# the beach, the mountains [weak definite articles?]



## HSS

*The weak definite article*

You would say ‘Go straight, and take the elevator,’ or ‘There is a  new pharmacy on the corner of Lakewood and Hathaway’ when the elevator  or the corner are not mentioned before, and there are more than one  elevator there. We call these felicitously used definite articles that  are not used to refer to uniquely identifiable entities ‘weak definite  article.’

*
My question: Are the following definite articles ‘weak definite articles’ too?*  (In other words, are they not accommodated definite articles? When you hear 'the beach,' would you think of it as *the* one beach attached to your area (what the accommodated definite article refers to)? When you hear the phone, would you think of it as *the* one phone existing at your home (what the accommodated definite article refers to)? ... and so on and so forth)


(All the referents have not been mentioned or evoked before this point in any way)



I went to the beach yesterday with my friends.
I climbed up the mountains with my friends.
I went to the city with my friends. (Say you are living on the outskirts of San Francisco)
Can I use the phone? (You are visiting your friend's house)
I heard the news on the radio at home. (There may possibly be several radios at home)


----------



## owlman5

> *My question: Are the following definite articles ‘weak definite articles’ too?*


I think they are, Hiro.  But "the city" _probably_ refers to "San Francisco" and not any other city.


----------



## HSS

Hi, owlman.

So in this era of affluence and technology, it would be no surprise you have more than just one land-line phone. You can't just assume the hearer would be able to imagine you have one land-line telephone. In old times, you had the one and only phone at home. So you would have accommodated the use of the definite article, but you would be still saying "Can I use the phone'? So it should be not the accommodated use but it should be the weak definite article. Yes.


----------



## owlman5

> So it should be not the accommodated use but it should be the weak definite article. Yes.


This makes sense to me, Hiro.  If I'm in a house that has several phones, "Can I use the phone?" means "Can I use one of your phones?"


----------



## Myridon

HSS said:


> So in this era of affluence and technology, it would be no surprise you have more than just one land-line phone. You can't just assume the hearer would be able to imagine you have one land-line telephone.


On the other hand, even if you have more than one handset, all the land-line phones are the same line.  You can't make two calls at once. It's been this way for fifty years or more and we haven't changed yet.
(In this era, it's not surprising if someone has zero land-line phones.)


----------



## HSS

owlman5 said:


> This makes sense to me, Hiro.  If I'm in a house that has several phones, "Can I use the phone?" means "Can I use one of your phones?"


Or, "Can I use your phone?"


Myridon said:


> On the other hand, even if you have more than one handset, all the land-line phones are the same line.  You can't make two calls at once. It's been this way for fifty years or more and we haven't changed yet.
> (In this era, it's not surprising if someone has zero land-line phones.)


Yes, people even don't own a land-line. They only have a cell phone.

Now, the beach, the mountains etc... How about other geographical features?

6. I went boating in the creek (the river) on Sunday. ('The creek/ the river' never mentioned or evoked before this point. There are more than just one creek/ river in the area)
7. I climbed up the hill with my friends. ('The hill' never mentioned or evoked. There are more than just one hill in the area)
8. I went fishing in the lake. ('The lake' never mentioned or evoked. There are more than just one lake in the area)

Somehow I have this feeling none of the above works, unless in 8 you say the lake*s* and you are in the Lake Area in Scotland.


----------



## owlman5

> Somehow I have this feeling none of the above works, unless in 8 you say the lake*s* and you are in the Lake Area in Scotland.


I agree.  A listener would probably ask: "Which creek?" or "Which hill?" or "What lake are you talking about?"


----------



## HSS

owlman5 said:


> I agree.  A listener would probably ask: "Which creek?" or "Which hill?" or "What lake are you talking about?"


What do you think is the line dividing the groups? One makes sense, and the other doesn't.

The beach and the mountains and what else among geographical features could be used likewise? The sea and the ocean? Yes, but it's the only and only near the talked-about location. So they don't count. No weak definite. How about rice paddies?

I went to the rice paddies just for the heck of it.

This takes me back to what the line is.

Hiro


----------



## owlman5

> I went to the rice paddies just for the heck of it.


If there are a lot of rice paddies in the area, then "I went to the rice paddies" seems to use "the" as a weak definite article.


