Kibbitzer 48 | The or no the? (1) |
The following revision returns to the same text as that discussed in Kibbitzer 47.
Original | Revisions |
---|---|
Borg and Gall (1989) summarise the characteristics of socio-anthropological paradigm as follows: | Borg and Gall (1989) summarise the characteristics of the socio-anthropological paradigm as follows: |
Whether or not to use the Definite Article the is a constant source of difficulty for non-native users of English. For many years the tendency among language-teaching theorists was to ignore such difficulties: the text could (it was argued) be understood perfectly well if the the articles were used incorrectly, so this could not be counted as a 'communicative' feature of English, and in consequence little attention was paid to teaching their use.
But is the definite article really so 'uncommunicative'? Take the definite article in the revision above, which marks 'the socio-anthropological paradigm' as a distinct (countable) paradigm, different from all other paradigms. Substitute for 'paradigm' the nouns 'theory', 'thought' and 'philosophy' : in each case the definite article is no longer appropriate. . There is not a distinct 'socio-anthropological theory' which is different from all other theories, but instead a general layer of theory (uncountable!) which underpins work in socio-anthropology. Similarly with 'thought' and 'philosophy'. It follows from examples such as these that misuse of the article before modifier+noun nominals may cast doubt on how far the misuser grasps the concept of the noun: a particular danger with nouns such as 'paradigm' which form the framework of thinking in the subect. That is why mishandling of the articles can too readily communicate the impression that the writer is not fully in command of his or her subject.
Here is a short exercise to allow you to test yourself with some of the nouns commonly used in academic writing:
17th July 1998 Back to Tim Johns's EAP Page |
Consultant: Tim Johns |