Monday, January 31, 2011

Understanding "the"

So yes, there are certain rules for the use of "the" and similar words, and there are also exceptions -- and yes, it can be confusing. Nevertheless, there is a method behind the madness and there is, in fact, a general principle we can follow which will work for us in the great majority of cases: when you are referring to some specific thing, use "the". Or, to put it another way: in order to make it clear that you are referring to something specific, use "the." Do NOT use "the" when referring to something nonspecific, such as a generality, a concept, a principle, a topic, etc., or when referring to a nation, a place, a particular person, etc. DO use "the" when referring to some specific aspect of something. "He lives in Texas" is correct. "He lives in the Texas of cowboys and oil barons" is also correct. "He lives in the Texas" is incorrect. "He lives in Texas of cowboys and oil barons" is incorrect.

Now to the plural. The principle I provided above covers "some specific thing." Does it also cover specific things? Yes, it does, but this is sometimes less clear, because when it comes to the plural, the rules for the use of "the" are less rigid. "He read the book" is correct. "He read book" is incorrect. It's that simple. But the plural works a bit differently. "He read the books" is correct. "He read books" is also correct. But the meanings of these two sentences are very different. In the first case we are referring to a specific group of books -- say, for example, the books he was assigned in class. In the second case, we are referring to books in general -- he was someone who liked to read, so he read books -- all kinds of books, not just the books he was told to read.

It's very important to keep the general principle in mind, and not rely too heavily on examples you might find in your readings. This is where, as I see it, a great many people go wrong, because it's easy to assume that the usage you find in standard sources, such as newspapers, magazines, academic papers, etc. is correct. Very often it is NOT. I found an unfortunate example of this problem on the Internet today, when accessing my Yahoo home page: ". . . the U.S. handling of Egyptian uprising, regardless of how it plays out, now has other close American friends in the Middle East . . . watching closely, looking for foreshadowings of what might be in store for them." This is from an Associated Press report.

Can you spot the error? "Egyptian uprising" is incorrect because this uprising is a specific event, and therefore must be preceded by "the." It should read: " . . . the U. S. handling of the Egyptian uprising, regardless of how [etc.]" Why did such a usually reliable source as the Associated Press get this wrong? Possibly the article was written by a non-native English speaker who got confused. More likely, it is simply a misprint that got overlooked. To save money, many media outlets don't bother with proofreading, or use fewer proofreaders, who are then overworked and can miss certain errors. If you are a native speaker of English, this sort of thing won't confuse you, but if you are not, you need to be very careful, because it's easy to assume that all such news reports are models of correct grammar (and spelling), and as you can see, this is not always the case.

Remember, you are invited to use the "Comments" window to send me passages from your own writings, if you would like me to go over them for possible errors.

8 comments:

  1. Is this sentence correct?

    Is there a measure for the success of philanthropic activities in the developed world?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think this sentence can be re-phrased better.

    "Even though boundaries called nations cannot be justified, but considering the unequal growth of various such nations these boundaries are bound to remain for sometime now."

    ReplyDelete
  3. One more sentence:

    "If I'm to stick with that, I suppose I'll be slapped with a divorce case with complete denial of paternal rights".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Manju.

    "Is there a measure for the success of philanthropic activities in the developed world?" This sentence is correct.

    "Even though boundaries called nations cannot be justified, but considering the unequal growth of various such nations these boundaries are bound to remain for sometime now."

    The above is confusing and grammatically incorrect. I would recast it thus: "Even though national boundaries cannot be justified, such boundaries are certain to remain for some time, given the unequal growth of various nations."

    I'm still not sure what this means, however. If the nations are growing, then why would the boundaries remain the same? Do you mean the unequal "size" of various nations?

    "If I'm to stick with that, I suppose I'll be slapped with a divorce case with complete denial of paternal rights".

    The above isn't bad, but the use of "that" is problematic, because it's unclear what "that" refers to. Also, I have a problem with the word "case," because you can't be slapped with a case. And you left out a comma. Suggested rewrite: "If I'm to stick with my position on this matter, I suppose I'll be slapped with divorce papers, and be denied any paternal rights".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you.

    I say, we skip discussing the logic behind these sentences since they are removed from (the) context :-).

    I hope you can help me to identify the pattern in the mistakes I make. I believe these sentences are framed unnaturally because of my mother-tongue influence or my natural Dravidian sentence structure. However, I'm not able to articulate this part.

    For example, in the second example, you point out, the second clause could have been divided into two clauses and not only that the first part of my second clause would be the third or last clause.

    In the first example, I was wondering whether the sentence should have read ... of the success... instead of ... for the success...

    In the third corrected case, I would have added 'be denied of any paternal rights'... as that sounds more natural to me. I suppose I need explanation on 'of' and 'for' usages :-).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Manju: "For example, in the second example, you point out, the second clause could have been divided into two clauses and not only that the first part of my second clause would be the third or last clause."

    I rearranged those clauses for a very specific reason. If I hadn't, the sentence would have looked like this: "Even though national boundaries cannot be justified, given the unequal growth of various nations, such boundaries are certain to remain for some time." The problem with this version is that it's not clear whether the second clause refers to the first clause or the last, and as a result the meaning of the second clause is ambiguous. By placing the second clause after the third clause, I removed the ambiguity.

