5

I'm used to always hearing or seeing a definite article before certain nouns. Yet on certain occasions the article is totally omitted, and it bothers me. I'm wondering what the justification for omitting the article is, especially when the definite article would seem to be required, or if it is just bad English either on the part of the individual in question or more likely by tradition.

The most frequent place I hear this is at the doctor or dentist's office. In every one I have ever visited, the receptionist or assistant always says things like "Doctor will see you shortly" instead of "The doctor will see you shortly."

The wikipedia article linked above says this: "A definite article indicates that its noun is a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener". In the case of a clinical setting, I know who the doctor is, especially if this is not my first visit. The people in the office know the doctor even better than I, so it would seem to be inappropriate to omit the article. Even the indefinite article would be incorrect. It further says, under "Zero article": "In languages having a definite article, the lack of an article specifically indicates that the noun is indefinite." Since the noun is not indefinite, why are they omitting the article?

Another place I see the article omitted is with the word "bar". Bartenders apparently don't say "I tend the bar" they say "I tend bar". Unless a bartender works in multiple bars, it would seem like an article would be required. Furthermore, "the bar" can mean any bar a person goes to, so even in a case like this question, it seems like the word "the" should be in the sentence. The only thing I can think of in this case is maybe the speaker doesn't want to confuse the listener into thinking they work in the legal field.

Is this just a bad habit, a historical corruption or tradition, or is there really a valid reason (or perhaps more than one) for these omissions?

Edwin Ashworth
  • 83,272
Michael
  • 898
  • 6
    Do you have any other examples? I don't see a pattern that could be commented upon. Tend bar is a set phrase— bartenders aren't necessarily tending to the bar when they're tending bar. As for the receptionist, it sounds like Doctor is short for the name— Doctor Singh will see you now or Doctor Hernandez will see you now. – choster Apr 15 '15 at 21:18
  • 1
    I observed in a "convenience store" this morning that a clerk said, over the intercom to the gas pumps, "Go ahead pump 4. Please pay inside when you're done." Only that's not what she actually said. Rather, it was something like "Gwed pump 4 -- leesay inzide ben verdun". It wasn't that she was incapable speaking perfectly normal American English, but rather she said that phrase about 200 times a day and hence said it without actually thinking about what words were being said -- she just moved her mouth out of habit. – Hot Licks Nov 18 '15 at 21:00
  • 1
    But saying "I tend bar" is perfectly valid, when stating one's occupation. – Hot Licks Nov 18 '15 at 21:01
  • With (both) your examples, I think that Barmar's 'set phrase' (idiom) analysis is relevant. Neither 'I tend a bar', 'I tend bars' nor 'I tend the bar' sounds too natural, so the expression has developed as it is. But note that this is idiosyncratic; we don't say 'I sweep street' or 'I manage bank'. Barmar does give some other examples, such as 'I deliver mail'. With 'Doctor will see you now', there seems to be a conflation of title and job description, perhaps to put things on a more friendly, less clinical (sorry) basis. Again, note ... – Edwin Ashworth Jan 19 '18 at 23:53
  • that 'Surgeon / Consultant / Dentist / Professor / Manager / King / Secretary ...' cannot be used without an article here. But, in line with my edit, in addition to various idiosyncratic verbo-nominal set phrases (weigh anchor, catch fire, break camp, bear fruit, buy time ...) I'm sure that there are more general situations (of more than one type) where no article is a possible or even preferable choice. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 19 '18 at 23:54
  • @EdwinAshworth Related, there is also the phenomena whereby the names of ships sometimes seem wrong (to me) when "the" is placed in front of them. But, I think I've got that one figured out... – Michael Jan 19 '18 at 23:59
  • I hope you don't disagree with the edit, Michael. Shortly, Lawrence should post a very valuable piece of research he's happily discovered. This should explain article usage rather better, though it's pretty demanding and cutting-edge (which could well explain why most of us find article usages so difficult to explain and why people's choices of article don't always seem to have been consistent). – Edwin Ashworth Jan 20 '18 at 00:07

