Various Problems

I devoted several posts to proper usage of the word "the" because this word appears to pose an unusually tricky problem for a great many non-native speakers. There are, of course, a great many other sorts of common problems, but they are more difficult to classify. As a result, what I plan to do from now on is simply look for errors wherever I can find them, point them out, and correct them. I am also counting on readers to send in examples they find in their own readings, or portions of their own work, that they would like me to review. Some have already done so, and I'm hoping others will as well.

Here are some problems I've found lately, all from highly regarded academic or scientific journals, with different sorts of errors that require attention:

"The traditionalist view is that the hunter-gatherer society has maintained its cultural originality by keeping no contact with neighboring other peoples."

The first part of the sentence contains a familiar error, involving improper use of the word "the." It should be clear by now that the "the" before "hunter-gatherer" should be omitted, but the error is compounded by the fact that the phrase "hunter-gatherer society" is ambiguous. Better would be "The traditionalist view is that hunter-gatherer societies have maintained their cultural originality . . ." The second part of the sentence contains a different sort of problem, involving word order: "keeping no contact" is technically correct but awkward, and "neighboring other peoples" is incorrect. Better, and simpler, would be "avoiding contact with neighboring peoples." The sentence as a whole should read: "The traditionalist view is that hunter-gatherer societies have maintained their cultural originality by avoiding contact with neighboring peoples."

"These population groups complement those included within HapMap studies as well as the HGDP [Human Genome Diversity Panel] in showing relationships between EAS groups and demonstrating that autosomal genotypes can be used to ascertain membership to various EAS groups."

This sentence is unproblematic until we reach the last phrase: "membership to various EAS groups." And here I must point out that there is a tendency I've noticed regarding usage of the word "to" that is not by any means limited to non-native speakers. This word is being used more and more as a sort of general purpose preposition, substituting for other prepositions that are more appropriate and also more logical. This seems to be particularly common in writings by British authors over the last few years, and I'm wondering why that is.

The word "to" implies movement. When we go "to" something we go toward it. "I am going to the store" means that I will be heading in the direction of the store with the intention of entering it. Consequently, a phrase like "membership to various groups" makes no sense, since membership does not involve motion and one cannot be a member "to" anything. The correct word to use in this case would be "in," so the phrase should read "membership in various EAS groups."

The problem crops up again in another sentence I found: "The shared lineage provides direct genetic evidence to the
long suggested ancient link between India and Australia." In this case "to" is being used loosely and illogically as a substitute for yet another preposition, "of." There is no such thing as "evidence to," because, once again, "to" implies movement in a particular direction and evidence doesn't usually move. The sentence should read:  "The shared lineage provides direct genetic evidence of the long suggested ancient link between India and Australia."

I've seen other examples where "to" is used as a substitute for still other prepositions, such as, for example, "from," which is totally illogical yet not uncommon these days, for reasons I find difficult to understand. Some people would say that English is changing and that this usage is correct because it's becoming so common. I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way. The problem is not that this usage is simply unconventional, which would not necessarily be a bad thing, but that it goes contrary to logic, and if accepted will encourage illogical thinking in future generations. I hope everyone reading here will take this to heart and not be tempted into such a destructive usage of what should be a very easily understood word.


"The application of holistic analytic approach in anthropological research, as »modelbound « or »model-free« approach, can be
very helpful in providing some important information about the continuity of interaction between population genetic characteristics
(its gene pool) and a wide spectrum of environmental selective impacts."

I see several problems in the above sentence, which is in fact very difficult to understand as written. The following is an improvement, but possibly not what the author intended: "The application of a holistic analytic approach in anthropological research, as either  »modelbound « or »model-free«, can be very helpful in providing important information about the continuity of interaction between population genetic characteristics (such as the gene pool) and a wide spectrum of environmentally selective impacts." The phrase "interaction between population genetic characteristics" remains unclear to me, however. And there are other things in this sentence that seem much too vague. If I were the editor I would have asked the author to explain exactly what he (or she) meant in simpler terms.

