chair is soft

[Barb_D]

I don't understand what is wrong with simply saying "In English, single countable nouns require an article."

[Raymott]

They [English speakers] seem to perceive them as an imperfect noun that has no reality.

That's right. "Chair" has no reality in English as a chair. It has reality as a word and a symbol, and when used in reference to a real (or imaginary) chair in accordance with English grammatical rules, it becomes a semantic symbol/sign for a concrete chair - either a definite or indefinite one or several, etc. depending on the other grammatical parameters used.
The word "chair" does conjure up images of a chair in an English-speaker's mind. It's not as if one's mind is unconscious of what "chair" could refer to unless there's an article attached to the word. But "chair" by itself generally has no communicative value. On the other hand, if you shouted "Snake!", that might have communicative value, even though it's not a grammatical sentence. In this case, the context would make up for the missing article.

[keannu]

Thanks a million!!! It may be bugging you, and I seem to be the most follow-up questioner on this site. Sometimes I feel guilty as I have the feeling I'm bothering the teachers with endless questions that don't make sense, but unless I'm the equal level with teachers, it's hard to understand your explanation hundred percent, and I'm kind of a meticulous person.

Just one last question! I think you blew away my curiosity with the clear answer and if I didn't misunderstand you, my concept of zero article nouns seems similar to your explanation, It's just an "image, symbol, word" with no reality. Just to make sure, in the following, is the "imaginary chair" related to nouns with articles or without articles?
As my conclusion is like this.
1.Zero article nouns - unreal, image, symbol
2.nouns with articles - real, concrete, actual
But where does "imaginary" noun belong?

...when used in reference to a real (or imaginary) chair in accordance with English grammatical rules, it becomes a semantic symbol/sign for a concrete chair - either a definite or indefinite one or several,....

[Raymott]

Thanks a million!!! It may be bugging you, and I seem to be the most follow-up questioner on this site. Sometimes I feel guilty as I have the feeling I'm bothering the teachers with endless questions that don't make sense, but unless I'm the equal level with teachers, it's hard to understand your explanation hundred percent, and I'm kind of a meticulous person.

Just one last question! I think you blew away my curiosity with the clear answer and if I didn't misunderstand you, my concept of zero article nouns seems similar to your explanation, It's just an "image, symbol, word" with no reality. Just to make sure, in the following, is the "imaginary chair" related to nouns with articles or without articles?
As my conclusion is like this.
1.Zero article nouns - unreal, image, symbol
2.nouns with articles - real, concrete, actual
But where does "imaginary" noun belong?

...when used in reference to a real (or imaginary) chair in accordance with English grammatical rules, it becomes a semantic symbol/sign for a concrete chair - either a definite or indefinite one or several,....

I simply meant that if Alice saw a chair in Wonderland that spoke to her, it would be an "imaginary chair". If you dreamt of a chair it would be an imaginary chair. But you can talk about those chairs to someone else using the defininite article because they have existance in the imagination. "I dreamt of a chair. The chair started speaking to me." Also, if I said "We need to buy a chair for the basement", this is also an imaginary chair, unless I have a specific chair in mind that I intend buying. And my wife might say, "When are you going to buy that chair for the basement?" It's still to some extent imaginary.
But I don't want to start a discussion on what is imaginary and what is not. We are having enough trouble defining what "chair" is without tackling what "imaginary" is. "Chair" as a word doesn't have existence as a chair, even in the imagination. It only has existence as a word until it is instantiated with a real (or imaginary, as I've explained) chair.

Anyhow, your conclusion is still wrong. Most abstract nouns don't come with articles - happiness, life, prosperity, death. But they are still real.
I don't follow where you are taking this, or why. There is an obvious difference between things (real or imaginary) and the names that we give them. A real chair is not even a "chair" at all to someone who doesn't know English. It's a "silla, 椅子, кресло, كرسي, stol, etc."

[keannu]

I simply meant that if Alice saw a chair in Wonderland that spoke to her, it would be an "imaginary chair". If you dreamt of a chair it would be an imaginary chair. But you can talk about those chairs to someone else using the defininite article because they have existance in the imagination. "I dreamt of a chair. The chair started speaking to me." Also, if I said "We need to buy a chair for the basement", this is also an imaginary chair, unless I have a specific chair in mind that I intend buying. And my wife might say, "When are you going to buy that chair for the basement?" It's still to some extent imaginary.
But I don't want to start a discussion on what is imaginary and what is not. We are having enough trouble defining what "chair" is without tackling what "imaginary" is. "Chair" as a word doesn't have existence as a chair, even in the imagination. It only has existence as a word until it is instantiated with a real (or imaginary, as I've explained) chair.

Anyhow, your conclusion is still wrong. Most abstract nouns don't come with articles - happiness, life, prosperity, death. But they are still real.
I don't follow where you are taking this, or why. There is an obvious difference between things (real or imaginary) and the names that we give them. A real chair is not even a "chair" at all to someone who doesn't know English. It's a "silla, 椅子, кресло, كرسي, stol, etc."

Oh, I meant it only for countable, common nouns, not for massive or abstract nouns. I already know the latter are real. So your confirmation seems to mean zero article nouns are only names or symbols, not concrete reality. Okay I will try to remember it. But a slight worry is Koreans/Japanese/Chinese perceive even names or images as a real thing, but as languages are different, I can't help but conclude names or images in English don't make sense. We think if something has an image, it makes sense, but English doesn't seem to make sense. Okay, thanks so far for this!!!

[5jj]

We think if something has an image, it makes sense, but English doesn't seem to make sense.

English does not make sense - if you analyse it in Korean or Chinese ways, but it makes perfect sense to English speakers. If we analyse Korean and Chinese in English ways, they will seem very strange, but they are perfectly sensible and logical to native speakers.

Moslem learners find it hard to accept that most people who speak English believe that it is possible to think about a future that is certain. Many British, American, Australian, etc people find the way Moslems cannot speak about the future without adding In shaa'Allah (إن شاء الله‎) quite strange.

If we attempt to understand the language and culture of one group of people through the eyes of another group of people, there are bound to be things that are incomprehensible to us.

[keannu]

Thanks a lot, You have a good point in there! I will keep that in mind. I swore not to make any more question, but I can't help adding more!
My grammar book has this example.
ex)David is a baseball player whose position is pitcher.

Before I saw your explanation, I understood why pitcher doesn't have an article vaguely. But now I guess it's because it's a name like "His name is David". Isn't it?