[Grammar] concerning "in the winter"

[magic dragon]

I'd appreciate it if someone would answer my question. Thank you in advance.

A: My friend's family goes skiing in the winter. It's their yearly custom.
(I myself made this sentence for confirming the use of a definite article.)
I'd like to know the reason for a definite article being used before "winter" in A.
Let me explain.
<Explanation 1>
"The winter" is a generalization of winters in general.

<Explanation 2>
I think a definite article (as its basic function) highlights the particular period of day (not the afternoon nor the evening).

<Explanation 3>
Generally contrastiveness between a few things causes the use of a definite article. It's when there is an upper class of these few things.
In A the upper class of them is a season, and winter is one of its members <spring, summer, autumn and winter>, and is in contrast with the other 3. Thus it is specified and requires a definite article.

Which explanation is right, or all, or none?
If none is right, give me the right explanation.
a

 

[Tdol]

I would use every winter.

 

[Rover_KE]

Welcome to the forum, magic dragon. (Is your nickname 'Puff'?)

Seasons of the year (when used as nouns) can be preceded by 'the' or zero article.

My friend's family goes skiing in (the) winter. (Both are correct.)
Daffodils bloom in (the ) spring.

They sometimes need an article when they are used adjectivally.

Jack Frost bought his wife a winter coat.
The spring break of 2113 was a memorable occasion.

 

[tedmc]

I would call that a practice and not a custom. A custom is a way of doing things adopted by a community of people.

 

[jutfrank]

A crucial fact to consider here is that the sentence also works without any article.

They go skiing in winter.

I think this goes to show that Explanation 1 is not valid. Although you are correct that the meaning of the phrase in the winter is a generalisation of winter, there's no connection between the use of a definite article and this generalisation. In fact, on the contrary, I believe that the generalisation is communicated despite the use of the article rather than because of it.

I think a much better explanation is the one I think you're getting at in your Explanation 2. We say similar things like I get up early in the morning and I go out at the weekend. We're referring here to winter, morning, weekend as specific parts of the generalised concepts of year, day, week, not to specific winters, mornings, weekends (although of course they can be used to do that too). In short, they refer to specific parts of a larger generalised wholes.

As for your Explanation 3, this is just a different expression of Explanation 2, in my understanding. If a whole has parts, the parts are necessarily just as much in contrast to the other parts as to the whole itself. When we say in the winter, we're identifying which part of the year, not identifying which winter, so of course we're contrasting one part of the year with another because that's what the purpose of identifying is—picking out one thing from another.

 

[magic dragon]

Thank you jutfrank.
Your comments about Explanation 2 and 3 are very helpful (I admit that Explanation 3 is just a different expression of Explanation 2.), but there is a little I'm not so sure about.
You said;
A crucial fact to consider here is that the sentence also works without any article.
-- I think the sentence "they go skiing in winter", and the sentence, "they go skiing in the winter" is the same. My claim is based on the statement by a native speaker of British English, who said many years ago that in some parts of English speaking countries (particularly in Britain) in the course of development of English, the leaving out of a definite article occurred.
I don't know whether his theory is right or not, but if he's right, there is no difference between "they go skiing in winter" and "they go skiing in the winter"
So I think Explanation 1 is not necessarily invalid.

You said
there's no connection between the use of a definite article and this generalisation.
I think each winter has an individual feature, and when a generalisation of winters is made, differences among all winters are cut off [abstracted]. What's left then is what is called 'archetype'. The archetype of winters is one and only thing.
So I think there's a connection between the use of a definite article and a generalisation of countable nouns.
What do think of my idea?

 

[jutfrank]

I think the sentence "they go skiing in winter", and the sentence, "they go skiing in the winter" is the same.

Yes, that's right.

My claim is based on the statement by a native speaker of British English, who said many years ago that in some parts of English speaking countries (particularly in Britain) in the course of development of English, the leaving out of a definite article occurred.

I have no evidence for that, but it may well be the case. Whether it's correct or not, I do suspect that only with a historical account could we get a complete answer to your question.

I don't know whether his theory is right or not, but if he's right, there is no difference between "they go skiing in winter" and "they go skiing in the winter"
So I think Explanation 1 is not necessarily invalid.

I meant to say that this is exactly why Explanation 1 is invalid, but I think I may have misunderstood what you mean. I thought that you meant that the generality in some way comes from the definite article. I was saying that since the generality was preserved after the dropping of the article, that that can't be true.

I think each winter has an individual feature, and when a generalisation of winters is made, differences among all winters are cut off [abstracted]. What's left then is what is called 'archetype'. The archetype of winters is one and only thing.

I think what you're talking about here is the 'intension' of the word ('archetype' is a different thing) but yes, I understand what you mean.

So I think there's a connection between the use of a definite article and a generalisation of countable nouns.
What do think of my idea?