"In this study, the wide spectrum of traits was examined in an isolated population with presumably reduced genetic
and environmental variance and using two different approaches." The sentence should be rewritten as follows:
"In this study, a wide spectrum of traits was examined in an isolated population with presumably reduced genetic
and environmental variance, using two different approaches."

That's all for now. More next time.

Examples

Sometimes it's easiest to learn simply from examples:

The following sentences are correct:

Philosophy is my favorite subject.

The philosophy of Kant interests me the most.

A philosophy that embraces the realities of human life is preferable to one that doesn't.

He went to the library to observe the librarians.

He went to the library to observe librarians.

He went to the library to observe some librarians.

He went to the library to observe a librarian.

The library contains both librarians and books.

Libraries contain both librarians and books.

The libraries of New York are now online.

Operation Desert Fox was a success.

The Desert Fox operation was a success.



The following sentences are incorrect:

The philosophy is my favorite subject.

 Philosophy of Kant interests me the most.

Philosophy that embraces the realities of human life is preferable to one that doesn't.

He went to the library to observe librarian.

He went to library to observe librarians.
 
Library contains both librarians and books.

The Operation Desert Fox was a success.

Desert Fox operation was a success.

The Desert Fox operation was success.


If you can think of some other useful examples, correct or incorrect, please send them in.

And 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.

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.

Still more on "the"

We've identified countable nouns and differentiated them from uncountable nouns, and recognized that each type of noun should be treated differently. To review, a countable noun refers to an object that can be enumerated; for example, "a ball", "a bulldozer", "a friend", "a type", etc. All countable nouns must be preceded by a modifier such as "the," "a," "any" when they are singular. Plural nouns are treated differently and I'll be discussing them presently. (Sorry about that -- if this weren't such a confusing issue so many people wouldn't be having problems with it.)

An uncountable noun refers to something that can't be enumerated, such as a concept, a country, or even a person's name, since there is only one of that person. One way of spotting a noncountable noun is that it has no plural. For example: "pacifism" refers to a concept and is thus considered an uncountable noun; "India" is the name of a country and is not countable, since there is only one India; "Harry" is someone's name and since each of us is unique, the person referred to by the noun "Harry" isn't countable. None of these nouns has a plural form. We would not (usually) write, for example, "pacifisms" or "Indias" or "Harrys." Uncountable nouns should not be preceded by modifiers such as "the," "a," "any," although they can be preceded by adjectives. We can write "distant India," but we can't (usually) write "the India." Nor should we (usually) write "the pacifism" or "the Harry," etc.

Some examples: Take the box to the store and return it. (Box and store are countable nouns in the singular.) The cashier got upset when I tried to return it. A cashier got upset when I tried to return it. Any cashier would get upset if someone tried to return something. (Cashier is countable and singular and thus must be preceded by a modifier such as "the," "a" or "any".) Surfing is my favorite spectator sport. (Surfing is a noncountable noun and does not take a modifier such as "the," "a" or "any".) He went to the store. (Store is countable.) He turned to religion. (Religion is noncountable.)

OK, good, now we know precisely when to use "the" and similar modifiers and when to avoid them. Well, not really. Because in fact everything I've told you above has to be taken with a grain of salt. English is a highly plastic language, meaning that it is malleable, like clay. As with clay, we can mould it into all sorts of shapes and, also as with clay, there is a certain amount of resistance that can't be overcome, i.e., we can bend many of the rules, but not all, never completely, and never without a logical reason for doing so.

Here's an example of an exception to the rules I've outlined above, taken from a paper in a peer reviewed journal:

"Due to egalitarianism that permeates throughout their basic lifestyle, the concept of chiefdom did not truly penetrate their society."

"Egalitarianism" is a noncountable noun and therefore should not be preceded by "the". That's the rule, right? Right. So the preceding sentence is correct, right? Wrong.

