[Grammar] "U.S. history" or "the U.S. history"?

[Mike MC]

MARCH 24, 1989. The oil tanker Exxon Valdez struck Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, tonight, causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

Shouldn't it be "the U.S. history" as it talks about the history of a particular place?

 

[bubbha]

"in US history" is correct.
"in the history of the US" is correct.
"in the US history" is wrong.

 

[Mike MC]

"in US history" is correct.
"in the history of the US" is correct.
"in the US history" is wrong.

That's what I don't understand: why shouldn't we use "the" in that sentence?

 

[jutfrank]

That's what I don't understand: why shouldn't we use "the" in that sentence?

There is no reason to use the to specify the place because the word US is already doing that job.

 

[Phaedrus]

Shouldn't it be "the U.S. history" as it talks about the history of a particular place?

The history of a particular place is not particular history of that particular place.

The use of the attributive noun in "U.S. history" ("United States history") is atypical with respect to how we speak of the history of other countries.

For example, we don't speak of "[strike]England history[/strike]" or of "[strike]Thailand history[/strike]."

Rather, we use an adjective ("English history," "Thai history," "American history") or a possessive: "England's history," "Thailand's history."

The possessive construction is never introduced with "the." The other constructions take "the" only when specific parts of the history are being referred to:

"I like the United States history that is covered in that book" = I like those parts of United States history that are covered in that book.

"The English history that we studied last term was fascinating" = Those parts of English history which we studied last term were fascinating.

 

[Phaedrus]

I am leaning towards the thought that US/U.S. must be considered an adjective in that and similar sentences..

I was thinking about how we do commonly use that construction in referring to the history of cities ("San Diego history," "Sacramento history"), locations ("Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk history"), and even websites ("Using English history"). But what about the history of individual people? Don't we have to use the possessive? We wouldn't refer to "John Smith history," "Barack Obama history," or "Ludwig van Beethoven history," but rather to "John Smith's history," etc.

The adjective construction, meanwhile, doesn't seem available, even when the name has attained its own adjective. I wouldn't know what to make of the phrases "Platonic history" and "Cartesian history"; if they refer to anything, they don't seem to be referring to Plato's history and Descartes' history. Your own display name, Piscean, is a special case, because it is itself an adjective. Still, I think we'd use the possessive: "Piscean's history."

Interestingly, we could use "the Piscean's history" if we had in mind the history of a particular person whose astrological sign was Pisces, but that Piscean would not necessarily be you.

 

[Mike MC]

The history of a particular place is not particular history of that particular place.

Makes sense, but then why do we use the before history in "the history of the U.S."? Aren't U.S. history and the history of the U.S. the same, as bubbha already mentioned?

 

[Mike MC]

...in that noun phrase there is no modifier before that noun. A determiner is therefore required.

As far as I know using a determiner isn't always necessary especially when you're talking about something in general, e.g. Broccoli is good for you.

 

[Mike MC]

Broccoli is a non-count noun. Singular count nouns normally require a determiner.

History in that sense is uncountable too:
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/history

 

[Mike MC]

I did not say that non-count nouns never needed a determiner.

Me neither: I say since history is a non-count non-specific noun in that context, it doesn't need the definite article.

 

[jutfrank]

This is my attempt to explain this.

The US is a very interesting place.

Its history is interesting.
Its geography is interesting.
Its culture is interesting.

In each case, the word Its is a determiner. That means it is introducing one specific feature possessed by the United States. Because there are several features in my mind, I make reference to which feature I mean by using a reference word. I could also use The in place of Its to do effectively the same determining job.

I could also phrase the same thought in a similar way.

The history (of the US) is interesting.
The geography (of the US) is interesting.
The culture (of the US) is interesting.

The only difference is that here the particular place (US) is included within the phrase itself where before it was mentioned previously.

Now, with a completely different focus of meaning, compare:

The history of the US is interesting.
The history of England is interesting.
The history of Thailand is interesting.

With this contrast I mean to show that the focus here is not on history (as opposed to geography or culture) but on the US (as opposed to England or Thailand).

So if I understand correctly, Mike MC is very reasonably wondering why it is necessary to use a determining The in this thought. We can't use the same explanation as before. What is the need to make reference here? Well, my answer is that now we don't absolutely completely 100% have to.

History (of the US) is interesting.
History (of England) is interesting.
History (of Thailand) is interesting.

Now I'm not saying that the above are natural at all but I am saying that they are barely just about acceptable on a conceptual level, and the reason why they may not sound right is that there is a better, more economical way of expressing the focus of this thought:

US history is interesting.
English history is interesting.
Thai history is interesting.

Here, the sense is clear. The determinative US is specifying which country I'm talking about, not which feature of the country.