5 Answers5

10

In the first example, Doctor is being used as the name of the person; the doctor is more of a descriptive phrase. It's short for Doctor <his name>.

tend bar is a set phrase, it's a synonym for being a bartender. It's also similar to the way other people describe their work: a mailman could say I deliver mail, a programmer would say I write code, a garbageman would say I collect garbage, and a composer would say I write music. These are all using the noun to refer to the general concept, rather than any specific item, so no article is needed. You would add an article when you need to be specific, e.g. I write the music in TV commercials.

Barmar
  • 20,741
  • 1
  • 38
  • 59
  • 3
    Your examples suggest bar is a mass noun, but I don't believe it functions as such— the entire phrase refers to an activity. It's more like saying I play ball than I write music. – choster Apr 15 '15 at 21:25
  • @choster There are varying degrees of cohesiveness in these verb + noun strings. They're very hard to categorise accurately. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 20 '18 at 00:40
  • @EdwinAshworth True. My last example would be perfectly fine if it were I write music in TV commercials and a mailman could say I deliver the mail. – Barmar Jan 20 '18 at 00:42
  • And we've had the 'He's in hospital / 'He's in infirmary' / 'He's in theatre' / 'He's in ward' kerfuffle. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 20 '18 at 00:57
  • 2
    @EdwinAshworth Those are also AmEn vs BrEn differences. We don't say "in hospital" here in America. – Barmar Jan 20 '18 at 01:00
  • I don’t think doctor is used as a title with a name understood here. Rather, I think the article is there, just suppressed phonetically. It is perfectly common for an utterance-initial the to be reduced to nothing in normal speech, and I’d say this sounds like a prime candidate for instance of it. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 20 '18 at 01:07
  • @Janus Then why isn't the article dropped with 'Teacher / Surgeon / Anaesthetist / Dentist / Professor / ... is here now'? I think there is a familiarising pragmatic effect. I've perhaps seen more bedside-manner roles in cheesy films and TV dramas than you have. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 20 '18 at 23:02
  • @EdwinAshworth Well… it is. All those perfectly happily lose their definite article as well. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 20 '18 at 23:03
  • @Janus I must disagree strenuously. Note that these are all conversational examples, following OP's example. I can't imagine a receptionist telling a patient 'Surgeon is here now: you will soon have that leg seen to', whereas 'Doctor is here now: he'll see you very soon' is unremarkable. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 20 '18 at 23:15
  • @EdwinAshworth Must be some kind of lectal difference, then, because those sound exactly equally acceptable and normal to me. They are both colloquial, but also both completely commonplace to me, both in BrE and AmE. Compare also the parallel between doctor’s orders and teacher’s pet, both with no article. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 20 '18 at 23:19
  • @Janus 'Philosopher's stone' isn't exactly eschewed. These are fixed phrases, very different from anarthrous single nouns. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 20 '18 at 23:30
  • @EdwinAshworth Perhaps so—in fact, you’re probably right they’re not relevant here, since they can actually work without articles even when normal nouns don’t (“He’s teacher’s pet” sounds just about acceptable to me, while “He’s teacher” is of course not). But reducing an utterance-initial definite article is, to me at least, colloquially possible in just about any possible combination. “First time I saw the movie, theatre was chock-full” sounds perfectly natural, even with the article (not) coming before an adjective, rather than a noun. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 20 '18 at 23:36
  • @Janus It sounds highly colloquial (along the lines of goin t'mill) (and ill-fitting here with the rest of the sentence) or just plain unacceptable to me. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 20 '18 at 23:39
10

(Adapted from my answer on English Language Learners to a similar question, following a request to migrate that answer to English Language & Usage and discussion on Meta.)

Let's look at a concrete example before going deeper.

