Quasi-natural genus nouns (collective nouns)

Quasi-natural genus nouns are collective nouns.  Collective nouns can be identified but they cannot be particularised. `Rubble’ and `treasure’ in this sentence are quasi-natural genus nouns (or collective nouns):

The novice miner mistook rubble for treasure.
[The identified subject `the novice miner’ mistook all things that are `rubble’ for all things that are `treasure’.]

In the next sentence, `the rubble’ and `the treasure’ are identified quasi-natural genus nouns (or collective) nouns: 

The novice miner mistook the rubble [that was]in the cave for the treasure [that] we were seeking.

A very important thing to note here is the role of the identifying `the' that accompanies the quasi-natural collective, or genus, noun: this `the' simply isolates a sub-class of the named genus. The following is an indicative, not an exhaustive, list of collective (or quasi-natural genus) nouns:

• collective product-naming nouns:  footwear, clothing, furniture, glassware, tableware, cutlery, hosiery;

• nouns that name disciplines: politics, mathematics, carpentry, photography, law;

• ethical concepts: freedom, justice, injustice;

• nouns that name substance: flesh, steel, gold, iron, milk, water;

• nouns that name detritus: rubble, rubbish, refuse;

• nouns that name chemicals and minerals: calcium, alcohol.

In sentences that call upon `the' to accompany a collective noun (quasi-natural genus noun) there is always an adjective phrase, either explicitly or implicitly, that describes them and thereby isolates a sub-class of the genus that noun names. (Adjective phrases in the following sentences are rendered in italics.) In this sentence, the adjective phrase is explicit:

Everyone admired the glassware [that] we bought / at the exhibition / on our table.

It might also have been implicit:

Everyone admired the glassware.
`Glassware' has already been identified in the foregoing part of the text that notionally contains this sentence.

Similarly in this sentence:

The milk [that] you bought / on the table / from the corner shop has gone sour.
The milk has gone sour.

When the identifying adjective phrase is a relative-adjective phrase, it is always explicit:

We demand the justice [that] we deserve.

The mathematics [that] we were taught was really just arithmetic.

The justice [that] he dispensed was found wanting by many.

Collective nouns cannot be particularised. This is so because collective nouns by nature name a class of items, not the particular items of that class. It would be illogical to treat them as if they named particular items. So `a/an' cannot accompany collective nouns. The appearance that it is possible to particularise collective nouns is created by sentences such as this one:

However, there is no particularisation here. Rather, there is enumeration: `a treasure' = `one treasure'. (Enumeration  is discussed under that sub-heading.)

The quasi-natural genus noun (collective nouns) in abbreviated expressions

A habit of abbreviation has enabled what at first glance appears to be a particularisation of the collective noun `injustice':

He was the victim of an injustice.

In fact, there is no particularisation of `injustice' here. What has happened is that the expression `an act of injustice' was abbreviated. This is the version of the sentence with the abbreviated element restored:

He was the victim of an act of injustice.

`An' in this context actually accompanies `act', not `injustice'. (`Of injustice' here functions adjectively to describe `an act'). And it enumerates `act': it does not particularise it.

What happens when a noun is neither a natural identifier noun nor a genus noun nor a quasi-genus noun?

Nouns that are not natural identifier nouns or natural genus nouns or quasi-natural genus nouns  are either identified or particularised nouns. So either `the' or `a/an' must accompany them. But which? Fortunately, there is a simple answer available:

1. A noun that is described by an implicit or explicit adjective phrase is identified by it. Because it is identified, `the' necessarily accompanies it. (Adjective phrases are italicised in the sentences below):

The panic [that] we were in prevented us from thinking clearly.

The no-win position in which she found herself was the source and cause of her depression.

The daze [that] the girl was in was due to the surprise that had been sprung on her.

The poet [that is] in me refuses to bend to grammar rules.

The London [that] I knew was a foggy city.

2. Where there is no explicit or implicit identifying adjective phrase to describe it, we are free to particularise a noun with `a/an':

Their message threw us into a panic.

Anna found herself in a no-win position.

She was in a daze after that unexpected event.

Generalisation and the articles

The syllogism is the procedural model of the generalisation. The sentence form of the syllogism is the copula sentence (i.e. the sentence in which the verbial is formed from the infinitive `to be'). It is an axiom of logic that all propositions (the premises and conclusion of the syllogism) have a singular form and a plural form. Thus the singular form:

I am old

has the plural form:

All things that are `I' are all things that are `old'.

