to give (a) new life to something

[Alexey86]

Hello! What is the difference in meaning between "to give new life" and "to give a new life"? Here are some examples:

https://ludwig.guru/s/gave+a+new+life

1) ..."They used to be incinerated or disposed of in a landfill". Using the material on the Finnish pavilion gave a new life to 18 tons of former label waste, he said. Recycling plastics is also a theme for the Shanghai Corporate…

2) The architect Frank Lloyd Wright gave a new life to space; George Gershwin, Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington elevated jazz to an art form; Eugene O'Neill shattered shibboleths onstage and Ernest Hemingway showed writers how much could be added by what he left out.

3) ...If writers were good at cost accounting, they would probably never start a book. Now "The Mapmakers" is being given a new life. A revised edition, expanded to include new scholarship in the history of cartography and...


https://ludwig.guru/s/gave+new+life

4) ...Christy Mathewson's "Pitching in a Pinch" and Sol White's "History of Colored Baseball". Ross "gave new life to classic books," Taylor said. "All of that baseball history was in danger of disappearing from bookshelves". ...

5) ...involving women's health care and Medicare — were not put to a vote until Thursday. The debate gave new life to overheated claims and misrepresentations. MAMMOGRAMS AND THE MYTH OF RATIONING The battle over women's health care emerged...

6) ...floor debate without knowing what sort of proposals would be considered. This cynical tactic gave new life to the Republican effort to repeal Obamacare. The subsequent votes then represented an important victory for everybody…

 

[jutfrank]

In the phrases without the indefinite article, life is an uncountable noun whereas in the phrases with the indefinite article, life is a countable noun.

You sense the semantic difference between life as a general (uncountable) concept and life as a discrete (countable) concept, right? You can make the same distinction here.

Our use of uncountable and countable nouns reveals the two fundamental ways that we understand substance. We can understand the world either as consisting of 'stuff' or as consisting of 'things'. This is the case not only for physical matter, like water and pebbles, but also for abstractions, such as life and lives.

I don't know if you're looking for an answer that relates more specifically to the examples you've given but it's useful to understand the very basic difference first. The challenge here is to answer why the writer may have chosen one view over the other. You need to understand the basic difference I've outlined above in order to answer this question.

 

[Alexey86]

Can we reformulate "to give a new life" into "to give a new/different way of living" and "to give life" into "to make something alive again = to reanimate it (literally or metaphorically)" respectively?

 

[jutfrank]

Can we reformulate "to give a new life" into "to give a new/different way of living" and "to give life" into "to make something alive (literally or metaphorically)" respectively?

Yes, I think that's reasonable.

To follow the idea above about different kinds of substance, you could apply these analogies:

With the uncountable uses, one might imagine a syringe full of 'life stuff', which is injected into the object, with an effect of invigoration.

With the countable uses, one might imagine God giving a new existence to a dead (or near dead) entity. It could well be that this new existence takes on a new form. I think this is what you mean when you say "a new way of living". I think I prefer to think of it as 'new existence' but we're essentially thinking in the same way.

 

[Alexey86]

But it wouldn't be grammatically incorrect to use "life" and "a life" in 1-3 and 4-6 interchangeably. It's just a matter of style and author's conceptualization of "life", right?

BTW, in #3 I meant "to give new life". That's why I wrote, "to make something alive again = to reanimate it."

 

[Alexey86]

But it wouldn't be grammatically incorrect to use "life" and "a life" in 1-3 and 4-6 interchangeably. It's just a matter of style and author's conceptualization of "life", right?

I would appreciate it if somebody replied to this comment.

 

[jutfrank]

It's really not a question of what's grammatically correct. Both forms are grammatical. The difference is one of meaning.

 

[Alexey86]

I'll reformulate my question. Is meaning just up to the speaker in this case? Would it be sound strange or illogical to you if the speaker used "life" and "a life" interchangeably in 1-3 and 4-6?

 

[jutfrank]

The meanings match the contexts, so no, they're not interchangeable.

 

[Alexey86]

Let's compare (3), "If writers were good at cost accounting, they would probably never start a book. Now "The Mapmakers" is being given a new life. A revised edition, expanded to include new scholarship in the history of cartography and..." with (4), "Christy Mathewson's "Pitching in a Pinch" and Sol White's "History of Colored Baseball". Ross "gave new life to classic books," Taylor said. "All of that baseball history was in danger of disappearing from bookshelves."

What does exactly determine the difference in article usage?

 

[jutfrank]

The countable use is appropriate in (3) because, as I described in post #4, the idea is that this new edition of the book is like a new existence. The book now has a new form.

The uncountable use is appropriate in (4), also for the same reasons I gave in post #4.

What does exactly determine the difference in article usage?

The meaning determines the difference. I don't know how to be any clearer. People's use of grammar reveals what they mean. That is, it tells us about the thoughts they have in mind.

 

[Alexey86]

The uncountable use is appropriate in (4), also for the same reasons I gave in post #4.

