(the) respondents

[Ostap]

"Second, there is the fact that respondents weren’t asked whether they used a Mac or a PC, but rather whether they identified as a “Mac Person” or a “PC Person.”
TheStreet

"Respondents weren't asked whether they have an ordinary electrical outlet in their garage or near their driveway, which is all that's needed to plug in an EV."
AXIOS

Hello, teachers. I've noticed that "respondents" is sometimes used without "the" in the media, even though it's the respondents of a specific survey. Why would that be? (I don't suppose only "some" respondents are implied.)

 

[probus]

I believe it is a convention in what is sometimes called legalese, but I've no idea why lawyers do it. I know from my work, however, that this omission of the definite article is common in both pleadings and in contracts, and applies equally to the respondents' counter-parties, the appellants.

 

[5jj]

The respondents in both articles linked to were nothing to do with courts or lawyers.

 

[Ostap]

The respondents in both articles linked to were nothing to do with courts or lawyers.

Could it then be "journalese"? Because I can't see any grammatical reason for such omission.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't think it's legalese or journalese. It's perfectly common in all sorts of contexts.

In the exam, students were required to discuss the poem in detail.
At that hospital, nurses and doctors are hugely overworked.
On this bus, passengers can charge their phones.
More important is the fact that passengers can connect to wifi.

 

[Ostap]

I don't think it's legalese or journalese. It's perfectly common in all sorts of contexts.

In the exam, students were required to discuss the poem in detail.
At that hospital, nurses and doctors are hugely overworked.
On this bus, passengers can charge their phones.
More important is the fact that passengers can connect to wifi.

That is, it is enough to just define the group by context? "In the exam", "at the hospital", "on this bus"... or even without expicitly mentioning it - it's sufficient that it's clear from context (as in OP's two examples), and we then can mention any group (of people or things) or category in plural with zero article?

 

[Tarheel]

Is it enough to just define the group by context? "In the exam", "at the hospital", "on this bus"... or even without explicitly mentioning it - it's sufficient that it's clear from context (as in OP's two examples), and we then can mention any group (of people or things) or category in plural with zero article?

Probably.

 

[jutfrank]

That is, it is enough to just define the group by context? "In the exam", "at the hospital", "on this bus"... or even without expicitly mentioning it - it's sufficient that it's clear from context (as in OP's two examples), and we then can mention any group (of people or things) or category in plural with zero article?

To answer very very simply, yes.