It follows that when the plural form of a generalisation  is `All apples are fruit’, its singular form must be `An apple is a fruit’. The article `a/an’, therefore, accompanies not only nouns with a particularising function but also nouns with a generalising function. When `a man' has a generalising function `an/an' does not reference a particular man. When `a toy' has a generalising function, `an/an'  does not reference a particular toy. When `an apple' has a generalising function, `an/an' does not reference a particular apple. Rather, `an/an' reference the generality `man', the generality `toy' and the genenerality `apple': 

A man prefers a blonde.
Men prefer blondes.

A toy pleases a child.
Toys please children.

An apple is a fruit.
Apples are fruit.

The generalising relative-adjective phrase

When there is a generalisation in the singular form, the noun subject of the sentence can be accompanied by either `the' or `a/an':

(i) A mother who abandons her children injures also herself.
All things that are `a mother who abandons her children' are things that injure also all things that are `herself'.

(ii) The mother who abandons her children injures also herself.
All things that are `the mother who abandons her children' are things that injure also all things that are `herself'.

The noun subject is not be accompanied by either article if it is a plural noun. That is so because the plural noun carries the meaning `all':

(iii) Mothers who abandon their children injure also themselves.
All things that are `mothers who abandon their children' are things that injure also all things that are `themselves'.

We make exactly the same meaning no matter which construction - (i) or (ii) or (iii) - we choose to use. In each of the foregoing sentences the relative-adjective (italicised) phrase itself has a generalising function: it does not identify the noun it describes. Which construction we choose is therefore purely a matter of style. (Compare these sentences with the sentences below in which the relative-adjective phrase has a generalising function. Note how meaning changes when the relative adjective phrase identifies but does not generalise.)

Definition and the articles

In classic definition structure the subject (the definiens) is defined in terms of the complement (the definiendum).  When the definiens is a plural or compounded noun the definiendum takes the plural-noun form and omits `a/an’:

When the definiens is a singular noun the definiendum takes the singular-noun form and `an/an' precedes it.

We cannot say `Tom is engineer' or `Fido is dog'. This holds true whenever the definiendum is a simple entity-naming  noun. However, when a superlative sense is inherent in the definiendum, `the' precedes the noun that names it:

DEFINIENS		DEFINIENDUM
Work	is	the curse of the drinking class.
Work is the biggest, or the only, curse of the drinking class.

If the definiendum is constructed with `a/an', another meaning is achieved:

DEFINIENS		DEFINIENDUM
Work	is	a curse of the drinking class.
Work is one of the several curses of the drinking class.

Identification and the copula sentence

The copula construction does not only generalise or define. It can also identify. That defining and identifying are two distinct functions is obvious in the following text.

Definition is performed by this sentence (highlighted):

`I know you have two women in custody, Mary and Susan. One is a doctor and the other a painter.

Identification is performed by these two sentences (highlighted):

`I want to know which is the doctor and which the painter!’
`Susan is the doctor and Mary is the painter,’ the sergeant quickly answered.

Defining by referencing

When we wish to define the subject and say something else about it, we do not have to define it first then say something else about it later. We can reference the subject with alternately-naming nouns instead. (The referencing nouns are italicised in these sentences):

(i) John, doctor, artist and rogue, arrived later than everyone else.
(ii) John, a doctor, an artist and a rogue, arrived later than everyone else.

Referencing with `a/an' can land us into difficulty. For instance, according to sentence (ii), above, how many people arrived later than everyone else: only John, or also a doctor, an artist and a rogue? Ambiguity of this sort will arise only in a sentence where the verb is such that it does not reveal whether the subject is singular or plural. `Arrived’ in the foregoing sentences is such a verb. If the sentence had been:

 John, a doctor, an artist and a rogue, was the last to arrive,

the ambiguity would not have arisen.

A further point is that when we define by referencing we can chose to use `a/an', or we can omit it, if the referencing noun is a phrase or if there is a list of referencing nouns:

Referencing noun phrase
John, veteran of many difficult situations, was nevertheless nervous about this one. []
John, a veteran of many difficult situations, was nevertheless nervous about this one.

Rebel without a cause, John often picked pointless fights.
A rebel without a cause, John often picked pointless fights.

List of referencing nouns
Sailor, poet and dairy farmer, Muriel churned out verses at a great rate of knots.

But we must use `a/an' when the referencing noun is a single noun:

The girl, an actress, found it easy to speak in public.

Nouns that define by referencing have this in common: all of them carry a sense of `x, who is ...'. That is, nouns that reference are really foreshortened versions of relative-adjective phrases:

John, who is a rebel without a cause, often picks fights pointlessly.
A rebel without a cause, John often picked pointless fights.

The girl, who is an actress, found it easy to speak in public.
The girl, an actress, found it easy to speak in public.

