non-exhaustive. But there's just the two, right? No I'd say so, but people have suggested a null article, and a few like The Grammar Book call unstressed some an article too.
The articles in English are the definite article the and the indefinite articles a and an.Colin M ( talk) 18:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
The negative determiner is no with its independent form none.This is the only place "independent form" is mentioned, so it should probably be explained. Done
along with once, twice, and thriceI would give an example for this. When I see these words, my mind jumps to their adverbial meanings, rather than their use as multipliers. Done
“The theoretical distinction between grammatical definiteness and cognitive identifiability has the advantage of enabling us to distinguish between a discrete (grammatical) and a non-discrete (cognitive) category.”An extended quote like this should probably have in-text attribution. Though I think it would be even better to just replace it with a paraphrase. Done
Colin M ( talk) 17:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response to the comments so far. A few more below. (The first section below being the only remaining issue of significant scope - the remaining things are, I hope, pretty easy fixes.)
I still think you need a section (early on - I would argue even as the first section), giving an overview of the definition of determiner and determinative (as used in the article), with examples, including examples which show why the concepts don't map 1:1 (i.e. determiners used in non-determinative functions, and determinative functions played by something other than a determiner). I think the reader really needs to have a handle on this in order to be able to digest the later sections. The determinative function is mentioned a bunch in the article, and it's at the heart of the definition of the determiner category, but it doesn't get more than a one-sentence definition until about halfway through the article. Done What do you think?-- Brett ( talk) 13:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
(Happy to discuss this further if you disagree.)
Their most characteristic syntactic function is determinative (see § Terminological issues) in a noun phrase (NP). This function typically comes before any modifiers in the NP (e.g., some very pretty wool sweaters, not *very pretty some wool sweaters). A determinative is typically obligatory in a singular, countable, common noun phrase (compare I have a new cat to *I have new cat).
The syntactic role characteristically played by determiners is known as the determinative function. A determinative combines with a noun (or, more formally, a nominal) to form a noun phrase, typically coming before any modifiers.... I think it would also help further motivate the distinction between determiner and determinative to mention examples from outside their union. e.g.
This determinative function may also be filled by certain words belonging to other parts of speech, such as the noun Monday in Monday morning.
Definitely found this easier to follow after your changes, but still have a few comments/suggestions
The Oxford English Dictionary cites Edward Sapir in 1921 as the first to use determinative.Should probably make it clear that he's not cited as the first to use that word period, but the first to use it in a grammatical sense. Done removed
Linguist and historian Peter Matthews observes that the assumption that determiners are distinct from adjectives is new. "In a longer perspective they are an innovation of, in particular, the early 1960s."This is an odd way to lead off the history section given that the content that follows never mentions any research from the 60s. (Also, compare the later statement that Quirk 1985 "was the first work to explicitly conceive of determiner as a distinct lexical category". This doesn't exactly contradict the Matthews quote, but it's at least liable to leave the reader with questions.) Done I've added in discussion of Long and Strang the Matthews relies on. Brett ( talk) 18:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Colin M ( talk) 18:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The main reason for classifying these possessive words as determiners is that both can function as determinativeI find this sentence a bit confusing. Both what? Both possessives and determiners? But we're saying possessives are determiners. Done
"Thing, was combined in Old English with some, any, and no, but not yet with every; this was only established in Chaucer's time."A quote like this should have in-text attribution (though again, I think it's preferable to paraphrase instead). Done
Colin M ( talk) 21:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
[[File:Tree_diagram_for_"even_all_the_preposterous_salary_from_LLoyds_that_Bill_gets".png|thumb|center|700px]]
, though that adds a frame around the image which you probably don't want. The only other option I can think of is to upload a lower-resolution version.
Colin M (
talk) 18:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I like the changes to the intro. I still think the presentation of the determinative (aka specifier) function in the body could be clearer and earlier in the article, but this might just be getting into personal taste territory - I at least don't think it's such a problem as to violate WP:GACR 1a or 3a.
I agree with the concern raised by Whmovement on the talk page about the move to specifier over determinative. It does seem a bit questionable given that it's strongly associated with X-bar theory (which is not the main framework used within the article) and seems to be generally less commonly used than determinative. I also agree that a mass find-and-replace could lead to some verifiability issues. Do you think the two terms are sufficiently interchangeable that we can take some claim about determinatives from source X and use it as a citation for a parallel claim about specifiers?
My main remaining concern is with the history section. Some of the claims seem like borderline WP:OR. I don't think I was clear enough about this above, but if we're going to claim e.g. that Kellner possibly planted the seed of the idea of determiners in his 1892 grammar, I think we need a secondary cite for his work having that place in history - rather than just citing Kellner 1892 itself. And similarly for Palmer and Bloomfield.