Noncountable nouns can be turned into countable nouns under certain circumstances. If we write only about egalitarianism in the abstract, then we are referring to something that is uncountable. But if we are referring to a particular kind of egalitarianism then that kind of egalitarianism is countable and requires a modifier such as "the." The above sentence does not refer to egalitarianism in general but to the specific egalitarianism that permeates the lifestyle of a particular group. Thus the sentence should read "Due to the egalitarianism that permeates throughout their basic lifestyle .  .  . " (Actually the word "throughout" is redundant as it is already implied in "permeates," so the entire sentence should read: "Due to the egalitarianism that permeates their basic lifestyle, the concept of chiefdom did not truly penetrate their society.")

Here are some more examples which will hopefully clarify the difference between noncountable noncountable nouns and countable noncountable nouns:

He turned to religion. (Religion is understood as an abstract concept and is therefore noncountable.) He turned to the religion of his ancestors. (In this case, we are speaking of a particular kind of religion, which is, of course, countable, and requires "the".) I said that existentialism was a noncountable concept and therefore it would be incorrect to write "the existentialism," but she insisted that there are many types of existentialist philosophy and wrote an essay titled "The Existentialism of Albert Camus" out of spite, to prove that I was wrong. (I was, and I apologize. But I was also right!) :-/

To "the" or not to "the," that is the question

Probably the most tricky question, even for advanced students of English, is when to use "the" (or "a") and when to omit it. "He grabbed the ball and ran with it" is correct because it is proper to use "the" with a countable noun (see below) when you are referring to something specific. So in this case we understand that he grabbed a specific ball, and it is assumed that the ball has already been identified in a previous sentence. "He grabbed that ball and ran with it" would mean essentially the same thing. "He grabbed a ball and ran with it" is also correct, but has a different meaning, because "a" (or "an") is used when referring to something nonspecific. "He grabbed any ball and ran with it" has essentially the same meaning.

"He grabbed ball and ran with it" is incorrect, because we need a modifier, such as "the," "a", "any," "some," or "that," prior to that particular type of noun. And first, before we go any farther, we need to understand that there are indeed different types of noun and that each type must be treated differently. "Ball" is a countable noun, which means that what it refers to can be enumerated. We can have one ball, two balls, three balls, etc. and the number of balls to which we refer can therefore be counted. A countable noun must always be preceded by an appropriate modifier, such as "the," "a," "any," etc. Because such a noun is countable, numeric terms can also be used, instead of articles: "He grabbed one ball" or "He grabbed two balls," etc. would be just as correct as "He grabbed the ball" or "He grabbed some balls."

"He grabbed existentialism and ran with it" is correct (as a metaphor, natch), even though the noun is not preceded by a modifier. We cannot talk in terms of one or two or three "existentialisms," which means that "existentialism" is an uncountable noun -- and uncountable nouns are never preceded by a modifier such as "the," "a," "any," "some," etc. This is a rule of English grammar but it is also logical, because it would be illogical to specify such a noun in terms that imply it can be counted, when it can't. "Wait a minute," you might say. "There can be more than one type of existentialism, so why doesn't that word count as countable?" My answer: yes, there is more than one type of existentialism, and "type" is in fact a countable noun. So it would be correct to write: "He grabbed a type of existentialism and ran with it." Or, "He grabbed that type of existentialism and ran with it."

More on this topic in my next post.

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.

Using "the" and "a" (or "an")

The word "the" is what is called an "article," or, more precisely, a "definite article." Since it is the only such article in the English language, it's probably better to refer to it as the definite article. The only other article in English is "a," also known as "an." This is the "indefinite article." The definite article (the) tells us (usually) that we are dealing with a specific thing, while the indefinite article (a or an) is used when referring to a general category or concept.