----------



## HSS

I surmise creeks, hills and lakes are all made up of peculiarities; in other words, creeks are all so different, hills are all so different, lakes are all so different, so much so you care which creek, which hill, and which lake. On the other hand, which beach does not matter. Which group of mountains does not matter. You just went to some local beach. You just climbed up some local mountains.

I'm still thinking what thin line there is.


----------



## owlman5

"We went into the hills" seems to use "the" in this weak way you are interested in, Hiro.  The same is true of "the woods" and "the mountains".  When I see a singular noun like "lake", "creek", or "hill", I think you are referring to one specific place.


----------



## HSS

'Into' the hills? You go 'into' the hills? I've thought a hill is a sort of thing you go up. Interesting! 

Well, it seems like, then, the beach is an exception. It's a singular noun.


----------



## owlman5

> Well, it seems like, then, the beach is an exception. It's a singular noun.


I agree.  "The beach" probably makes sense because it can refer to any strip of sand along the shoreline.  Although various sections of the shoreline are divided into different "beaches", "the beach" can mean "the shore".

If you are in some heavily wooded area, you can use "the forest" with a weak definite meaning.  In Brazil or Guyana, you could use "the jungle" with a weak definite meaning.


----------



## Forero

HSS said:


> *The weak definite article*
> 
> You would say ‘Go straight, and take the elevator,’ or ‘There is a  new pharmacy on the corner of Lakewood and Hathaway’ when the elevator  or the corner are not mentioned before, and there are more than one  elevator there. We call these felicitously used definite articles that  are not used to refer to uniquely identifiable entities ‘weak definite  article.’
> 
> *
> My question: Are the following definite articles ‘weak definite articles’ too?*  (In other words, are they not accommodated definite articles? When you hear 'the beach,' would you think of it as *the* one beach attached to your area (what the accommodated definite article refers to)? When you hear the phone, would you think of it as *the* one phone existing at your home (what the accommodated definite article refers to)? ... and so on and so forth)
> 
> 
> (All the referents have not been mentioned or evoked before this point in any way)
> 
> 
> 
> I went to the beach yesterday with my friends.
> I climbed up the mountains with my friends.
> I went to the city with my friends. (Say you are living on the outskirts of San Francisco)
> Can I use the phone? (You are visiting your friend's house)
> I heard the news on the radio at home. (There may possibly be several radios at home)


I might call all of these weak definite articles except the one in "on the corner of Lakewood and Hathaway", which means "at the intersection of Lakewood and Hathaway". I would not say "on the corner of Kavanaugh (Boulevard) and (North) Van Buren (Street)" in Little Rock, Arkansas, because there are two such intersections (with a pharmacy at at least one of them).

But we do say things like "I went down to the corner to buy a newspaper" without identifying what intersection we are talking about.

In the case of "the sun", we used to think there was only one. "The stars in the sky" presumably refers to all stars above the atmosphere.

We say "the beach" because all beaches have the same meaning to most of us, and the same goes for "the mountains". "The elevator" makes sense when we see all the elevators in question as equivalent.

"The city", "the phone", and "the radio" are similar generalities.

The "weakest" definite article I can think of is the one in "I took the wrong bus." Perhaps because wrong is just wrong no matter which wrong it is, any bus that is not the right one is automatically the wrong one.

"The polar bear is a large animal" refers to the species, not to an individual polar bear, and "reproduction in the flowering plant" refers to a whole category too.


----------



## HSS

Owlman, yes, then there comes the word 'shore.' It gives me the sense of a longer periphery.

Forero,  in the case of 'the sun,' I think the relevance rule of Grice works  here. You are like 'Ah, the speaker should be talking about the sun nearest to  us.' The same thing goes to the moon.



Forero said:


> [...]
> 
> We say "the beach" because all beaches have the same meaning to most of us, and the same goes for "the mountains". "The elevator" makes sense when we see all the elevators in question as equivalent.
> 
> "The city", "the phone", and "the radio" are similar generalities.
> 
> [...]