Also, a nitpick re the Matthews quote in the last paragraph: it seems to be out of order. "this may seem to have been forgotten" appears after the text that follows the ellipsis. Colin M ( talk) 19:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
It's good! I'm satisfied that this meets all the GA criteria. Thank you for your patience in sticking through what turned out to be a pretty involved review. In my view, a topic like this is really hard to bring up to GA status compared to an article about, say, a song, a person, or a river. There's no standard formula for how to structure an article like this. It's not just rattling off a series of dates, facts, and figures - it actually entails teaching the reader a whole new concept. That's so hard! Anyways, that's all to say this is no mean feat, so big congrats. Also, thanks Whmovement for your help in pushing this over the line. Colin M ( talk) 23:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
A recent edit replaced the functional label "determinative" with "specifier". Based on the GA discussion, I assume that that this was done to avoid the determiner/determinative terminology issue. I see three reasons to prefer addressing the determiner/determinative distinction in the article rather than side-stepping it with the term "specifier".
(1) The term "specifier" is fairly theory-specific. As far as I'm aware, it is only used in theories that incorporate X-bar notation. Somebody trained in, say, Systemic Functional Grammar (or some other theory of syntax) would likely recognize the functional label determiner or determinative but probably would not be familiar with the notion of specifier as it is used here. In short, determiner/determinative seems to be the more widely used term. (2) As I understand it, theories that do use the term "specifier" in this way tend to also follow Abney's analysis of nominals as D taking an NP complement rather than DP as a specifier of N. Thus, it seems a bit strange for the article to use the term "specifier" as a functional label when theories that use that label tend to treat these specifiers as heads rather than specifiers. In short, the people who actually use "specifier" as a functional label would probably not apply it to many of the things called specifiers in this article. (3) Some of the most cited sources in the article do not actually use "specifier" or any substantially similar term, so a find-and-replace swap of the terms risks misattribution. Of course, we cannot avoid this entirely if our goal is consistent use throughout the article, but we can minimize it: using the label "determinative" when the cited source uses "determiner" (or vice-versa) does not imply that the source assumes a particular theory of syntax, but using the label "specifier" does.
Given the ongoing GA review, I thought it made sense to raise the point here rather than simply editing the article. Whmovement ( talk) 19:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
English determiners has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 18, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Singular forms of nouns are often used with zero determiners in such phrases as Hand to mouth and man versus machine. Any thoughts? Tumpalion ( talk) 17:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
This is gibberish: "....words or phrases that precede a noun or noun phrase and serve to express its reference in the context." Can anyone re-write this in understandable English?
Dominic Cronin ( talk) 15:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I did a complete rewrite that clarifies the distinction between the category of words and their typical function in noun phrases. I also added citations throughout and removed the Refimprove tag.-- Brett ( talk) 02:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Colin M ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Stay tuned for initial thoughts/feedback. :)
Colin M (
talk) 00:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey Brett, I'm excited to take on this review, as English grammar is a topic dear to my heart. I have a lot of comments, though that's not to say I think the article is in a bad state - it's just a long article (and appropriately so for such a big topic!).
These comments are mostly at the level of the trees rather than the forest. I still want to spend some time thinking about the overall shape of the article, and whether there are any major areas that are {un,under}-explored, so I will likely have at least one more round of comments on that within the next day or so.
I tried to keep these points in order wrt the article text, but apologies if any are out of order - I did some backtracking and jumping around. Feel free to intersperse replies inline if you find that easier.
Also, feel free of course to push back if you disagree with me on the substance of any of these comments, or if you think they're outside the scope of the WP:GACR.
I proactively made some small fixes as I went (mostly typo fixes, and adding a couple wikilinks). I expect them to be uncontroversial, but you may want to review them to be sure.
