Stephen van Vlack

Sookmyung Women`s University

Graduate School of TESOL

Approaches to Teaching Grammar

Notes on Articles from Yule Explaining English Grammar.

     What Yule tries to do here is show us a simpler, more accurate way to describe differences in articles in English. He does this by looking at the underlying concepts associated with each of the articles used (a, the, o) and the context in which the article is used or not used.

     He does this first by breaking the articles into three types: indefinite (a an), definite(the), and zero (o). This is not a big surprise. What he does next, however, is a little more unconventional.

     Yule makes us question the system that has been typically used in traditional grammars by showing us examples of how count nouns act in a non-count way and visa-versa.

E.g.   Plant is not good for me.

     Look at those two porks over there.

     Although it is true that most count nouns cannot usually be counted and that non-count nouns usually work that way, there are many and often cases of when they do not work as we might expect. We, therefore, need to come up with some sort of explanation for this. Yule asks us to stop thinking of certain words as being count or non-count by their nature, but rather to think of them as functioning predominantly in count or non-count circumstances or contexts.

     He further explains this idea of a count or non-count context by bringing up the idea of individuation as a way of determining whether a noun is to receive the indefinite article or not. Individuation is the process by which a unit is classified as being single. An individual object has identifiable boundaries and the parts which make up the object are different than the whole. Basically, words that can be individuated can receive an indefinite article. Words that cannot be individuated are given nothing (zero article). What is interesting is that the same word, when in different contexts, can be seen as being individuated or not.

E.g.   Bring me water.

     Bring me a water.

     Taking this one step further, Yule further divides contexts into classifying and identifying. Classifying is when we name a thing (or things) belonging to a class of objects. The thing is talked about as being a member of a category. Identifying means talking about a thing (or things) as distinct or separate from other members of the same category or class or objects.

E.g.   There was an armadillo in the garden.

     The same fat armadillo keeps coming into the garden.

Once we have identified the difference between the two processes (identifying and classifying) then we can take a look at how this is used in discourse patterns.

     Very often when we are talking or writing about something we first classify it and then identify it.

E.g.   John saw a strange porcupine.

     The porcupine was driving a car.

Often, however, this is not the case if the speaker thinks that the listener has already had the objects classified.

E.g.   A: Hurry up. I`m double parked.

     B: Hold on, I have the take the porcupine quill out of the oven.

     A: What?

     B: Oh, I thought you knew. I am making a pen out of a porcupine quill and need to bake it first in an oven.

     In other instances, by classifying something we are putting it into a class along with other objects.

E.g.   After meeting Ji-myong, her outlandish behavior led me to doubt whether she was really a Korean.

     A Hajimani Fazawadi called here yesterday for you. (A person called Hajimani Fazawadi called yesterday.)

     Sometimes when we are communicating we use words which do not need to be classified before they are identified. Such words are thought of a pre-identified. This is usually done in one of two ways. In the first way, the information included in the text or utterance supplies enough information to render the thing or person as already identified. There are two patterns in this; pre-modifying and post-modifying.

     In pre-modifying, the limiting information comes before the person or thing and thus identifies it.

E.g.   She is the least genteel person I ever met. (Here the pronoun she is working to pre-modify the person.)

     In post-modifying, the limiting information comes after the person or thing but still identifies it.

E.g.   Jimmy later regretted the mistake he made in joining the army. (Joining the army is the mistake that we are talking about here.)

     The second way in which things or people are pre-identified is based on what the speaker/writer knows about how much the reader/listener knows. Some things or people only exist in one form and everyone knows what they are. Such things, therefore, do not have to be classified, because they do not belong to a class. They are a class unto themselves.

E.g.   Before moving into the White House, Bill Clinton lived in a green house.

     Other things are already identified in that they are a typical part of the lives of the speakers. Any normal speaker of the language will know them already in that context and they, thus, do not need to be classified first.

E.g. While taking a walk, John fell in the river. (If John, the speaker, and listener all come from the same town and there is only one river in that town, or if they are looking of a picture of a river with John standing in front of it.)

     Holly took the subway to the post office.

     Yule then takes us back to the idea of meanings in context and has us look at articles as they are used in discourse structure. He claims that new information in a text needs to be identified and is, therefore, marked with the indefinite article. Once the person or thing has been mentioned (identified) then it can be treated as given information and is marked by the definite article.

E.g.   The other day, an earthquake shook the city of Taipei to the rafters.

     The earthquake was reported as reaching more than 7.5 on the Richter scale.

     Parts of things that make up the whole are often treated as given information even if they have never been mentioned. This happens because, by mentioning the larger whole the parts are understood.

E.g.   In the sentence, `There was an old computer sitting on a table in the corner.` The computer is new information and must be marked by the indefinite article. In a following sentences, `The monitor was very dirty and small. The mouse has many sticker on it. There were bits of food in the keyboard.` we see that the parts of the computer are marked with the definite article. This is because as necessary parts of the computer they were already mentioned by default when the computer itself was mentioned and are, therefore, treated as old information.

     In discourse structure, the zero article is often used when the information is clearly shown to be given or understood by the reader/listener. For example, if you buy a coffee machine and read the instruction there will be few articles used. The zero article will be prevalent. This is because the things that the directions are referring to are right there in you hand.

E.g.   Clean filter before using.

     Pour cold water into storage tank.

     The bottom line to all this is that we chose which articles based on whether the thing or person is known to the reader/listener. That is the main distinction. If it is not known, the indefinite article is used. If it is known, then the definite article is used.