I just don't see any barriers for using both "life" and "a life" in (4).

1) "...Ross "gave new life to classic books," Taylor said. "All of that baseball history was in danger of disappearing from bookshelves." = Ross reanimated classic books to prevent disappearing baseball history from bookshelves.

2) "...Ross "gave a new life to classic books," Taylor said. "All of that baseball history was in danger of disappearing from bookshelves." = Ross gave a new existence to classic books to prevent disappearing baseball history from bookshelves.

Do both variants sound fine to you?

 

[jutfrank]

The interpretation expressed by your version in 2) is not likely to reflect what the writer was thinking.

Do you have any more context? If you want to analyse this any further, we need to know more about what the writer means. Based purely on the writer's choice to use an uncountable noun, I predict that, as I suggested in post #4, there was an idea in the writer's mind of there being some kind of (re)invigoration, or 'injection of life-stuff', but we can't really tell for sure from this meagre context.

I just don't see any barriers for using both "life" and "a life" in (4).

You don't need to see any barriers. Just try to understand why the writer used the form he/she did.

 

[Alexey86]

Do you have any more context?

Unfortunately, I don't.

You don't need to see any barriers. Just try to understand why the writer used the form he/she did.

There are two different points: 1) to try to understand what the author was thinking, 2) to try to figure out if "a new life" works in principle.

The former is impossible for the lack of context. So, let's focus on the latter. I'll try to explain with an example how I see the "new life/a new life" distinction. When someone repairs an old, decrepit, "dying" building, they "reanimate" it, give it new life or breath new life into it. But if someone, in addition to this, changes the purpose of the building (by turning an old factory into a hotel, for example), they give it a new life, a new way of existing. Coming back to (4), I think it's possible to prevent disappearing baseball history from bookshelves by coming up with a new format of the books = a new way of their existing. That's what I see as a new life.

 

[jutfrank]

Okay, that's reasonable, yes. I think you've understood this well enough.

 

[Alexey86]

Do I understand it correctly that "to give life/give a life" are different from "to give new life/a new life" in terms of meaning? "To give life" means to create something or to give birth to a child, whereas "to give a life" means to devote one's life to someone or something.

 

[jutfrank]

It could. It's hard to think of a context for give a life.

I suggest you find some examples of authentic use in context in order to analyse this further.

 

[Alexey86]

It seems things are more complicated than I thought. I'll provide you with several examples from Ludwig with my attempts to interpret them.

(https://ludwig.guru/s/give+a+life+to)


a) "... parents away from sugar-cane cutting," he said in a Brazilian television interview last month. "I wanted to give a life to my parents. I wanted to give my parents a house". ...

"To give a life" = "I wanted my parents to have a better life." This is quite clear.


b) "... programming the software while his younger brother made the hardware. "It wasn't easy," says Sahak. "We had to give a life to an inanimate piece of iron. Every day we tried new solutions to improve the robot ..."

This is confusing, since the meaning is "to animate/breath life into," but for some reason "a life" is used.


c) "Mr. Kim has "the talent to make porcelain look like real enamel," with the characteristics and translucency that give a life to it like you were born with it," Dr. Lituchy said."

It seems this one is close to (b), i.e. "give a life to it" = porcelain looks alive. I don't understand why "a life" is used.


d) "Blok (who is now creative director at Edmodo, a social network for students and teachers) says that creating the logo was like raising a child: "You give a life to this individual, and then they have a life of their own."

This example means "to create/to give birth to a child". But in #16 I assumed it is "to give life" that provides such a meaning.
Maybe "you give a life to this individual" means "you devote your life"?


e) "Simply tap the plus sign beside each one to request lives. A friend can only give a life to you once a day, so make it count. Tap the Send button once done to send the requests."

As I see it, this quote is about a video game in which a player can have many lives. So, "a life" meets my expectations.


To sum up, only (a) and (e) are understandable and predictable for me personally.

 

[jutfrank]

Okay, let's start with (b).

The speaker is thinking of the robot as having its own discrete independent existence. Sahak's team had to give it 'a life' in the sense that I have 'a life' and you have 'a life'.

Sentence (d) has the same idea, using a life countably to refer to the independent existence that a child leads. (You can clearly see this in the final phrase a life of their own.)

I'm not sure about (c). I don't understand it very well.

 

[Alexey86]

The speaker is thinking of the robot as having its own discrete independent existence.

"An inanimate piece of iron" confuses me. When we animate or reanimate something we, first of all, give life/breath life into it. Of course, it can live independently, but only after that.

Sentence (d) has the same idea, using a life countably to refer to the independent existence that a child leads. (You can clearly see this in the final phrase a life of their own.)

But children or "children" (products) can start to live their own life only after their parents/creators, first, give life to/create them. However, (d) says, "You give a life to this individual, and then they have a life of their own." That's what confuses me. But if "then" is of little importance, and the whole sentence means just "they live a life you give them", I get this.