the role of hunter

[kttlt]

1) "In a case study on female involvement in hunting, women participate in many hunting activities around the world, whether encouraging hunting, performing rituals, tracking injured prey, preparing the hunt or supporting hunters. In the same study, the results showed that women assumed the role of hunter, however, they killed a lower diversity of species and achieved a lower hunting income when compared to men." (From an article "Influence of the sociodemographic profile of hunters on the knowledge and use of faunistic resources." by Jeferson De Menezes Souza)
2) "Having spent so many years in the role of hunter, it is unusual to find myself as prey!" This is a quote from a video game titled "Hand of Fate", unfortunately I can't add any more context.

Why are there no articles before the word "hunter" in the bolded phrases? Is it because "hunter" here is meant in a very general way and not as a profession? If so, how is it different from something like "This is the story of one day from dawn to dusk. Every day, by choice or by fate, each human being takes the role of a hunter or a gatherer. Hunting because of hunger, survival or simply for sport. Sometimes animals are Food and sometimes Pets." (source - https://faustomontanari.it/hunters-or-gatherers) Could these articles be omitted, then?

 

[probus]

Those articles can definitely be omitted. In fact I prefer the passage without the articles. The indefinite articles were probably included because of the preceding word "each".

 

[kttlt]

Those articles can definitely be omitted. In fact I prefer the passage without the articles. The indefinite articles were probably included because of the preceding word "each".

But why do the first two examples not use an article to begin with? Is the reasoning I provided correct ("hunter" being used in a general and non-specific way in both cases)?

Would those sentences still be idiomatic with indefinite articles in front of "hunter"? If I wanted to add the definite article to "hunter" in 2) would I also need to add one to "prey"? Could one say "Having spent so many years in the role of the hunter, it is unusual to find myself as a prey!", implying that they used to be some specific hunter stalking prey but now became one of the many being preyed upon?

 

[Tarheel]

I would say "the" is optional there. Use whatever makes you happy.

 

[jutfrank]

Why are there no articles before the word "hunter" in the bolded phrases? Is it because "hunter" here is meant in a very general way and not as a profession?

Sort of yes. We use this zero article when we're talking about the performance of social roles.

She loves playing mother to her younger sisters.
He will be crowned king.
You can be leader.

If so, how is it different from something like "This is the story of one day from dawn to dusk. Every day, by choice or by fate, each human being takes the role of a hunter or a gatherer. Could these articles be omitted, then?

Probably. I'm not sure what the writer really means to say. It could be that the articles there work for idea that each person is just one hunter or just one gatherer out of many. Or it could be that he or she's thinking of 'hunter' more as a job than a social role. Is the writer a native speaker?

 

[jutfrank]

But why do the first two examples not use an article to begin with? Is the reasoning I provided correct ("hunter" being used in a general and non-specific way in both cases)?

Would those sentences still be idiomatic with indefinite articles in front of "hunter"?

Idiomatic? It has nothing to do with that.
No. This use of the zero article for social roles employs only the zero article.

If I wanted to add the definite article to "hunter" in 2) would I also need to add one to "prey"?

No. Firstly, it doesn't matter how much you 'want' to add the definite article, you shouldn't do it. Secondly, prey is uncountable anyway, so even if it were a good idea, you wouldn't be able to do it.

Could one say "Having spent so many years in the role of the hunter ,

Yes, but now you've added a definite article you get a different, more specific meaning.

implying that they used to be some specific hunter stalking prey but now became one of the many being preyed upon?

Right.

it is unusual to find myself as a prey!",

'Prey' is uncountable only, so you can't use an indefinite article.

 

[kttlt]

Is the writer a native speaker?

I don't know. The author's Behance says they reside in Italy and their name seems Italian so probably not.

Idiomatic? It has nothing to do with that.

I thought "idiomatic" was basically a synonym for "grammatically correct". Now that I've double-checked it seems the meaning is "expressed in a way natural to a native speaker" so I can see I used it incorrectly.

Thank you so much for the detailed and comprehensive answer!

 

[emsr2d2]

The author's Behance says they reside in Italy and their name seems Italian so probably not.

What is "the author's Behance"? I assume "Behance" a typo for something but I don't know what.

 

[kttlt]

What is "the author's Behance"?

It's a social media/portfolio platform for artists/designers. It's pretty popular but I guess not to the extent of something like Instagram, so I probably should've specified that.

 

[emsr2d2]

It's a social media/portfolio platform for artists/designers. It's pretty popular but I guess not to the extent of something like Instagram, so I probably should've specified that.

I've certainly never heard of it. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[jutfrank]

I thought "idiomatic" was basically a synonym for "grammatically correct".

No, not at all. The word 'idiomatic' describes use of language that is native to a particular group of speakers—in a particular locality, for instance, and which typically has non-literal meaning sometimes hard to understand for other speech groups.

... it seems the meaning is "expressed in a way natural to a native speaker"

If you want that sense, use the word 'natural' instead.