It's interesting but as I said, I don't agree that any sense of generalisation comes from the use of a definite article, if that's what you mean. The definite article may be used before winter in this general sense, but it's not a necessary part of it. As you know, the winter could equally refer to just the one specific winter of this year.

The definite article simply serves to make reference to the noun it precedes. It points out to the listener the mental object that you're referring to, whether that is highly specific, highly general or anywhere between.

 

[magic dragon]

Thank you jutfrank.
You said;
I think what you're talking about here is the 'intension' of the word ('archetype' is a different thing).

You said;
I don't agree that any sense of generalisation comes from the use of a definite article,

---I didn't mean any sense of generalisation comes from the use of a definite article.
Rather, I think generalisation causes the use of a definite article.
I think people have in common with one another the image of the generalized version of winter. Each person have the same image of it, so it necessitates the use of a definite article, I think. I'd like your opinion.

 

[Tdol]

I don't honestly see much difference. I think that the cause of generalisation that you are looking at with the definite article may be a chicken or egg question.

 

[jutfrank]

I think generalisation causes the use of a definite article.
I think people have in common with one another the image of the generalized version of winter. Each person have the same image of it, so it necessitates the use of a definite article, I think. I'd like your opinion.

I believe I've answered this already. People can have a general concept of 'winter' without the need for referring to it. A reference word like the is only necessary when it comes to communicating, not conceiving, our concepts.

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say "Each person have the same image of it, so it necessitates the use of a definite article". Yes, we share this concept, and so it is possible for us to understand each other when referring to it.

Maybe I've misunderstood what you mean with the word necessitates. Again, my point here is that we don't need to use the in order to communicate the general concept of winter. After all, we can just as well be understood by saying only in winter instead.

 

[magic dragon]

Thank you jutfrank.
You said;
I think what you're talking about here is the 'intension' of the word ('archetype' is a different thing).
You said;
I don't agree that any sense of generalisation comes from the use of a definite article,

---I didn't mean any sense of generalisation comes from the use of a definite article.
Rather, I think generalisation causes the use of a definite article.
I think people have in common with one another the image of the generalized version of winter. Each person have the same image of it, so it necessitates the use of a definite article, I think. I'd like your opinion.

 

[magic dragon]

Thank you jutfrank.
You said;
I think what you're talking about here is the 'intension' of the word ('archetype' is a different thing).

You said;
I don't agree that any sense of generalisation comes from the use of a definite article,

---I didn't mean any sense of generalisation comes from the use of a definite article.
Rather, I think generalisation causes the use of a definite article.

I think people have in common with one another the image of the generalized version of winter. Each person have the same image of it, so it necessitates the use of a definite article, I think. I'd like your opinion.

 

[magic dragon]

Thank you jutfrank.
I admit the general concept of winter doesn't necessarily cause the use of a definite article.
Your answer is very helpful, but one more please.
　
You said;
I think what you're talking about here is the 'intension of the word ('archetype' is a different thing) but yes, I understand what you mean.

Could you explain about the 'intension' of the word and its relation with the use of a definite article?

 

[jutfrank]

Could you explain about the 'intension' of the word and its relation with the use of a definite article?

What do you want to know exactly? Do you mean in general or in the example in the winter?

 

[magic dragon]

Sorry, I didn't say well what I wanted to know.
I said in my previous post;
I think people have in common with one another the image of the generalized version of winter. Each person have the same image of it, --
－－Here people have a general concept of 'winter', as you say. Here no article is needed.
You said;
A reference word like the is only necessary when it comes to communicating, not conceiving, our concepts.
－－Do you mean when a general concept of 'winter' is embodied in communication (actually stated in some situation), a definite article is used?

 

[magic dragon]

Probably you are right. I think generalization and the use of a definite article don't have a cause-result relation, and giving a definite article is another aspect of generalization. So I think it's impossible to know the reason a definite article is added to "morning" (in the morning). However, there have to be a psychological factor inducing people to use a definite article in "in the morning". I think it might be found in the process of generalization, if there is.
As a matter of fact, I teach English to non-native speakers whose language has no article system, and who has never been to English speaking countries and has few linguistic customs of English. I have to teach them English grammar in about half a year (articles in a month). My students don't have enough time to experience and absorb and get used to linguistic commonsense and ways of thinking native speakers have. So I have to give logical explanation to my students in some way or other.
Anyway thank you.

 

[jutfrank]

I think it's impossible to know the reason a definite article is added to "morning" (in the morning). However, there have to be a psychological factor inducing people to use a definite article in "in the morning". I think it might be found in the process of generalization, if there is.

I'm really not sure that there is a coherent psychological reason in this case. I suspect that the reason may be historical. I can't help any more, I'm afraid.

 

[magic dragon]

jutfrank said;
I suspect that the reason may be historical.
I think so, too. I thank you very much for your kind and sincere answer.