a, the or zero article

Hello,

Struggling with the arcticles, I'm close to admitting defeat. I'd very much appreciate it if anyboby could explain the usage of the articles in the sentences below

1. The rivers of Britain are short. (There is no context. This is a sentence from an exercise book. There're lots of rivers in Britain, why 'the'?)

2. Rivers in Britain are short. (I see almost no difference if compared to N1. Just rivers in Britain; it's not important to identify which. Or should the sentence begin with 'the rivers'?)

3. John has a wife, a son and three daughters. So, John is the head of a big family. (here 'a big family' acts as a category, I understand that. But is it also okay to say "the head of the big family' - his family?)

It's almost incomprehensible.
I'd be very grateful for help.

Verona_82 said:

Struggling with the ar[STRIKE]c[/STRIKE]ticles, I'm close to admitting defeat. So am I - and I am a native speaker with many years of teaching experience!

1. The rivers of Britain are short. (There is no context. This is a sentence from an exercise book. There're lots of rivers in Britain, why 'the'?). All the rivers of Britain. As a group, they are as unique as 'the sun'.

2. Rivers in Britain are short. (I see almost no difference if compared to N1. Just rivers in Britain; it's not important to identify which. Or should the sentence begin with 'the rivers'?). It's 'in' that's important. I imagine that you are OK with 'Rivers can be difficult to cross' or 'Rivers are wide, but streams are narrow'. So, - 'Rivers in Britain are short.'

3. John has a wife, a son and three daughters. So, John is the head of a big family. (here 'a big family' acts as a category, I understand that. But is it also okay to say "the head of the big family' - his family?). Not unless we have been talking about several families, a big one, a small one, a disfunctional one, etc. Then, after the first mention, we can speak of the big family - we know which one we are referring to.

Click to expand...

5

Thank you, 5jj!

After your explanation I think I'll have to come to terms with the first two sentences. However, I'm afraid I still don't get the last one. I don't understand why 'the family' cannot refer to his own family.

I love spending time with the family - my family
John is the head of the [his] big family. Why is it wrong?

He could indeed be the head of the family. Once you put in 'big', the question arises - which big family?

Would it be logical to think of any big family when we've just been talking about John's? Who might think about another big family that John happens to be the head of?

PS. 5jj, it seems to me I understand the usage of 'a' there; I'm just thinking in Russian at the moment - the way, I'm sure, a lot of my compatriots would think when looking at this sentence.:-(

Verona_82 said:

Would it be logical to think of any big family when we've just been talking about John's? Who might think about another big family that John happens to be the head of?

PS. 5jj, it seems to me I understand the usage of 'a' there; I'm just thinking in Russian at the moment - the way, I'm sure, a lot of my compatriots would think when looking at this sentence.:-(

Click to expand...

It is very subtle. (Sorry if I jump into the discussion without invitation). You have introduced the family already, right, but you haven't introduced "big" yet.

fivejedjon said:

5

Click to expand...

I also must admit that even after fivejedjon's explanation I don't understand why we should put the in the first sentence and leave it out in the second.

I suspect that both options are possible in both sentenses.

Kotfor said:

I also must admit that even after fivejedjon's explanation I don't understand why we should put the in the first sentence and leave it out in the second.

I suspect that both options are possible in both sentenses.

Click to expand...

How about an opinion from a native?
"The rivers..." sounds to me like a fact that stands on its own. It refers to the collective of *all* rivers in Britain. Ok, I get it.

"Rivers in Britain..." sounds to me like a fact that is going to be followed by a logical explanation of why... In other words, it feels like an introductory statement that does *not* stand on its own and should have a follow-up explanation. The speaker said it to get my attention.

Very subtle differences to my ear but that's my take.

Not a teacher

Khosro said:

It is very subtle. (Sorry if I jump into the discussion without invitation). You have introduced the family already, right, but you haven't introduced "big" yet.

Click to expand...

You don't have to wait for an invitation. - You'd be waiting a long time if you did.

You are correct, in my opinion. Thank you.

Kotfor said:

I suspect that both options are possible in both sentences.

Click to expand...

Pretty well anything is possible if you hunt around for the right context, but this is unlikely. Try these:

A. John is the head of a family.

B. John is the head of a big family.

C. John has a wife, a son and three daughters.[We understand that this collection of people is a family] There is no question of equal rights for women in this part of the world - John is the head of the [ previously mentioned] family.

D: John has a wife, a son and three daughters. [We do not necessarily think of this as a big family] As the head of a big family, John needs to work hard to earn ....

E. John has seventeen children, all of whom still live at home [We do think of this as a big family]. As head of the [previously mentioned] big family, John needs ...

allenman said:

How about an opinion from a native?
"The rivers..." sounds to me like a fact that stands on its own. It refers to the collective of *all* rivers in Britain.

Click to expand...

This concept of a fact is not clear to me. How does it change the fact if we say Rivers in Britain? Doesn't it imply the same thing?