The earliest inkling of this idea was expressed by Leon Kellner in 1892, using the term "determinative":Not entirely clear from context what "this idea" is referring to. Done
Leonard Bloomfield (1933) introduced the term determiner used in this article.Bold is not appropriate here. See MOS:BOLD. Done
<strong>
(again, per
MOS:BOLD). DoneUntil the late 80s...Just to be safe, should probably specify 1980s. People might be reading this in 2121! Done
The key difference between adjectives and determiners in English is that adjectives cannot function as determinatives.This feels almost circular, since the only definition given so far for determinative is "the function that determiners and possessives typically perform in a noun phrase". Tried to clarify
For example, *I live in small house is ungrammatical because it is a singular countable NP lacking a determinative.I would take "it" to be referring to the whole example sentence, which I assume is not what you mean. (Maybe "because it contains a singular countable NP..." instead?) Done
Morphologically, adjectives often inflect for grade, while few determiners do.Meaning of "inflect for grade" might not be clear to average reader. Example and/or wikilink could help. Done
These characteristics have led linguists and grammarians like Ray Jackendoff and Steven Paul Abney to categorize such uses of we and you as determiners.It seems CGEL also takes this stance. Might be worth mentioning/citing (since it's a pretty authoritative/recognizable source, and the most cited work in the article) Done
On the other hand, these words can show case contrast (e.g., us teachers), a feature that, in Modern English, is typical of pronouns but not of determinersShouldn't modern be lowercase? No (see Modern English)
For the sake of this section, Abney's DP hypothesis (see §History) is set aside.When referring to another section within the article, it's good to include a hyperlink. You can do this with a plain wikilink that includes an anchor, though I personally like the {{ slink}} template. Done
A determiner heads a determiner phrase (DP).Maybe clearer to say that it can head a DP? My understanding is that (in this analysis) determiners will often not have any dependents. But I don't think the text makes that clear. (Or are we taking the view that a bare determiner like the also forms a trivial DP? Edit: based on some later reading, it seems like this is the case. Maybe worth calling out? Doesn't even need to be explicitly stated as such, could just say that a DP is headed by a determiner and optionally takes dependents) Done yes, single branching is assumed
while "determinative" is the function most typically performed by that determiner phrasesWording issue Done
(in the same way that "noun" denotes a category of words while "subject" denotes the most typical function of noun phrasesI found this claim a little eyebrow-raising. CGEL functionally describes NPs as "prototypically capable, when placed in an appropriate case-form, of functioning as a complement in clause structure, i.e. as subject, object, or predicative complement". So referring to the subject function alone seems a little overly narrow? I changed it to adjectives and modifiers.
In most cases, a singular, countable noun requires a determinative to form a noun phrase, though plurals and uncountables do not.Probably worth mentioning proper nouns here as well. Also worth including at least one example. Done specified common noun
Quirk et al. and Aarts also recognize the function of predeterminative (or predeterminer). Some linguists and grammarians offer different accounts of these constructions. Huddleston and Pullum, for instance, classify them as a kind of modifier in noun phrases.It's not clear how these approaches are different. I've simplified and tried to distinguish between Quirks subclasses and H&P's function.
In many grammars, both traditional and modern, and in almost all dictionaries, such words are considered to be pronouns rather than determiners.Worth citing if possible. No Seems like you'd have to cite a lot of sources that lack it.
Article and demonstrative, then, can be considered subclasses or types of determiners.Reason for italics here isn't clear. I imagine it can be dropped. Done
Articles include the followingThis makes it sound like the list is non-exhaustive. But there's just the two, right? No I'd say so, but people have suggested a null article, and a few like The Grammar Book call unstressed some an article too.
The articles in English are the definite article the and the indefinite articles a and an.Colin M ( talk) 18:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
The negative determiner is no with its independent form none.This is the only place "independent form" is mentioned, so it should probably be explained. Done
along with once, twice, and thriceI would give an example for this. When I see these words, my mind jumps to their adverbial meanings, rather than their use as multipliers. Done
“The theoretical distinction between grammatical definiteness and cognitive identifiability has the advantage of enabling us to distinguish between a discrete (grammatical) and a non-discrete (cognitive) category.”An extended quote like this should probably have in-text attribution. Though I think it would be even better to just replace it with a paraphrase. Done
Colin M ( talk) 17:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response to the comments so far. A few more below. (The first section below being the only remaining issue of significant scope - the remaining things are, I hope, pretty easy fixes.)
I still think you need a section (early on - I would argue even as the first section), giving an overview of the definition of determiner and determinative (as used in the article), with examples, including examples which show why the concepts don't map 1:1 (i.e. determiners used in non-determinative functions, and determinative functions played by something other than a determiner). I think the reader really needs to have a handle on this in order to be able to digest the later sections. The determinative function is mentioned a bunch in the article, and it's at the heart of the definition of the determiner category, but it doesn't get more than a one-sentence definition until about halfway through the article. Done What do you think?-- Brett ( talk) 13:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
(Happy to discuss this further if you disagree.)
Their most characteristic syntactic function is determinative (see § Terminological issues) in a noun phrase (NP). This function typically comes before any modifiers in the NP (e.g., some very pretty wool sweaters, not *very pretty some wool sweaters). A determinative is typically obligatory in a singular, countable, common noun phrase (compare I have a new cat to *I have new cat).
The syntactic role characteristically played by determiners is known as the determinative function. A determinative combines with a noun (or, more formally, a nominal) to form a noun phrase, typically coming before any modifiers.... I think it would also help further motivate the distinction between determiner and determinative to mention examples from outside their union. e.g.
This determinative function may also be filled by certain words belonging to other parts of speech, such as the noun Monday in Monday morning.