For various reasons, non-native English speakers have a terrible time with both of these deceptively innocent little words -- possibly because of the typical models provided in so many beginner's textbooks. For example, many such books will use sentences like the following: "The boy picked up the book and began to read." This is a terrible model for beginners because in fact no native English speaker would ever speak or write such a sentence by itself and out of context. 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.

If we are dealing with the plural, however, we can't use "a" or "an," which is strictly limited to modifying singular nouns. In this case, we would need to use the word "some," as in: "Some boys picked up some books and began to read." We could also write: "Some boys picked up books and began to read." Which brings us to another very tricky issue: when an article is necessary and when it can be omitted. This is probably the most difficult issue for non-native English speakers to deal with and it is in fact very difficult to explain. I won't try to explain it for now, but will simply provide the correct usage when appropriate.

In the last post, I concentrated on the well known author Slavoj Zizek, to demonstrate how even a very experienced writer can make basic errors in the use of articles. To be fair, I must also point out that his more recent writings show great improvement in this respect -- possibly because his English has improved, but more likely because he is now successful enough to regularly work with professional editors. However, working with an editor is no guarantee of error-free copy. To my surprise, I've found many grammatical errors of all sorts in articles published in highly respectable, peer-reviewed journals. I'll concentrate, for now, on problems with "the" and "a."

Here, for example, is the title of an article published in a leading scientfic journal, BMC Evolutionary Biology: "Reconstructing Indian-Australian phylogenetic link". In this case, the authors simply left out the article altogether, a very common error. The title should be rewritten as "Reconstructing an Indian-Australian phylogenetic link." A good editor would have picked that up immediately.

An excerpt from the same paper contains more errors in the use of articles, along with several other serious errors in basic grammar:

The complete mtDNA sequencing indicate that both Australians and New Guineans exclusively belongs to the out of-Africa founder types M and N, thus ultimately descended from the same African emigrants ~50 to 70 kyBP, as all other Eurasians [24]. However, in context of the Eurasian phylogeny [25-35], shared branches more recent than the founding types M, N, and R have not been reported so far, except a shared variant at nucleotide position 8793 between Australian specific haplogroup M42 and East/Southeast Eurasian specific haplogroup M10 [24].

This passage should read as follows:

Complete mtDNA sequencing indicates that both Australians and New Guineans exclusively belong to the out-of-
Africa founder types M and N, and are thus ultimately descended from the same African emigrants, dating from ~50 to 70 kyBP, as all other Eurasians [24]. However, in the context of Eurasian phylogeny [25-35], shared branches more recent than the founding types M, N, and R have not been reported so far, except a shared variant at nucleotide position 8793, between the Australian specific haplogroup M42 and the East/Southeast Eurasian specific haplogroup M10 [24].

Here is another example of problems with the definite article, also from a peer-reviewed journal. There are some spelling errors as well:

It is concluded that, without the symbiolic partners providing the Mbuti with farm foods, a hunting-dependent life in the Ituri Forest would be quite hard and require much more effort in the subsistence activities than that made by the present-day Mbuti, although it would not be impossible from calorific viewpoint.

A good copy editor would have rewritten this passage as follows:

It is concluded that, without symbiotic partners providing the Mbuti with farm foods, a hunting-dependent life in the Ituri Forest would be quite hard and require much more effort in subsistence activities than that made by the present-day Mbuti, although it would not be impossible from a caloric viewpoint.

From the same paper: "There exists a marked difference in the feeding rhythm between herbivores and carnivores," which should read: "There is a marked difference in feeding rhythm between herbivores and carnivores."

No more for today. See you soon. And 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.

"the"

English is an especially challenging language for the non-native speaker to master. For one thing, a great many words derived from French (thanks to the Norman invasion of England in 1066) have non-standard spellings and pronunciations that follow no clear rule, and must be learned on a case by case basis. I'll be discussing some of them presently. On the other hand, there are some very simple and familiar words that everyone can easily spell and pronounce, which are, nevertheless, surprising difficult to master. Foremost among these is one of the simplest of all, the very ordinary and commonplace word: "the". Time after time I see this word appearing where it should not appear, or else being left out where it should be put in. As a native English speaker, I have no problem deciding whether or not to use "the," but I've noticed to my surprise that a great many non-native speakers find that decision extremely difficult.

