English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Certain numeral classifier languages allow for the combination of a classifier and a noun to represent a definite individual/entity when no numeral accompanies the classifier (Vietnamese, Bangla, Oriya, Hmong, varieties of Chinese). In many instances, such a patterning alternates with the use of a bare noun to reference definite individuals/entities, but there has been little systematic study of such alternations, and whether the “bare classifier” and “bare noun” patterns are in free variation or encode different aspects of definite reference. The current paper argues for the latter conclusion with a detailed study of the Jinyun variety of Chinese, showing that bare classifier and bare noun patterns are used to highlight different aspects of “definiteness.” The bare classifier pattern dominates cases of anaphoric definite reference, bridging cross-reference, reference to salient visible entities and non-speaker kin terms and personal relations, while bare nouns are used predominantly for individuals and entities perceived to be specifically unique or directly connected to the speaker. This distribution interestingly shows strong parallels to the way that languages with more than one definite article use such elements for definite reference.

Bare classifier/noun alternations in the Jinyun (Wu) variety of Chinese and the encoding of definiteness