Skip to main content

terminology - Determiner vs. Determinative


In the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Huddleston and Pullum use the term "determinative" for the lexical category of words like the, etc. And they use "determiner" for the grammatical function that is characteristically filled by determinatives (but which can also be filled by things such as genitive noun phrases).


In an older generation of reference grammars, however, notably Quirk, et alia's Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, the use of these terms is exactly reversed. That is, "determiner" is the lexical category and "determinative" is the grammatical function.


The difference has been bugging me for a long time. Can anyone provide a principled explanation as to why we should prefer one over the other? I'm sure Huddleston and Pullum had a motivation to alter terminology that's been in use since Bloomfield's day, but I can't find any discussion in their work.



Answer



I asked Geoff Pullum, and he responds:



The term "determinative" for the category of words like articles, demonstratives, and quantifiers is at least as old as A Grammar of Spoken English on a Strictly Phonetic Basis by Harold E. Palmer and F. G. Blandford (1939), and they take it from the French "adjectif determinatif". And "determiner" doesn't seem ever to have been a clearly defined lexical category. Huddleston and I like the appealingly mnemonic suffixal parallels: "adjective" and "determinative" are both categories (word classes); "determiner" and "modifier" are both functions.


It is most unfortunate that Quirk et al. used the terms the other way round; but they were needlessly going against Rodney Huddleston's earlier works, such as his Cambridge University Press textbook Introduction to the Grammar of English, and we are not aware of any precedent they were following.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more