Definitely found this easier to follow after your changes, but still have a few comments/suggestions
The Oxford English Dictionary cites Edward Sapir in 1921 as the first to use determinative.Should probably make it clear that he's not cited as the first to use that word period, but the first to use it in a grammatical sense. Done removed
Linguist and historian Peter Matthews observes that the assumption that determiners are distinct from adjectives is new. "In a longer perspective they are an innovation of, in particular, the early 1960s."This is an odd way to lead off the history section given that the content that follows never mentions any research from the 60s. (Also, compare the later statement that Quirk 1985 "was the first work to explicitly conceive of determiner as a distinct lexical category". This doesn't exactly contradict the Matthews quote, but it's at least liable to leave the reader with questions.) Done I've added in discussion of Long and Strang the Matthews relies on. Brett ( talk) 18:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Colin M ( talk) 18:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The main reason for classifying these possessive words as determiners is that both can function as determinativeI find this sentence a bit confusing. Both what? Both possessives and determiners? But we're saying possessives are determiners. Done
"Thing, was combined in Old English with some, any, and no, but not yet with every; this was only established in Chaucer's time."A quote like this should have in-text attribution (though again, I think it's preferable to paraphrase instead). Done
Colin M ( talk) 21:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
[[File:Tree_diagram_for_"even_all_the_preposterous_salary_from_LLoyds_that_Bill_gets".png|thumb|center|700px]]
, though that adds a frame around the image which you probably don't want. The only other option I can think of is to upload a lower-resolution version.
Colin M (
talk) 18:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I like the changes to the intro. I still think the presentation of the determinative (aka specifier) function in the body could be clearer and earlier in the article, but this might just be getting into personal taste territory - I at least don't think it's such a problem as to violate WP:GACR 1a or 3a.
I agree with the concern raised by Whmovement on the talk page about the move to specifier over determinative. It does seem a bit questionable given that it's strongly associated with X-bar theory (which is not the main framework used within the article) and seems to be generally less commonly used than determinative. I also agree that a mass find-and-replace could lead to some verifiability issues. Do you think the two terms are sufficiently interchangeable that we can take some claim about determinatives from source X and use it as a citation for a parallel claim about specifiers?
My main remaining concern is with the history section. Some of the claims seem like borderline WP:OR. I don't think I was clear enough about this above, but if we're going to claim e.g. that Kellner possibly planted the seed of the idea of determiners in his 1892 grammar, I think we need a secondary cite for his work having that place in history - rather than just citing Kellner 1892 itself. And similarly for Palmer and Bloomfield.
Also, a nitpick re the Matthews quote in the last paragraph: it seems to be out of order. "this may seem to have been forgotten" appears after the text that follows the ellipsis. Colin M ( talk) 19:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
It's good! I'm satisfied that this meets all the GA criteria. Thank you for your patience in sticking through what turned out to be a pretty involved review. In my view, a topic like this is really hard to bring up to GA status compared to an article about, say, a song, a person, or a river. There's no standard formula for how to structure an article like this. It's not just rattling off a series of dates, facts, and figures - it actually entails teaching the reader a whole new concept. That's so hard! Anyways, that's all to say this is no mean feat, so big congrats. Also, thanks Whmovement for your help in pushing this over the line. Colin M ( talk) 23:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
A recent edit replaced the functional label "determinative" with "specifier". Based on the GA discussion, I assume that that this was done to avoid the determiner/determinative terminology issue. I see three reasons to prefer addressing the determiner/determinative distinction in the article rather than side-stepping it with the term "specifier".
(1) The term "specifier" is fairly theory-specific. As far as I'm aware, it is only used in theories that incorporate X-bar notation. Somebody trained in, say, Systemic Functional Grammar (or some other theory of syntax) would likely recognize the functional label determiner or determinative but probably would not be familiar with the notion of specifier as it is used here. In short, determiner/determinative seems to be the more widely used term. (2) As I understand it, theories that do use the term "specifier" in this way tend to also follow Abney's analysis of nominals as D taking an NP complement rather than DP as a specifier of N. Thus, it seems a bit strange for the article to use the term "specifier" as a functional label when theories that use that label tend to treat these specifiers as heads rather than specifiers. In short, the people who actually use "specifier" as a functional label would probably not apply it to many of the things called specifiers in this article. (3) Some of the most cited sources in the article do not actually use "specifier" or any substantially similar term, so a find-and-replace swap of the terms risks misattribution. Of course, we cannot avoid this entirely if our goal is consistent use throughout the article, but we can minimize it: using the label "determinative" when the cited source uses "determiner" (or vice-versa) does not imply that the source assumes a particular theory of syntax, but using the label "specifier" does.
Given the ongoing GA review, I thought it made sense to raise the point here rather than simply editing the article. Whmovement ( talk) 19:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)