9

1: There is a reluctance on the part of European companies to buy from American sources.
2: There is an emphasis on the organic roots of spirituality.
3: There is a tendency to make the distinction between 'art' and 'entertainment' too rigid.
4: There is a sense that something about the suggestion is incoherent

I feel there must be more to this than simply "idiomatic preference". What is it about the first two examples that allows (but doesn't require) an article? And that requires an article in the other two?

And are there any similar constructions where the presence/absence of the article affects meaning?

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
  • 3
    Isn't it that reluctance and empahsis are capable of being mass nouns, and the other two aren't? – Andrew Leach Jun 13 '13 at 21:26
  • @Andrew: It may be there is wisdom in your words. But whereas *wisdom* is undeniably a "typical" mass noun, I couldn't possibly include an article there. How come the article apparently becomes optional (but meaningless) with *reluctance* and *emphasis*? – FumbleFingers Jun 13 '13 at 21:43
  • 2
    @FF How about: There is a wisdom* in Andrew's comment that I don't see in FF's response.* – TrevorD Jun 13 '13 at 23:19
  • 1
    @TrevorD: There is {a} subtlety here that merits further investigation! Curiously, I find that although as a "standalone" sentence, There is a wisdom here doesn't really do it for me, I can just about tolerate There is a subtlety here. There aren't enough of either in Google Books to draw any conclusions though. But I do have the feeling you can include the article with certain abstract nouns more readily if the sentence goes on to define the "particular" instance of that abstraction. – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '13 at 00:05
  • 1
    Fumble, FWIW in the Italian language is exactly the same: in 1 & 2 article is optional, but not meaningless, while in 3 & 4 article is required. I know the difference, but I cannot explain. If this site were been IL&U the question would have been an interesting one. In any case +1. –  Jun 14 '13 at 06:11
  • FF. In my view, There is a subtlety here. makes sense only in the wider context of the whole conversation. Likewise, There is a wisdom here* that I haven't seen elsewhere.* could make sense in the wider context of a discussion. – TrevorD Jun 14 '13 at 12:43
  • FF. This question has similarities to the first question I ever answered on ELU discussing the use of *a God* (and other proper nouns). There, & as you imply, here, the article a seems to be (generally) being used when referring to a particular instance/property of the abstract or proper noun. OTOH that doesn't apply to my cited example of There'll always be an England. ... [contd.] – TrevorD Jun 14 '13 at 12:51
  • [contd]... One similarity (if I understand correctly) between that question and this is that the proper nouns are also uncountable (tho' there is discussion of that in some of the answers). [Sorry, this is turning into a discussion, which I gather is not approved of here, but I don't have anything to post as an 'answer'.] – TrevorD Jun 14 '13 at 12:55
  • FWIW, I think it actually does boil down to style. – Robusto Jun 14 '13 at 16:54
  • @FumbleFingers: I don't see a problem with "a wisdom": He was possessed of a great wisdom. I'm sure I've read that exact sentence before (and others like it) without being tripped up. – Robusto Jun 14 '13 at 16:56
  • @Robusto: I also have no problem with He was possessed of a great wisdom - but per my second comment, it only seems credible because that wisdom is further "particularised" by being identified as a great* one. Once you discard the word "great", it becomes very much more difficult to contrive contexts where He was possessed of a wisdom* would cut the mustard (I think inevitably the very next sentence would have to give further details about the specific "wisdom" thus referenced). – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '13 at 20:17
  • @FumbleFingers: "He was possessed of a wisdom that was like nothing seen before or since." – Robusto Jun 14 '13 at 20:19
  • @Robusto: Where again, the particular wisdom is further qualified within the same utterance. Maybe what it nets down to is there are degrees of "abstract nouniness", and that words like reluctance and emphasis have less of it than words like tendency and sense (and that wisdom sits somewhere between these). – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '13 at 20:25
  • @FumbleFingers: I do think it bespeaks a degree of particularity and specificity more than abstraction. – Robusto Jun 14 '13 at 20:27
  • @Robusto: Hopefully these comments will serve as a guide to whatever brave soul pokes their head over the parapet with an answer (assuming we're on the right general track). I think your last comment is homing in on it even more. Some "mass nouns" are more amenable to being particularised/specified than others. Even though "pure" mass nouns don't normally take an article, if the context can "particularise" a specific instance of the abstraction, using the article suddenly becomes possible (because it's no longer a "pure mass noun" in the precise context). – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '13 at 20:57
  • @FumbleFingers Any thoughts on my comments about whether the usage here is related to similar usage with proper nouns as I postulated above? – TrevorD Jun 15 '13 at 22:52
  • @TrevorD: In I want to acknowledge a* God/god who [suits me], it would not be possible to simply remove the article, since it would then imply there's only one god anyway (so you'd have to change who* to something like but only if he). But with "I want to get married, but there is [a] reluctance on my fiance's part", you can include the article or not, without changing anything else. Well, maybe having the article changes the meaning a tiny bit, since it implies her reluctance is only a small part of the total possible "reluctances" (so it's more optimistic to include it! :) – FumbleFingers Jun 15 '13 at 23:22
  • @FumbleFingers Thanks. I now see the difference & agree. Key question: Has any of this got you any nearer to an answer to your question? – TrevorD Jun 15 '13 at 23:34
  • @TrevorD: haha - a bit nearer, but not what I'd hoped for! I just "doctored" someone else's closed question on ELL yesterday, and that one seems to be getting ignored in favour of the "low-hanging fruit" too. I guess I must just be patient - sooner or later someone will be able and willing to analyse these cases. Both of which I think are "tricky", but doubtless to the right person they won't be. – FumbleFingers Jun 15 '13 at 23:45