Defining and identifying

Sometimes an identification process runs alongside the defining process. The definition is achieved by the relative-adjective phrase (italicised) and the identification by `the'. In such cases, both the definiens and the definiendum are accompanied by `the':

If the clarification we are seeking to offer is not to do with which Mary Smith raised the alarm, but instead, to do with whether Mary Smith is a teacher or a nurse or some other sort of professional, we have no use for the identifying article `the' in the definiendum. We need the particularising `a/an':

The Mary Smith who raised the alarm is a teacher, not a nurse or an estate agent.

Definition by apposition

Definition results when a common noun and a proper noun that is the name of a person are juxtaposed such that the proper noun is second in their sequence. Nouns in this sequence are said to be `in apposition':

Teacher [common noun] Mary Smith [proper noun] raised the alarm.
(i) Mary Smith is a teacher. (ii) Mary Smith is the teacher who raised the alarm.

Nouns in apposition are never accompanied by articles.

Enumeration and the articles

Sometimes our intention is not to name genus or to generalise or to particularise or to identify or to define. Instead, our intention is to enumerate. The numerical concepts `one’ and `some' are central to the expression of that intention. When the concept is `one',  `a/an’ precedes the noun:

I have an uncle in Paris.
[One person who is my uncle is in Paris.]

I have a flat in Paris.
[One flat that I own is in Paris.]

The article is omitted when the numerical concept is larger than one but is not specified:

The girl has family in Paris.
[Some members of the girl’s family live in Paris.]

We had fun in Paris.
[We had some fun in Paris.]

Naming genus or enumerating?

When we name genus the associated numerical concept is `all'.

The guests were served whiskey before dinner.
The guests were served all things that are `whiskey'.

Milk is a good source of calcium.
All things that are `milk' are a good source of all things that are `calcium'.

The children asked for ice cream.
The children asked for al things that are `ice cream'.

She asked for coffee.
She asked for all things that are `coffee'.

We can associate the numerical concept `one' with some of these nouns (underlined above) when we do certain things. For instance, when we place our order with a waiter in a restaurant, we can say:

Please bring me a whiskey, a milk, an ice-cream and a coffee.

But we cannot say `I should like a calcium', for `calcium' does not lend itself to the concept `one'. Whiskey, milk, ice-cream, coffee and other potable substances do, for the simple reason that they associate also with some kind of container:

a (one) cup of coffee, a (one) glass of milk, etc.

Indeed, it is very likely that the `one' concept is successfully carried by `a/an' only because `a/an' associates not with `whiskey' and `milk' but with the containers - a cup, a glass - that hold those fluids. Nouns that name containers are enumerable. But `calcium', a genus noun, is not enumerable.

Quantifying

When we speak of someone's  `having’ a commodity we comment on the level at which that person possesses that commodity. `A/an' has a meaning-making role in this context.

When we say:

She has money

we mean that `she’ is in possession of money at a high level. But by:

She has little money

we mean that `she’ is in possession of money at a low, or insufficient, level. And by:

She has a little money

we mean that `she’ has a significant amount, if not a lot, of money.

The same meanings obtain when we quantify other attributes or possessions:

The plan has merit. (level of merit: substantial)
The plan has little merit (level of merit: very low)
The plan has a little merit (level of merit: some but not much)

We have friends. (a considerable number of friends)
We have few friends. (a very small number, not enough, friends)
We have a few friends. (a significant, if not a great, number of friends)

She has patience. (a commendable level of patience)
She has little patience. (not enough patience)
She has a little patience. (some but not much patience)

`The' and `a/an' as enumerators when there is identification but no generalisation

In the following sentences the relative-adjective phrase is not used to generalise. It is used only to identify persons who have performed an act. In such a construction a numerical concept (one, some, several) always associates with the identified subject. (Compare these sentences with the sentences above in which the relative-adjective phrase has a generalising function. Note how meaning changes when the relative adjective phrase identifies but does not generalise.)

The mothers who abandoned their children injured themselves.
Several identified mothers abandoned their children. Those mothers injured themselves.

The mother who abandoned her children injured herself.
One identified mother abandoned her children. That mother injured herself.

A mother who abandoned her children injured herself.
One mother abandoned her children. That mother injured herself.

We do have to use an article before each of the nouns underlined above. `The' is the only one we can use with a plural noun `mothers'. We can use either `a' or `the' before the singular noun `mother'. Which we use depends on whether we want to identify and enumerate (in which case we use `the'), or whether we want only to enumerate (in which case we use `a').