This, I think, is the thin line that divides the two domains.
6. I went boating in the creek (the river) on Sunday. ('The creek/ the  river' never mentioned or evoked before this point. There are more than  just one creek/ river in the area)
7. I climbing up the hill with my friends. ('The hill' never mentioned or evoked. There are more than just one hill in the area)
8. I went fishing in the lake. ('The lake' never mentioned or evoked. There are more than just one lake in the area)​ 
Each of the creeks, hills, and lakes in your neck of the woods or any larger areas that include you does not mean the same to you in thinking about boating, hill-climbing, and fishing, or does it???

Or, does pluralizing the nouns get the sentences to work better?
6-1. I went boating in the creeks (the rivers) on Sunday. ('The creeks/ the   rivers' never mentioned or evoked before this point. The speaker does not mean all the creeks/ rivers located in his area. In fact, he might very well have gone boating in only one creek)
7-1. I climbing up the hills with my friends. ('The hills' never mentioned or evoked. He does not mean all the hills located in his area. In fact, he might very well have climbed up only one hill in his area) (This could work in reference to the case of 'the mountains.' You would very likely say 'the mountains' when you only climbed up one mountain. Mountains and hills are not clearly regarded as separated entities. They are a geographical continuum.
8-1. I went fishing in the lakes. ('The lakes' never mentioned or evoked. He does not mean all the lakes located in his area. In fact, he might very well have fished in only one lake)​


----------



## HSS

Forero said:


> "The city", [...] are similar generalities.
> 
> [...]


Doesn't 'the city' refer to the largest city in your vicinity, as in San Francisco, L.A., Chicago, Dayton, San Antonio etc.? Not just any city in your area.


----------



## owlman5

> Doesn't 'the city' refer to the largest city in your vicinity, as in San  Francisco, L.A., Chicago, Dayton, San Antonio etc.? Not just any city  in your area.


I'd expect "the city" to be used this way in certain remarks.  If I lived in some small town near Cleveland, I'd use "We're going to the city today" to mean "We're going to Cleveland today."

If I wanted to contrast life in the country with life in the city, I could use "the city" with generic meaning no matter where I lived:  I like life in the country much better than life in the city.


----------



## HSS

Yes, owlman. And we'd use the capital C for 'the City.'

I'm still looking into and working on the queries in my post before last before visiting my mother in our neighborhood with my daughter.


----------



## owlman5

> Yes, owlman. And we'd use the capital C for 'the City.'


I think I've seen "City" capitalized this way before, but I wouldn't capitalize it.  Who knows?  If I wanted to publish that remark, some editor might insist on capitalization.  

To me, the capitalization of nouns like "City" reminds me of the odd  practices of the eighteenth century, when there was a lot of seemingly  random capitalization going on.   I guess the writers of the time  weren't sure whether they wanted to follow the German practice of  capitalizing all nouns.  Perhaps they only wanted to capitalize nouns  that represented ideals or abstract values.  Whatever their thinking,  this sort of thing looks odd and needless to me.


----------



## HSS

I guess I'm more than just a little bit influenced by the capitalization used for contracts where people tend to say 'the University' when they refer to their universities.

What are your thoughts on this post, Owlman?


----------



## owlman5

> Or, does pluralizing the nouns get the sentences to work better?
> 6-1. I went boating in the creeks (the rivers) on Sunday. ('The creeks/  the   rivers' never mentioned or evoked before this point. The speaker  does not mean all the creeks/ rivers located in his area. In fact, he might very well have gone boating in only one creek)​


I'd definitely believe that you traveled on more than one creek.


> 7-1. I climbing up the hills with my friends. ('The hills' never  mentioned or evoked. He does not mean all the hills located in his area.  In fact, he might very well have climbed up only one hill in his area)  (This could work in reference to the case of 'the mountains.' You would  very likely say 'the mountains' when you only climbed up one mountain.  Mountains and hills are not clearly regarded as separated entities. They  are a geographical continuum.


I'd believe that you were referring to the act of climbing at least two hills.  "They escaped into the hills" - "The hills" has a generic meaning.  "I wandered around in the hills" - "The hills" has a generic meaning.  "I climbed the hills" - I don't think you're referring to any specific hills, but I do think you are talking about more than one hill.


> 8-1. I went fishing in the lakes. ('The lakes' never mentioned or evoked. He does not mean all the lakes located in his area. In fact, he might very well have fished in only one lake)


My thoughts here are the same as they are for "hills".  These are unspecified lakes, but you fished in more than one of them.

