Here I disagree… the problem is that the valid rules, which shouldn’t have significant exceptions, are either not really known, or are so complex as to be useless for language learners. "
We don’t disagree. It is just that the rules must exist. Whether they are knowable or useful is another question. But the rules exist or there would not be common usage. The brain knows the rules, even if the grammar books struggle to explain them, and learners struggle even more to remember them deliberately. But the learners brains have a chance to pick them up with enough exposure, and a little help from their friends, (the occasional casual read of a grammar book, being corrected, preferably in writing and only on request, noticing one’s gaps when writing and speaking, flash cards), and just noticing when listening and reading.
Nasir,
You’re welcome, and no, I didn’t think you meant “irrational” in an offensive sense. It’s in the nature of how we usually learn new, complex concepts: we tend to think of them as being irrational, weird, alien, what have you. In fact, it can be better summarized as “unfamiliar” and “not meeting our expectations.” Which in itself is natural.
dooo,
I think (if I understand your question correctly, that is) that you’re on the verge of making the same “mistake” as Nasir. What I mean is that you’re questioning grammar (well, language, in a broader sense) from the wrong angle. I can attempt to describe all possible “rules” that will explain the use of the definite article in all possible contexts, but it won’t help the learner. At least it won’t have an immediate effect.
To me grammar rules are guidelines. They sure save time and offer a tremendous boon in learning a language, but one has find his own balance between the time and effort one invests in learning the rules and actually learning to use them.
With the above in mind, the following guidelines will help a learner in analyzing the usage of the definite article in English (but not necessarily in using it correctly):
Referring to something that has already been mentioned
Referring to something both interlocutors know about
In identifying or defining a particular objet or person
Before superlatives and ordinal numbers
When referring to a group (with an adjective): the dead, the proud.
With some geographical names (usually oceans and large areas of land)
Unique objects (well, “unique” in the sense that we think of them as being unique)
Decades and groups of years.
The next thing I should do is to list the exceptions when we don’t use the definite articles, and the exceptions when we do use it. That would (a) take forever and (b) not cover all cases.
Astamoore, Saying, " you are wrong to ask for a generally valid rule" is all well and good. But I think the original poster was looking for such a rule and I assume he had tried to look up the rules you are citing since they are readily available in a grammar book.
I am not debating the usefulness of these “guidelines” …
Oh, sorry, I guess I misunderstood your question, then.
The interesting thing here is that both native and non-native speakers can question certain things that look “irrational.” Linguists can usually answer such questions. But whereas for a native speaker the goal is just to satisfy his curiosity, for a non-native speaker it’s a maddening attempt to find a way to tame a foreign language.
EDIT. (Saw Nasir’s post in the email while typing this one.)
Nasir, the examples that you quote are out of context. I can use the same words (sea, theater, army, and environment) without the definite article, as well as with the indefinite article:
I’m completely at sea here.
I work in theater.
The government says there’s not need to deploy army in the Sahara.
"The interesting thing here is that both native and non-native speakers can question certain things that look “irrational.” Linguists can usually answer such questions. But whereas for a native speaker the goal is just to satisfy his curiosity, for a non-native speaker it’s a maddening attempt to find a way to tame a foreign language. "
Astamoore, while I say I am not debating the usefulness of such guidelines, if I were to do so, I would say they are really a hodge-podge and not really a reflection of true rationality. And that a learner is much better off NOT looking at such guidelines with intensity.
I had consulted once with a geographical map about using “the” with geographical names. Oh, that was a sad experience, I never will do such things again. Only The Hague there had the article.
You’re mixing up the usage of “the” with geographical names and “the” as being a part of geographical names. The Netherlands, the Hague, Los Angeles, The Gambia, The Plaines, The Dalles, and (until recently) the Ukraine—all have the definite article as part of their names. In some cases, it’s the direct translation from the native language (the Hague, for example, is a calque from Den Haag, which means “the hedge” in Dutch).
This is different to how we use the definite article grammatically when we refer to geographical names. Most place names that are in plural or are collective names require the definite article: the Netherlands, the UK, the USA, the Republic of China. Many water bodies require it, as well: the Mississippi, the Hudson, the Pacific Ocean. Some constellations take it—the Big Dipper—others don’t—Orion. Islands, when in singular, usually don’t take the definite article: Java, Comino, Lesbos, St. Thomas Island, Tenerife.
I have to admit I don’t understand this discussion (I really must buy that grammar book!)
It seems to me that you can say sea, a sea or the sea. They all mean different things.
There is A sea on the map here. Which particular sea is it? It is the Baltic Sea.
The air in Britain is wet, because there is sea around it (just sea in general, sea-ness rather than land-ness).
I like looking at THE sea when I am in Hastings (ie the particular bit of sea which you can see off the coast of Hastings).
Likewise if I talk about THE army you can assume I mean my country’s army. If I talk about AN army I am making it clear that I mean any army in the world. You can’t talk about army because there is no such thing as general army-ness, an army is a specific thing.
“The Volga is the biggest river in Europe. Volga plays an important role in Russian economy.” Why they use the article in the first case and don’t use in the second? Another example. “The Ob, Yenisey, Lena are frozen in winter.” Why there is only one article? Are there common rules or it is simply the writer’s choice?
Helena, all of us try to learn something. I think discussions(if even they are quite meaningless) help to catch whole meaning and create a thought sequence in brain. Thank you for your explanation. (By the way, when will I get back my corrected writing?)
@ Victor2: … in Europe. The Volga plays … But the other list is fine: because it is a list of related things it’s alright to use just the one the. You could also write the Ob, the Yenisey, the Lena, it’s a matter of preference.
“The Volga is the biggest river in Europe.” This sentence is correct.
“Volga plays an important role in Russian economy.” This sentence is grammatically incorrect. It misses not one, but two articles. It should read, “The Volga plays an important role in the Russian economy.”
As to why the first sentence uses the article ad the second doesn’t, I can’t tell you for sure, but my guess is that the second sentence was written by a non-native speaker of English and is thus ungrammatical.
Now, the second example. It’s okay to leave out the article in lists. Since the definite article is not part of the names of these rivers, you can just use it once. I bet the second article was also written by a non-native speaker of English. We normally use and to link the last item in a list and, while you can technically use the names of seasons without the, here I’d probably use it: “The Ob, Yenisey, and Lena are frozen in the winter.” Better yet—“The Ob, Yenisey, and Lena freeze up in the winter.”
On a related note (this will probably confuse the heck out of you, though), here are a few examples when the definite article is omitted to deliver a special, powerful meaning:
The name of the play: Man of La Mancha.
The novel (and film): I Am Legend.
A famous quote from the movie Blade Runner: “All those moments will be lost, like tears in rain.”
(Here, however, one may argue that Rutger Hauer, a native speaker of Dutch, messed up his line, but “tears in rain” in this context is much more powerful than “tears in the rain.” All the more so, since it’s raining when he says this phrase.)
Special case: Articles are generally omitted in newspaper headers.