The rivers of Britain = all the rivers of Britain = a fact
Rivers in Britain = all the rivers of Britain = a fact

I think this is something what has no logical explanation and should be taken as it is.

Thank you for the replies. They've been of great help!
The difference is indeed very subtle.
I still have some questions, but I think I'll move to the teaching area.

Verona_82 said:

The difference is indeed very subtle.

Click to expand...

Indeed. :-?

This is very interesting. I can't help jumping into this discussion.

Suppose China were an English speaking nation, would it be correct for me to say "the big family", providing that most people I know generally have at most four people in their families.

It other words, is the choice between a and the a subjective one?

Richard

I've got a curiosity on how articles function. I'm referring mainly to Representational deficits in SLA: studies in honor of Roger Hawkins and my own notes. By the way, I realise nobody would ever teach it this way, because it might be more confusing rather than anything else, but it's interesting to have a look at.

There are these notions of specificity and definiteness of the noun phrase (NP) when it comes to articles. A NP is definite when everybody involved in the speech act knows what you're referring to (so for example you're mentioning something for the second time, or when something's unique...). Specificity refers to the knowledge held by the speaker.

SO, you can have a NP that's definite and specific, definite unspecific, indefinite specific, and indefinite unspecific. In English it's definiteness that determines whether you use a definite article 'the' or not, so the realisations are:

+def +spec --> the
+def -spec --> the
-def +spec --> a
-def -spec --> a

Now consider this. You've lost your hat and you want to report it. You come up to somebody and say:

I'm looking for a hat. I left it hear yesterday. That hat is [-definite, +specific] which means it's specific to you, but not to the hearer. You're mentioning it for the first time, and to him, it's more like a representative of a group of hats. Hence a, not the.

I'm visiting a friend from college. His name is Sean Bean. [-definite, +specific] He's specific to you, he's the Sean Bean you know, but to the hearer he is indefinite, one of your friends.

If you want to talk to the winner, wait until the end of the race. [+ definite, -specific] It's unspecific because we obviously don't know just yet who the winner is, but it's definite because normally there can only be one winner.

I'll have to think about that, nyota. At first sight, it seems that it may be connected with some ideas discussed here: the pub, the newspaper, the park...

But it may not. :-?

Gillnetter said:

You may be making this too difficult.

Click to expand...

I don't think Nyota is making it too difficult. Teachers often over-simplify when they first introduce articles. This often does not cause problems in the early days, other than the problems that we all associate with articles, but it can cause fiendish difficulties when advanced students start asking awkward questions.

I am not saying that we should burden our learners with too many sophisticated ideas in the early stages of learning, but if we teachers understand articles better, then we may be better equipped to avoid giving 'rules' that later turn out to be unsatisfactory.

Gillnetter said:

I am looking for a hat, this hat, out of all possible hats, is a blue hat (There are many blue hats, so I am looking for a member of the blue hat group). I am searching for the blue hat that I left here yesterday (This blue hat that I am searching for is a specific blue hat, it is the blue hat that I left here yesterday).

Click to expand...

It is the blue hat that I left here yesterday.

Sure but here you're immediately making it clear for the hearer which hat you're talking about, so now the two of you are aware of it. But if you have two sentences as I gave them - I'm looking for .... hat. I left it here yesterday. - then I don't think you'd go for 'the'.

I do understand where you're coming from with your explanation but your use of 'specific' is quite tricky here in the context I've given, because it makes it look as if it's the 'specificity' setting that determined the use of the definite article 'the', which is not the case.

Gillnetter said:

In this case you could talk to the winner (the person who won this contest) or a winner (the person who won this contest is a winner - this person belongs to a group of winners.)

Click to expand...

If you want to talk to a winner, wait until the end of the race.

Ok, I understand that here you just want to talk to some winner, as a representative of a group of winners, and it doesn't even matter if it's this race or not. I just need a winner. So if I want to talk to him, then there's this race going on now, and I can wait until it's over and get what I'm after.

But again, I'm guessing you'd normally go for the context with 'the'.

Gillnetter said:

You may be making this too difficult.

Click to expand...

I don't think I can even *make* it difficult. I mean, it is what it is and whether I mention how it's being described or not doesn't change its nature. But of course, as I said, I didn't come up with the whole thing to make it the basis for teaching. When I started learning English nobody ever brought it up, and for a reason, too (as 5jj already noticed; btw, I hope you don't mind the abbreviation). But at some stage, if you're interested, it can explain a thing or two or at least show articles in a different light, which is what it did to me.


Phew. ;-)

Hmm, an idea has just come to mind.

Let's imagine you're at a shopping mall and talking to a security guard.
"I'm looking for a hat". - your interlocutor cannot identify which hat you have on your mind.
"Where's the toilet?". There can be several toilets at the mall; however, your interlocutor can guess you're asking about the nearest one.
"I'm looking for the husband" (of course, it's far more natural to say 'my husband') - the interlocutor can guess you've lost your husband who's shopping around;
"I'm looking for a husband" - the interlocutor might think you've come to the mall to find a partner.

Is such an interpretation possible?

I'd say it's possible.