As an example, here is a passage from an essay by one of my favorite contemporary writers, the Slovenian philosopher and social commentator, Slavoj Zizek: "I couldn't help noticing how all the best Marxist analyses are always analyses of a failure ... Like, why did Paris Commune go wrong?" Zizek is a brilliant thinker and extremely engaging lecturer and author, with an excellent grasp of English and several other languages. Nevertheless, even someone as intelligent and highly educated as he can stumble badly over certain words. Can you spot his mistake? The phrase "Paris Commune" refers to a very specific event in history, and as a noun phrase with a specific referent, must be preceded by "the."

Here's another example from Zizek, only this time he inserts two "the"s where they aren't wanted: "The fact that a cloud from a minor volcanic eruption in Iceland—-a small disturbance in the complex mechanism of life on the Earth—-can bring to a standstill the aerial traffic over an entire continent is a reminder of how, with all its power to transform nature, humankind remains just another species on the planet Earth."

This sentence is more complex, and one of the errors is not so simple to correct. First of all, the phrase "life on the Earth," while not technically incorrect (since he is referring to a specific thing, the planet we all live on), is stylistically awkward, because "life on Earth" is a very common idiomatic expression and thus will always sound more "natural" to English and American readers. The phrase "can bring to a standstill the aerial traffic over an entire continent" has more serious problems. The noun phrase "aerial traffic" is non-specific, since it refers to aerial traffic in general, and should therefore not be preceded by "the." Additionally, the wording of the entire phrase is awkward, as will be clear when I rewrite it thus: "can bring aerial traffic over an entire continent to a standstill."

Here are some more incorrect passages from Zizek, followed by my corrections:

". . . this ascension was legitimized by the promise to amend the underprivileged situation of Serbia within the Yugoslav federation, especially with regard to the Albanian "separatism.""  ". . . the promise to amend" is correct only if there was a prior reference to a specific promise. Otherwise, "a" should be used instead. "Albanian separatism" is non-specific in this context, so it's incorrect to precede it with "the." In a different context, on the other hand, where the reference was to a specific type of Albanian separatism, then "the" would be expected, as in the following: ". . . especially with regard to the Albanian separatism of that era." The entire phrase should be rewritten as follows: ". . . this ascension was legitimized by a promise to amend the underprivileged situation of Serbia within the Yugoslav federation, especially with regard to Albanian "separatism."" 

"The story of NATO as the enforcer of the respect for human rights is thus only one of the two coherent stories that can be told about the recent bombings of Yugoslavia . . ." NATO is a specific entity, thus the use of "the" preceding "enforcer" is correct. But "respect for human rights" is a concept, not a specific thing, so it is not correct to precede it with "the." The first phrase should read: "The story of NATO as the enforcer of respect for human rights . . ." Even better would be "the enforcer of human rights." The word "respect" isn't really necessary and clutters the sentence.

"The second story concerns the other side of the much-praised new global ethical politics in which one is allowed to violate the state sovereignty on behalf of the violation of human rights." "State sovereignty" is, once again, a concept, not a specific thing, so the "the" should be omitted: "The second story concerns the other side of the much-praised new global ethical politics in which one is allowed to violate state sovereignty on behalf of the violation of human rights."

I use Zizek as an example because it's important for everyone to understand that even the most intelligent, best educated and articulate writers can make such mistakes. Zizek is a first-rate author, whose work I greatly admire, so if he is capable of making such errors, anyone can. My intention is not to point the finger of blame, but to help good writers deal with very tricky aspects of the English language -- so tricky that even a writer as good as Zizek can stumble over them.

I'll have more to say about the word "the" -- and that other innocent looking English article: "a" (or "an") -- next time.