It would be easy to overuse the "weak definite article" idea.  "I went fishing in a lake" is certainly an ordinary way of saying "I went fishing in some lake."  This would frequently be my choice in a remark about a lake whose name I couldn't remember.​


----------



## HSS

Thanks, owlman. The creeks and the lakes here --- do they have a generic meaning, though?

(And 'go boating in a creek'? 'go boating on a creek'? You said 'traveled on more than one creek.')

Much appreciated.

Hiro


----------



## HSS

This too is a weak definite article, and you can't omit them.

(There are several window panes around a room)
"Okay, go in the room and sit by *the* windows."


----------



## owlman5

You're welcome. 





> Thanks, owlman. The creeks and the lakes here --- do they have a generic meaning, though?


I suppose they do, Hiro.  You haven't mentioned any specific lake, so they're generic.  You're telling your listener that there are creeks and lakes in some region.



> (And 'go boating in a creek'? 'go boating on a creek'? You said 'traveled on more than one creek.')


That's right.  There's nothing unusual about saying "on a lake" or "on a creek" when you are talking about traveling in a boat.



> (There are several window panes around a room)
> "Okay, go in the room and sit by *the* windows."


If you and your listener can see the windows when you say this, I don't think "the windows" is really generic.  You might as well say "those windows" in that remark.  "The windows" and "those windows" have the same meaning.


----------



## HSS

So, the creeks, the hills, and the lakes work to mean some creeks, some hills and some lakes in the area. I see.

Go boating in the river/ creek ... you would also say this, wouldn't you?



> (There are several window panes around a room)
> "Okay, go in the room and sit by *the* windows."


This is more like 'Open the window' when there are more than just one window in the room. You can't sit by all the windows in the room. You can't say "Okay, go in the room and sit by windows," can you? So the choice is really "Sit by *the* windows," and the referent is not uniquely identifiable.


----------



## owlman5

> Go boating in the river/ creek ... you would also say this, wouldn't you?


I'd probably use "on the river", Hiro.  "In the river" sounds a little odd to me.



> You can't sit by all the windows in the room. You can't say "Okay, go in the room and sit by windows," can you?


That depends on where the windows are.  If there are several windows in one wall, it's certainly possible to sit by them or in front of them.

If I didn't care which window the listener sat by, I'd probably say "Go sit by a window."  I probably wouldn't use "the window" with generic meaning in this situation.


----------



## PaulQ

HSS said:


> Yes, owlman. And we'd use the capital C for 'the City.'


As an aside "the *C*ity" in financial terms means the financial services sector of the city of London. "The City marked down shares today following the typhoon in the China Seas."

It may be worth mentioning that people tend to forget that the definite article is also a demonstrative adjective/determiner that has a meaning approximate to "that which is known [to us/one]". It becomes more applicable the more known the referent is (or should or can be.) "The Eiffel Tower" is perfectly normal: even though it has not been mentioned before it can be assumed that everyone knows of it.

*The* corner of 7th and Vine is normal as we know that when two roads intersect, there will be a corner.

From HSS's earlier post: "*the* one beach attached to your area" one = only; single. Thus "that single beach, which is known to us, attached to your area" (As this is an example, "assumed" can be substituted for "known".)


----------



## HSS

owlman5 said:


> [...]
> If I didn't care which window the listener sat by, I'd probably say "Go sit by a window."  I probably wouldn't use "the window" with generic meaning in this situation.


But you would say 'Go sit by the windows' if there were several windows in each of the walls or in just one wall, wouldn't you?


----------



## owlman5

> But you would say 'Go sit by the windows' if there were several windows in each of the walls or in just one wall, wouldn't you?


I'd use that remark if the windows were in one wall.  I wouldn't use it if there were windows in different walls.  That request would be unclear.  The listener would have every right to ask "Which window do you want me to sit by?"


----------



## HSS

owlman5 said:


> I'd use that remark if the windows were in one wall.  I wouldn't use it if there were windows in different walls.  That request would be unclear.  The listener would have every right to ask "Which window do you want me to sit by?"


Ah, I see. It must be because all the windows are not equal if windows are in more than just one wall. A weak definite is used only when entities are equal. I see the light!


