I think your opening paras are interesting, but ultimately tangential, as they go to motivation (which presumably OP already has or he wouldn’t ask the question), and therefor don’t address the question per se. The final para is where he money is, but it ends on a relatively fuzzy “yeah you need them”, but even that is spoiled by “not there for meaning but for ‘structural integrity’”, which i Think the first clause is off-base (they do convey meaning! really!), and the second clause too vague to use for any purpose. I think it’d be better to rewrite and flesh out the ideas in the final para.

Thanks for the insights @Dan Bron. I wrote that opening para to make sure other readers understand why OP thinks articles are not necessary -- that this Q is not trivial or a duplicate but an outcome of how non-native speakers perceive the structure of the English language relative to its applied function. Now edited this into answer to clarify, because I don't want this Q to get closed as duplicate/ off topic. I shall try to expand and improve the points I made in the rest of my answer.

As it turns out, many native speakers of different languages with articles tend to omit them when they first learn the language (i.e. as young children). It actually differs per language how long this stage lasts. I think this is an interesting article about that (downloads a pdf).

Please allow me to quote your comment to make a more effective point @Dan Bron.

Thanks for the very interesting link @JJJ.

@EnglishStudent You are completely welcome to do that. And for future cases you needn’t ask permission. I said it publicly, so the public is welcome to point out I said it.

Okay, fine. I appreciate your attitude @Dan Bron.

I don't agree with the argument that we should keep the article just because, without it, it "wouldn't be English." That doesn't mean much. Language changes all the time, and it's mostly irrelevant if such a shift takes place. (The English we use it now is essentially a different language than the English of five hundred years ago.) What's more important is the question if such a change would be a meaningful one. What purpose would it actually serve if we removed the article? None of this discussion addresses that. What are the arguments behind its removal?

When Webster changed some words so as to make them seem more like their pronunciation and to remove "redundant" characters, he started the shift from British English to American English. I see the suggestion of removing the article as no different. But I think that its presence provides more positive value than the removal of the "chore" of having to type it out would recoup. The questioners needs to provide a more affirmative reason for its removal than just stating it seems irrelevant.

Does all this belong on ELU?

If it gets closed as off topic here @Kris then you might consider migrating it to ELL.

I was referring to the answer above, not the post per se.

" the only function of the English language is often to convey some sort of literal meaning in communication", Excuse me what???

@Lambie, Most non-native speakers don't learn English to become professionals at using it. They just learn the language to be able to communicate with people they meet, to get-on with their everyday business. (they switch to their native language whenever possible) So for them, it is not absolutely necessary to know the exact grammar.

Determiners convey meaning. This answer is very wide of nay mark.

I think you're off the mark in that "English wouldn't be English without articles". This question's premise is just that (English without articles) so you're making some kind of logical mistake that I don't wanna google just to categorize properly. The answer to this, first, is that in Present-day English articles have some grammatical semantic meaning that cannot be dispensed with while retaining the entire meaning of sentences. If we were to do so (rid English of articles), there'd have to be a mechanism (not necessarily words) by which you could signal the same things articles normally do.

@Lambie What meaning does the definite article convey?

@EnglishStudent ELL?!!*

ELL?!! __ It was an ironic statement @Araucaria, and now moot: because the Q got closed as off-topic by some notable citizens, and got reopened. I absolutely think this Q belongs here, and OP is not an English language learner, though definitely a non-native speaker. A senior member has posted a much-upvoted comment explaining how this is a really good question for this website. Maybe you could write a comprehensive answer to this question?

@Araucaria The meaning conveyed by a definite article contrasts with the meaning conveyed by an indefinite article and/or a null set (honesty, not "an honesty). Like many things, singling out a feature of a language in this manner makes no methodological linguistic sense....that said, the meanings include: particularity/specificity contrasted to generality and deictic reference and for the null set, abstraction or notions (Life is good.)

@Lambie What attribute of a thing is it to be a 'specific thing'? For example, if I'm rifling through my bookshelves and my flatmate says "what are you doing" and I say "I'm looking for a book" or "I'm looking for a specific book", is that the kind of specificity your talking about? (and if so shouldn't it be "I'm looking for the specific book"?) - Just being devil's advocate ...

@EnglishStudent Phew, couldn't tell if it was meant to be ironic or not! (no intonation to help out!) :)

@Araucaria As I said, any explanation of "the/a/[null set]" to be complete requires a treatise, which I am not going to write here for obvious reasons. The use of "a" would come under generality. I used those abstract nouns for a reason.

@lambie Hmm. But how is it a generality? (The reason I'm asking, is that when something has a few thousand meanings, those things are usually not meanings encoded by the word or the construction but just implicatures arising from its usage in a thousand different contexts.)

@Araucaria I will not write a treatise. The question as posed here is linguistically irrelevant. An imperfect analogy is: You can't define a book by its cover but you certainly can't define it by removing its pages! But, to please you, here's one: Example of a generality: An attitude of forbearance is a nice one.

@Lambie I can't see anything to substantiate your strongly asserted claim that the definite article has some kind of meaning to do with specificness or anything like that.

1) That's pie in the sky. 2) That's a pie in the sky. 3) That's the pie in the sky [look,over there!]. 1) Abstract notion 2) generality 3) specificity. And these meanings are constantly in play and playing off each other in English. If that isn't meaning,what is? And implicature is about meaning!

@Lambie That's effects. They might even be implied meanings. But they're not meanings encoded by articles (or the lack of them). They don't describe any attributes of actual things.

The word encoded is not one I accept here. I did not mention attributes of things, you did. I used abstract terminology. It much more about deixis, deictic functions and reference in discourse. Pragmatics. And I gave you three examples where the meaning of the utterance ends up being different in each case. Bye for now.

The true joy of irony (for me) is when someone can't be sure I am being ironic @Araucaria. I still feel this Q has not received a comprehensive A and would appreciate it if you feel inclined to put your perceptive comments together in the form of an answer. I am also thinking of offering a bounty to attract more expert attention for this question.