Skip to main content

Use (or non-use) of articles before abstract nouns


I know I have asked a similar question before but this time I have examples taken from COCA and they do puzzle me. I would love to hear explanations from native speakers.


The following (incomplete) sentences taken from COCA show three different ways of article usage before "reduction of something".


(1) $1.5 billion could be used for things like restoration of fish and wildlife, the reduction of mercury pollution and greenhouse gas reduction.


(2) Fasting imposes a reduction of calorie intake, which is particularly significant if the hours of darkness are few


(3) A key goal of the optimization phase is reduction of communication over-head via a range of techniques, including execution of communication in parallel


Can you say "a reduction of mercury pollution" instead of "the reduction of mercury pollution" in (1)? Likewise, can you say "the reduction of calorie intake" instead of "a reduction of calorie intake" in (2)? If you can, what difference in meaning would that make in each case?


My guess is that, in using "a", the speaker (or writer) has in mind some image of what is to be reduced, whereas in using "the", the speaker (or writer) has in mind more of the fact of reduction itself than what is to be reduced, lacking a better description.


Even if my guess is right, (3) still remains to be explained. Is the lack of article before "reduction of communications over-head" a case of ellipsis? If not, why don't you need an article here as in the other two examples? What difference does the absence of an article make in comparison with "the reduction of communication over-head" or "a reduction of (in) communication over-head"? Can you or should you use "a" or "the" in this case?


In addition, there is another issue in (1). There is no article in front of "restoration". Why is there no article here, whereas there is a definite article in front of "reduction"?




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more