| Morphological Form | Grammatical Meaning | Its versions in | |
| Singular | Plural | ||
| Zero form | attitude to a thing as to a general phenomenon | cake | cakes |
| Cake is nice food. | Cakes are liked by kids. | ||
| A-form | treating a thing as any representative of a class of things | a cake | __ |
| I’d like a cake. | |||
| The-form | considering a thing as a unique or concrete known one | the cake | the cakes |
| The cake we’ve eaten was delicious! | The cakes we’ve eaten were delicious! |
Secondly, Christophersen stipulated his approach with the following arguments:
1) Article resembles the Auxiliary of the Verb as both of them create a definite analytical form of a part of speech, auxiliary verbs – of the Verb, articles – of the Noun. He stipulates Article as the Auxiliary of the Noun on the ground of the following arguments:
a) article is a formal morphological index of the Noun;
b) article does not have Lexical Meaning.
BUT these arguments are not enough and there is a confusion:
a) article is not a pure unique index of the Noun.
For example:
(The) water (noun) was wonderful those days. They water (verb) flowers.
b) article is a definer of the Noun but it does not create Morphological Forms of it whereas auxiliaries create new Morphological forms of the Verb, they change it. Consequently, there is a syntactic connection of the Article and the Noun and there is not of the Auxiliary and the Verb.
For example:
*Article can be substituted by another proper word/pronoun (syntactic connection):
The man is a smart one. = This man is a smart one.
A girl suddenly came in. = Some girl suddenly came in.
*Auxiliary cannot be replaced/substituted by any other word (morphological connection):
He is singing a beautiful song. We have been climbing the rock for three hours.
In the Occidental science there has still been some arguments to the problem of Article (where to refer it). In the Post-Soviet science the Article is treated as a Syntacategorematic part of speech.