2 Answers2

1

It really does come down to mass nouns. Putting an article in is more specific and you can then quantify rather than generalise.

Taking reluctance as an example, if you can specify a reluctance then it is "a reluctance". "A reluctance" cannot signify more than one reluctance. If you say "there is reluctance" (without the article), that could mean there is more than one reluctance. So they are certainly not exactly the same in meaning.

Sam
  • 836
  • I think this is a somewhat circular argument. In my first example, whatever "reluctance" is being referenced must surely be the same one, whether it's preceded by an article or not. And including it or not implies nothing at all about whether there might be any "other reluctances" (whatever that might mean). – FumbleFingers Jun 20 '13 at 00:28
  • 1
    Granted, but the point I am making is that if you wanted to write about a specific reluctance, you would have no choice but to use the article, therefore the two cannot be considered interchangeable even if you can get away with it in some idiomatic circumstances. Does that make sense or am I talking out of my hind quarters? :) – Sam Jun 20 '13 at 00:35
  • I just don't see that. In my example, the reluctance being referenced is very specifically defined (it's the reluctance of European companies to buy from American sources). It's still the same reluctance, regardless of whether *a* is present or not. – FumbleFingers Jun 20 '13 at 00:50
  • 2
    While it sounds circular, if "the reluctance" was that "prices are too high" then that would be one of potentially many reluctances which would fit "there is reluctance" along with potentially more. If there is simply "a reluctance" this suggests that there is not more than one". There is cheese that smells. There is a cheese that smells. The first one is general, but does not specify. The second invites particular references. – Sam Jun 20 '13 at 00:57
  • Okay, I see what you're getting at now. But I don't think it applies to my example, because I don't think the speaker's decision to use an article or not would be affected by whether he thought (or wished to imply) anything about the possibility of other "reluctances" apart from the one being referenced. – FumbleFingers Jun 20 '13 at 01:01
  • I would say that removing the article would help imply the possibility of multiple reluctances. There are really 3 ways to articulate this though: "there is a reluctance", signifying the singular; "there is reluctance", signifying an unknown quantity; and "there are reluctances", signifying more than one. – Sam Jun 20 '13 at 01:05
  • I think we can forget there are reluctances. There are only 10 instances of that in Google Books - compared to hundreds of thousands for the singular form (with and without an article). I think you're trying to build a logic structure here without taking account of what people actually say/write/mean. – FumbleFingers Jun 20 '13 at 01:12
  • It is true, I am coming from the angle that I do not like ambiguity and if it can be avoided I will use grammar for accuracy rather than being colloquial (but only in writing generally). A fair point though. – Sam Jun 20 '13 at 01:25
  • 2
    Well, I hope nobody downvotes your answer! In the end, it comes down to an attempt to explain the "optional article" cases by saying there's a difference in meaning. Personally, I don't think that's true, so I won't upvote. But my guess is there's something about the "generic" meaning of certain nouns that allows the article to be optional in my construction, whereas it's required with other nouns, so I don't think you're completely off the mark. At this stage in the game, just about any answer is welcome! – FumbleFingers Jun 20 '13 at 01:42
  • I commend your mature behaviour and responses :) – Sam Jun 20 '13 at 22:05
  • 2
    I'm with FF on this. I started to disagree when you said "if 'the reluctance' was that 'prices are too high' then that would be one of potentially many reluctances which would fit 'there is reluctance'". Prices are too high is not a 'reluctance': it may be the reason - or one of several reasons - for the reluctance. But it is not - and cannot be - (a) 'reluctance'. There is only one 'reluctance' in question, namely "the reluctance of European companies to buy from American sources." Consequently, your subsequent discussion about 'multiple reluctances' is moot. – TrevorD Jun 20 '13 at 23:59
  • @TrevorD: Your very own highlighted text illustrates the point by identifying what we're talking about as *one reluctance, and the reluctance. Which is apparently particularised by being reluctance to carry out some specific action* rather than some specific reason** for the unwillingness. – FumbleFingers Jun 21 '13 at 13:30
  • @FF I think I've not followed the argument here somewhere. I'll come back later! – TrevorD Jun 21 '13 at 22:45
  • @TrevorD: I was referring to the fact that Sam's answer & comments suggest that using an article before reluctance implies we're talking about one of several possible "reluctances", which might be distinguished by virtue of the fact those reluctances have different motivations. Which you seemed to pick up on, when you said 'Prices are too high' isn't a "reluctance" - it's a "reason". That's certainly how I see it, anyway - whenever you see *a reluctance, it's invariably followed by to do [some specific thing], not because [of some specific reason]*. – FumbleFingers Jun 25 '13 at 19:32
0