----------



## owlman5

I think you do, Hiro. 

If I were a naughty child and you told me to "Stand in the corner", I'd pick the nearest corner.  I'd assume that all corners were equal and that you had no preference.


----------



## HSS

Pam, you go sit by the windows. Bill, you too go sit by *them*.

Would you use the pronoun *them* here? I doubt it because the windows Pam will sit by and those Bill will sit by are not exactly the same.


----------



## Forero

I am afraid this talk of windows is getting off track a little. We say "Sit by the windows" in a specific context, such as in a particular room in a particular building. In that case "by the windows" defines a part or parts of the room in question.

Suppose there are windows in two different walls in the same room, and suppose four people are in the room and each of them is near a window, two near a window in one wall and two near a window in the another wall. We can say "Four people are sitting by the windows" because they are all near windows. This means that each one is of course sitting "by the windows" too, as opposed to "out in the middle" or "by a windowless wall".

Sitting "in the corner" is similar, but different. In a particular room, like the windows, "in the corner" defines part(s) of the room, but it has another meaning too, a place of isolation used as a punishment.


----------



## HSS

PaulQ said:


> [...]
> *The* corner of 7th and Vine is normal as we know that when two roads intersect, there will be a corner.
> [...]


There will be four corners to be exact.


----------



## HSS

Forero said:


> I am afraid this talk of windows is getting off track a little. We say "Sit by the windows" in a specific context, such as in a particular room in a particular building. In that case "by the windows" defines a part or parts of the room in question.
> 
> Suppose there are windows in two different walls in the same room, and suppose four people are in the room and each of them is near a window, two near a window in one wall and two near a window in the another wall. We can say "Four people are sitting by the windows" because they are all near windows. This means that each one is of course sitting "by the windows" too, as opposed to "out in the middle" or "by a windowless wall".
> 
> Sitting "in the corner" is similar, but different. In a particular room, like the windows, "in the corner" defines part(s) of the room, but it has another meaning too, a place of isolation used as a punishment.


Suppose there are windows in two different walls in the same room with four window panes in each of the walls, and suppose two people are in the room. One is near a window pane in one wall, and the other is near a window pane in the other. Can you say "Two people are sitting by the windows"?


----------



## HSS

Oftentimes you can't use a pronoun in place of a second weak definite, or so it is said. Does it apply here too?


> Pam, you go sit by the windows. Bill, you too go sit by *them*.
> 
> Would you use the pronoun *them* here? I doubt it because the windows Pam will sit by and those Bill will sit by are not exactly the same.


----------



## PaulQ

HSS said:


> There will be four corners to be exact.


Yes, but that is not the nuanced meaning of "a corner" which is (probably) "some windows/at least one window but, in all likelihood, several." 

Compare: 
1. "These underground rooms are depressing. Let's get out of here and find the sitting room, there has to be a window there."
2. A: "Well the Zoo was disappointing, there were no lions."
B: "If you want to see a lion, go to Africa."

As a broader point on "windows", this is a very bad noun to choose as an example because a window is 

(i) a hole in the wall to let light in or 
(ii) it is the area of glass bounded by a frame or 
(iii) it is commonly used instead of 'pane' and 
(iv) it is used for opening windows within a larger window
(v) it is used for some types of door.

I think you would have been better choosing "tree".


----------



## Forero

HSS said:


> Suppose there are windows in two different walls in the same room with four window panes in each of the walls, and suppose two people are in the room. One is near a window pane in one wall, and the other is near a window pane in the other. Can you say "Two people are sitting by the windows"?


Yes. "By the windows" is just like "in the middle" or "on the north side".





HSS said:


> Oftentimes you can't use a pronoun in place of a second weak definite, or so it is said. Does it apply here too?


I might say either "Bill, you go sit by them too" or "Bill, you too. Go sit there." In other words, I could use the pronoun "them" for "the windows", but I would not emphasize it.

I would not use "in it" for "in the middle" or "on it" for "on the north side" since "there" is simpler and "in" and "on" are rather meaningless without disambiguating objects.

"In the mountains", "on the shore", and "at the beach" are similar in that they define places in context. Looking at a map, for example, we see land, sea, and rivers. Anywhere there is land next to sea, there is "the shore", just as anywhere near the top of the map (or toward the extreme pointed to by the little arrow, or whatever) is "the north".

