This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics / Philosophy of language This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force. This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

It is debatable whether the Basque article -a really marks definiteness. I favour the position that it does not. Instead, -a is the default determiner, which is required to occupy the obligatory determiner position in most Basque noun phrases whenever no other determiner (or quantifier) occupies that position. This analysis accounts more economically for the fact now generally accepted in Basque linguistics that the article has a whole range of uses that are not semantically definite; it is also more coherent with the syntactic facts concerning obligatory determination in Basque noun phrases. Given that this article is about definiteness, that is somewhat unfortunate. I would therefore suggest choosing another language for this example in which the definiteness-marking value of the suffix is uncontroversial. How about a North Germanic language, for example? --A R King 16:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese arguably does not explicitly mark definiteness. The particle/clitic は /wä/ is a topic marker in Japanese's topic-comment argument structure. Many English translations of clauses that have the topical marker in the original Japanese might obscure this fact, though, as English, being a subject-centric language, uses its definiteness marker to mark a clause's syntactic subject as the semantic topic for pragmatic reasons. The nominative marker が /gä/ in Japanese is actually much closer to marking definiteness than は is, as it can imply a discrete subject when a preceding (or implied) question has been asked. In effect it can be used to emphasize a specific subject from multiple possibilities. Tae Kim's "Japanese Grammar Guide" (2010) goes into discussion of が and how it used on pages 28-29. Mattgoldstein (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking up specificity results in a redirect to this article but specificity is a separate linguistic category from definiteness and is not handled in this article. I suggest that either a separate article on specificity be written or a section on specificity be added to this article. Specificity is not grammatically marked in English, but can be indicated by two different readings of the sentence I'm looking for a policeman. This can either mean that the speaker is looking for any policeman at all (non-specific: I'm looking for a policeman. Maybe you've seen one?) or a particular policeman (specific: I'm looking for a policeman. Maybe you've seen him). In either case, the indefinite article, a is used in English because the identity of the policeman is not presumed to be known by the listener. Definiteness is generally an indication of the listener's assumed knowledge of the identity of the referent whereas specificity indicates the speakers own knowledge of the identity of the referent. I would write the section/article myself but I am unable to find any good examples of this in languages at the moment although I have seen it in the past - if only I could remember where. 84.143.239.240 (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specificity now has its own page.--Brett (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will the following link be accepted: What Does "the" Even Mean?? תיל"ם (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

not likely Brett (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]