A curious situation arises when we have a sentence that uses the non-generalising relative-adjective phrase twice to identify two different people. Before which described noun do we us `a/an' and before which `the'?

A man whom we did not know came into the room. A man [who was] already in the room ran for cover.

The man whom we did not know came into the room. The man [who was] already in the room ran for cover.

A man whom we did not know came into the room. The man [who was] already in the room ran for cover.

The man whom we did not know came into the room. A man [who was] already in the room ran for cover.

As these four sentences demonstrate, we can use either `a' or `the'.

Idiom and the articles

There are a few article usages that do not fit into the logical pattern of the usage outlined above. But they are not a great number, and they are easily learnt.

Tacit agreement and the omission of articles

When `town’, by tacit agreement among a group, is used to signify `a particular city', it  functions as if it were the proper name of that city. So: `He went to town yesterday’ is equi-meaning with `He went to London yesterday’ if `town' tacitly signifies `London'. Given the same condition, `He is in town’ is equi-meaning with `He is in London’. (It should be noted that this arrangement works only for `town’. It does not work for `city’ or `village': We cannot say `He went to city' or `He went to village'.  Otherwise, `town’ follows the regular convention of article usage:

He went to the town. (identified town)
He went to a town. (particularised but not identified town.)

 There is a further `town' eccentricity: The expression `to go to town’ is used to mean `to do something in an extravagant, or somehow unrestrained, way’. For example:

They really went to town when they designed their new house,

remarks that `they’ were quite unrestrained in what they did when they designed their house.

The `tacit agreement among a group’ factor works also for nouns other than `town':

He is at school/ He has gone to school

means that he is at, or has gone to, `his’ school. (`School' references the proper name of his school, e.g. `Tonbridge School'.)

Other expressions that omit the articles locate the subject in activity zones:

He is at church / at services.
He is attending a church service.
He is at practice.
He is practising a piece on the piano, participating in a sports training event, etc.

and in comfort zones:

He is at home.
He is at ease.
He is at play.

`The'  and body-parts nouns

When we speak of contact with body parts `the’ always accompanies the noun that names the body part. There is no discernible reason for this:

He tapped the girl on the shoulder.
His false friends finally stabbed him in the back.
He took the punch on the chin.

Metaphorical locations

`The’ always accompanies nouns that name metaphoric locations:

The man knew he would be in the dog-house for what he did.
The man knew he would be punished: shunned; denied domestic comforts, ostracised, etc.

He was put into the cooler after he attempted to escape.
He was put into a punishment cell.

He led us up the garden path.
He misled us.

We knew he would go on the rampage as soon as he heard the bad news.
We knew he would act violently.

I am always on the defensive when people criticise him.
I always assume a position where I can fend off people's criticism of him.

Metaphorical activity

`A/an’ always accompanies nouns that name metaphorical activities:

He went on a bender on New Year’s Eve.
[He drank an excess of alcohol and behaved accordingly.]

He led us a merry dance.
[He confused us.]

Native speakers, the articles and genitive nouns

Native speakers of English, not only ESL learners, should study article usage. There is a furphy in broad circulation to the effect that native English speakers do not make errors when they use articles because they are blessed with `received knowledge’ of their use. In fact, it is quite common even for well-read native speakers to lose track of what their articles are doing. Here is an example of this, extracted from a thesis writer’s text. (Wrongly used articles are struck out and the appropriate articles are added in blue font):

The writer's dual problem in the text above is manifest in his very first sentence. He meant to generalise about `corporations':

corporations' criminal liability.
the liability of corporations

For some reason he cast his generalisation in the singular form. In itself that is fine. But he simply did not know that when one is generalising in the singular form, nouns must be preceded by `a/an'. He should have written:

A corporation's criminal liability ...

He meant also to render the genitive relationship with the `of' construction rather than with the apostrophe construction. Again, that in itself is fine. But it seems that he thought he could obtain a generalising effect by using `criminal liability' as a genus noun. He therefore omitted the articles. However, when one is using the `of' construction of the genitive, an article must precede both nouns in genitive relationship.

A further fact about the `of' construction of the genitive relationship is that the component of it that would carry the apostrophe (if it were expressed as the apostrophe construction) is the dominant noun. The other noun identifies a property of it. The identifying `the', therefore, always precedes the noun that names that property. So this writer's Criminal liability of the corporation should have been rendered thus:

 The criminal liability of a corporation. 

The ambition of this Chapter was to illustrate that, contrary to the common perception, the use of the English articles does not defy description. The English system of articles is highly logical, and the eccentricities of idiom have only a minor role in it.

I am grateful to the people at Lydbury Grammar Clinic who read this discourse and gave me the benefit of their insights.