Consider someone who calls himself Cookie Monster.

Saying that he is a cookie monster conveys the idea that there is a group of entities that are each called cookie monster, and he is one of them.

Saying that he is the cookie monster conveys either that the 'group' of entities really has only one member (him), or that he is the most outstanding member of the group.

In each case, the focus is on some kind of classification scheme.

Saying that he is cookie monster says something about him personally - he really enjoys cookies, eat them messily, etc.

It's a similar case with your bar example. "I tend bar" uses the null article, as distinct from the zero article. (Your doctor example works differently. A regionalism is at play here, using Doctor as a proper noun instead of using a common noun with determiner, 'the doctor'. I don't address this at length here.)

The zero article is the most indefinite article, and the null article is the most definite. Peter Master arranges articles in order from most indefinite to most definite:

zero (Ø1)--some--a--the--null (Ø2)
- Peter Master, "Acquisition of the Zero and Null Articles in English", Issues in Applied Linguistics, 14(1)

Here's an example of the zero article and null article from the same paper:

  • Zero article: The boys ate chicken.
  • Null article: Mr. Jones was appointed chairman.

The null article example has a similar quality to your "mayor" example.

Note that both zero article and null article refer to something that is absent from the sentence. It can seem a little odd to describe something missing as potentially having two polar opposite possibilities. Masters goes on to say:

The zero and null articles can be readily distinguished by their paraphrasability by either an indefinite or a definite article, respectively

That is, if the sentence retains its sense when you insert an indefinite article, the original had a zero article. And if it retains its sense when you insert a (the) definite article, the original had a null article.

In your example, "I tend bar" uses the word bar in the same manner that "Mr. Jones was appointed chairman" uses the word chairman. It uses the null article.

Lawrence
  • 38,640
  • "I tend a bar", "I tend the bar"? Hmm. Not sure about that one. – Araucaria - Him Jun 21 '18 at 17:25
  • @Araucaria Interestingly, the indefinite article can refer to a more definite bar than the definite article, depending on how "the bar" is intended to be understood. :) – Lawrence Jun 22 '18 at 05:22
1

'Zero article' applies to class nouns, not proper nouns. Titles are class nouns that can be used as proper nouns. 'Doctor' can be used as a title, although you are less likely to hear the nurse say "I'll get Doctor for you."

AmI
  • 3,662
  • What that actually meant was not at all clear but certainly in reality, you are highly likely to hear the nurse say 'I'll get Doctor for you'. That might be less likely in any given text book but which matters here? – Robbie Goodwin Jul 10 '23 at 18:06
0

Might as well add a "down-home" explanation to this old thread.

Did you ask Mom before you painted your bedroom black?

-- No.

Nice knowin' ya.

"Mom" is a term of address and it is also the name family members use for her amongst themselves. An analogous thing is going on with "Doctor".

Doctor will see you momentarily.

TimR
  • 21,116
-1

I think the questioner is trying to politely get to the issue of times when there is confusion created by not specifying with a definite article while not admitting to their own faults.

For example, I have noticed that this indefinite manner of communication can be used passive aggressively. Some people will not specify "a" or "the" when giving computer advice for instance. Some of the time it seems pretty obvious when the helper isn't being as helpful as they would purport to be being.

For any person trying to build their comprehension in any field, this lack of specificity is especially challenging for any novice. Imagine how frustrating it is for people trying to learn English who are given this kind of short-shrift and thus positioned as responsible for their ignorance.

Ultimately, only fools live by this sword and they will die by this sword.

Dave
  • 1
  • Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. – Community Nov 23 '21 at 16:26
  • 2
    Master has written articles (papers) on the different situations where anarthrous nouns are used. This is a highly complex subject. 'Doctor will see you now' models on 'Nurse will be here in a few moments' and 'Matron is on the warpath today'. 'Surgeon isn't here today' isn't acceptable. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 23 '21 at 17:00