"On the corner" works this way too. It defines a place or places with an angle, such as the intersection of perpendicular streets.

"On the radio" is not a place but a medium (it defines how I heard the news), but it uses the definite article for essentially the same purpose.

Like "the radio", "the telephone" can refer either to a single device or to a medium. "I hung up the phone" might be used when I have placed a telephone receiver on its corresponding hook, and it might also be used when I have pressed a button or unplugged something so as to be "off the phone", i.e. disconnected. In other words, "on the telephone" is like "online". Our particular point on the network is unimportant.


----------



## HSS

PaulQ said:


> [...]
> 
> I think you would have been better choosing "tree".


Yes, I think so. But a lot of academic literature uses 'window' as an example. This is probably because when dealing with 'weak definites' they often look at 'equal service/functionality.' Windows are considered to be used to let fresh air in, or light in etc. Trees ... maybe if you think of them to get timbers etc.


----------



## HSS

Forero said:


> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oftentimes you can't use a pronoun in place of a second weak definite, or so it is said. Does it apply here too?
> Pam, you go sit by the windows. Bill, you go sit by *them* too.
> 
> 
> 
> I might say either "Bill, you go sit by them too" or "Bill, you too. Go sit there." In other words, I could use the pronoun "them" for "the windows", but I would not emphasize it.
> [...]
Click to expand...


Another question regarding its pronoun-replacability.

Would you also be able to use the 'so' form as below?

(There were ten windows there)
Pam sat by *the windows*. Tom sat by *them* too. Yes but ....
Pam sat by *the windows*. Tom did too. Yes.
Pam sat by *the windows*. So did Tom. ??? I think this receives yes.

Compare:

(There were three elevators there)
Pam went to the end of the hall and took *the elevator*. Tom took *it* too. No.
Pam went to the end of the hall, and took *the elevator*. Tom did too Yes.
Pam went to the end of the hall, and took *the elevator*. So did Tom. ??? Yes, right?


----------



## PaulQ

There are a couple of interesting papers on this subject:

"How weak and how definite are Weak Definites?" Florian Schwarz, University of Pennsylvania. _http://florianschwarz.net/wp-content/uploads/papers/WeakDefinites.pdf_

“Weak definite noun phrases: rich, but not strong, special, but not unique” Natalie M. Kleiny et al_ www.hlp.rochester.edu/publications/Klein_et_alWeakDefXPRAG.pdf_

Both are relatively small downloads.


----------



## HSS

Thanks, Paul. I've been reading a lot of papers like the ones you referred me to. As is mentioned in the literature I've read, the weak definite articles are limited to a certain group of the combinations of nouns and verbs. Some say the nouns are those that provide some service/function for the public or a wide range of people or things. My feeling is, in keeping with that, the nouns and the verbs are so generic, but how to decide its application I have no idea. Can't see the line. As is often the case,　experience is the answer, probably.


----------



## PaulQ

I think that the concept of weak and strong articles/definites is quite pointless and leads to the conclusion that, as you say, "the nouns and the verbs are so generic" that there is no real guidance possible. 

I cannot remember if I have mentioned my understanding of "the" in this thread, but I did not notice (in either of the papers) a reference to "*the*" being, essentially, a demonstrative adjective from the same root as "*that*". 

I am aware of the "linguistic fallacy" in which words are traced back to their roots to provide a modern meaning, but this is not an absolute fallacy. In the same way that we understand the phrase "*that *object" as "object *more distant in time and/or space*", we may understand "*the *noun" as "noun *which should be/ought to be/can be/is known*" and we have an explanation for the following:

"The Eiffel Tower is made of iron." -> assumes everyone knows the Eiffel Tower
"Last week we all went to the beach." -> assumes that the reference is either a previously mention (and thus known) beach or a generic and/or imaginable beach (i.e. this _type of_ beach is known) that the speaker is likely to frequent.
"The dog has run off again." -> assumes that it is known that there is a dog that is prone to running off.

In all cases we are asking the listener/reader to accept, either (i) from general or specific knowledge or (ii) upon our word, that there is such a thing.


----------