    "In the first example, I was wondering whether the sentence should have read ... of the success... instead of ... for the success..."

    You can have a measure *of* something, and you can also have a measure *for* something. The meanings are slightly different but roughly equivalent. In this case, I would argue that "for" is better than "of" because you would then have two "of"s in the same sentence, which is stylistically weak.

    "In the third corrected case, I would have added 'be denied of any paternal rights'... as that sounds more natural to me. I suppose I need explanation on 'of' and 'for' usages."

    I am seeing more and more phrases, even by native English speakers, where "of" is used in such a context. Perhaps the language is changing and this usage is now considered acceptable. As I see it, however, it is clearly an error. "Denial of paternal rights," as you originally wrote, is correct, but "be denied of" is wrong. The only reason I changed that last part of your sentence was because "with complete denial of paternal rights" is a bit wordy and thus somewhat awkward (though grammatically correct). This was a matter of style and not grammar, however.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think you've missed the point with "the". The idea that it refers to something specific is a very old-fashioned explanation.

    A better explanation is that 'the' should be used when a) the speaker is referring to a specific thing and b) ASSUMES that the listener knows which specific thing is being referred to.

    For example, if the speaker says "He sat down on a chair. The chair was black", there is no difference in the specificity of the chair whatsoever as far as the speaker is concerned. It's the same chair. But in the first sentence the speaker is introducing the listener to an unknown chair for the first time. In the second sentence the speaker ASSUMES that the listener knows which chair he's talking about -- because it's already been introduced into the discourse.

    In other cases 'the' is appropriate not because it has already been introduced into the discourse, but because:

    * Everyone knows what the referent is. For example, the moon only refers to Earth's moon in normal discourse. (Unless, of course, you have a discourse like: "He landed on Jupiter's third moon. The moon consisted mainly of ice".)

    * It is part of a whole. For example, "the surface of a table". In this case, even though the table is non-specific (it could be any table), 'the surface' is quite specific as it refers to a specific part of a table. "The circumference of a circle", "the trunk of a tree", etc. belong to this category.

    * Similarly, members of a conventionally understood relationship will use 'the'. For example: "A family walked into the room. The father led the way, the son followed behind, and the wife brought up the rear." That's because, even if we have no idea who the father, the wife or the son are, such things as 'fathers', 'wives', and 'sons' are recognised constituents of a family. When the speaker uses "the father", he does so in complete confidence that the listener will know who is being referred to.

    * It gets a bit trickier with expressions like "The dog is an animal". In this case there is no specific animal being referred to. The usage is a special one, where 'the' is used to indicate a category. If one said "The blobdink is a mythical creature", this would presumably be in answer to a quizzical response by the listener hearing the word 'blobdink' for the first time. In a more creative usage, one could begin an essay with "The blobdink is a mythical creature". This doesn't assume that the listener has heard the word 'blobdink', it makes a PRETENCE of assuming that the listener has heard the word 'blobdink'. Subtle, eh?

    There are some interesting sentences which clarify this interpretation of the use of 'the' not where things are specific, but where the speaker assumes the listener knows what specific thing is being referred to. The most famous one is "My daughter wants to marry a Norwegian". This could have TWO interpretations:

    a) The daughter is in love with Norwegians in general and just wants to marry a Norwegian -- any old Norwegian. This is totally non-specific.

    b) The daughter has a specific Norwegian in mind that she wants to marry. The speaker says "a Norwegian", even though a specific Norwegian is being referred to, because he assumes that the listener DOESN'T know who this particular Norwegian is.

    I suggest that you should start looking at some modern comprehensive grammars of English to get an up-to-date view on questions of grammar. The old-school stuff often just doesn't cut it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for chiming in, Anonymous. I can use all the help I can get, because I am by no means an expert on English grammar. I am, nonetheless, a native speaker and an experienced writer, so I can spot an error a mile away and have no problem (usually) making corrections. Explaining them is, of course, another matter entirely. And explaining "the" is particularly tricky, I admit.

    You write: "For example, if the speaker says "He sat down on a chair. The chair was black", there is no difference in the specificity of the chair whatsoever as far as the speaker is concerned. It's the same chair."

    I think I see what you mean. I was assuming "indefinite" and "non-specific" meant essentially the same thing, but maybe not.

    "But in the first sentence the speaker is introducing the listener to an unknown chair for the first time. In the second sentence the speaker ASSUMES that the listener knows which chair he's talking about -- because it's already been introduced into the discourse."

    If you go back and check my earlier post, "Using "the" and "a" (or "an")", you'll find this:

    "Before we can refer to "the boy," we have to have a definite boy in mind, and before he can pick up "the book," there must be a specific book for him to pick up. On the other hand, "A boy picked up a book and began to read" is indefinite (non-specific) and thus can be used by itself with no need for us to have a particular boy or book already in mind."

    As for the rest, I want to thank you, because what you've written is very helpful, at least to me. My problem on this blog is that I'm making an effort to help non-native speakers who are going to get really confused by overly complex explanations. I've already had a complaint about the length of my posts.

    What I tried to do in this one is offer a relatively simple rule of thumb that appears to work in most cases -- but certainly not all.

    ReplyDelete