s not two but three meaningful characterizations of the nounal referent achieved by their correlative functioning, namely: one rendered by the definite article, one rendered by the indefinite article, and one rendered by the absence (or non-use) of the article. Let us examine them separately.definite article expresses the identification or individualization of the referent of the noun: the use of this article shows that the object denoted is taken in its concrete, individual quality. This meaning can be brought to explicit exposition by a substitution test. The test consists in replacing the article used in a construction by a demonstrative word, eg a demonstrative determiner, without causing a principal change in the general implication of the construction. Of course, such an «equivalent» substitution should be understood in fact as nothing else but analogy: the difference in meaning between a determiner and an article admits of no argument, and we pointed it out in the above passages. Still, the replacements of words as a special diagnostic procedure, which is applied with the necessary reservations and according to a planned scheme of research, is quite permissible. In our case it undoubtedly shows a direct relationship in the meanings of the determiner and the article, the relationship in which the determiner is semantically the more explicit element of the two. Cf.: Look at the apple-tree!- But look at this apple-tree! The town lay still in the Indian summer sun.- That town lay still in the Indian summer sun. The water is horribly hot.- This water is horribly hot. It «s the girls who are to blame.- It »s those girls who are to blame.justification of the applied substitution, as well as its explanatory character, may be proved by a counter-test, namely, by the change of the definite article into the indefinite article, or by omitting the article altogether [50, c.181] The replacement either produces a radical, ie «Non-equivalent» shift in the meaning of the construction, or else results in a grammatically unacceptable construction. Cf.: ... - Look at an apple-tree!- Look at apple-tree! ... - A water is horribly hot.- Water is horribly hot.indefinite article, as different from the definite article, is commonly interpreted as referring the object denoted by the noun to a certain class of similar objects; in other words, the indefinite article expresses a classifying generalization of the nounal referent, or takes it in a relatively general sense. To prove its relatively generalizing functional meaning, we may use the diagnostic insertions of specifying-classifying phrases into the construction in question; we may also employ the transformation of implicit comparative constructions with the indefinite article into the corresponding explicit coparative constructions. Cf.: Passed a water-mill.- We passed a certain water-mill. It is a very young country, isn «t it?- It is a very young kind of country, isn »t it? What an arrangement!- What sort of arrangement! This child is a positive nightmare.- This child is positively like a nightmare.procedure of a classifying contrast employed in practical textbooks exposes the generalizing nature of the indefinite article most clearly in many eases of its use. E.g.: door opened in the wall.- A door (not a window) opened in the wall. We saw a flower under the bush.- We saw a flower (not a strawberry) under the bush.for the various uses of nouns without an article, from the se...