While I understand the example sentences perfectly, they go beyond my skills at diagramming them. Maybe we should ask this over at English Language Learners. :-) I'm not posting this as the definitive answer, just trying to help us all get closer to one.

I believe it hinges on whether or not the word can be considered a quality that can reasonably be considered to be a mass noun or not. Consider

There is ___ evident in his recent actions.

  • reluctance fits fine
  • emphasis is borderline but at least arguably acceptable
  • tendency does not fit
  • sense only fits with the meaning "a sane attitude" but not with the meaning "a feeling that something could be the case"

I think that if you diagram the sentence "There is reluctance on the part…" versus "There is a reluctance on the part…" you will end up with significantly different diagrams.

Old Pro
  • 3,169
  • Perhaps we need to extend reluctance, emphasis with a few more examples of "ambivalent" words. I'm not saying you're wrong here, but it doesn't exactly help that the reasoning only applies to one of the two examples I happened to come up with. I agree with you that #2 looks a bit "incomplete" out of context up there, but I think if you click the link and look at it in context, you might not have such a problem with it (I don't). – FumbleFingers Jun 16 '13 at 04:20
  • 1
    I had also wondered whether Ex.2 was really appropriate without the article, but having now looked at the source, I agree with FF that it would seem acceptable in context. – TrevorD Jun 16 '13 at 10:38
  • @Fumble, I looked at the link before writing the answer. All I found was "Others who will benefit... include those... who wish to know more about a growth-oriented approach which includes *a robust emphasis* on the role of healthy spirituality for total well being." I would not accept that without the article. It includes an emphasis on the role… or it emphasizes the role…. – Old Pro Jun 16 '13 at 19:37
  • I don't understand that. Here's a link to the single Google Books result for an emphasis on the organic roots. Both that and the preceding "paragraph" start with There is an emphasis..., but you might say they're "atypical" because each paragraph starts with a hyphen. Four paragraphs further down, though, the second sentence starts with that same text, in a context where I can't see it makes any difference whether the article is present or not. – FumbleFingers Jun 16 '13 at 20:47
  • @Fumble, Google search results vary from user to user. The link in your comment above only shows me a link to this very question and no other results. Either way, it would be more helpful if you found examples using some other words than the 4 we've been discussing. – Old Pro Jun 16 '13 at 21:15
  • Dang! I originally wrote I as the second word in my first comment, then realised it might not be that simple, so I changed it to you. But before I clicked "Add Comment", I made the final change to we, and just hoped you'd pick up the ball and run with it. I'm going afk for a bit, but I'll give it a shot later. – FumbleFingers Jun 16 '13 at 21:33
  • @OldPro I note that FF's link was to UK Google (google.co.uk). Maybe yours is automatically reverting to google.com? – TrevorD Jun 20 '13 at 23:44