A/the - specificity

Question

- Tim sat down on the chair nearest to the door

and

- There was a piano in the corner of the room

Both examples were taken from E. Murphy's English Grammar In Use book. Why in the first case we have the, and in the second - a?

Avangi · Accepted Answer

Anonymous- Tim sat down on the chair nearest to the door
and
- There was a piano in the corner of the room

In terms of meaning, the first sentence describes a particular chair (a definite chair).
The purpose of the sentence is to tell us which chair.

The purpose of the second sentence is to tell us what was in the corner.

If we say, "I wiped the table with a damp rag," why don't we say ". . . . with THE damp rag"?

Well, we could. It's a question of "prior context."

Without any being presented, we would have to assume that the reader knows which damp rag we're talking about.

Edit.A clincher which I entended to mention but forgot:

The use of the superlative, "nearest" can only refer to a single chair. Only one specific chair can be "nearest."

"A nearest chair" would imply that there are several. It's both illogical and ungrammatical.

Andrey Balaguta · Answer

Please look at the following examples:

- Tim sat down on the chair nearest to the door.

- There was a piano in the corner of the room.

Both sentences were taken from R. Murphy's English Grammar In Use book (in different places of the book). Could you explain, why in the first case we use "the", and in the second "a"? Both seem to me semantically identical.
m.in.ua

Avangi · Answer

Andrey BalagutaBoth seem to me semantically identical.

Welcome to English Forums, Andrey.

Are you by chance the original (Anonymous) poster in this thread?

(It doesn't really matter.)

Do you feel that both "a" and "the" may be used in both examples?

If not, which article would you use for the both of them?

Best regards, - A.

Anonymous · Answer

AvangiThe purpose of the sentence is to tell us which chair.

The purpose of the second sentence is to tell us what was in the corner.

So in the first case we're implicitly defining the chair, and in the second - in some sense - we're defining the corner, not the piano? Is that what you mean? Oh, this is really hard to distinct these things sometimes

AvangiThe use of the superlative, "nearest" can only refer to a single chair. Only one specific chair can be "nearest."

"A nearest chair" would imply that there are several. It's both illogical and ungrammatical.

Oh, now I see. There's even specific rule pointed out - when there's only one of something, use the. Thanks!

Andrey Balaguta · Answer

Yeah, that was me, sorry for some duplication, just can't get my login working correctly.

In these examples yes, it is clear, thanks! It seemed to me that I should use "the piano" earlier.

Avangi · Answer

Anonymouswe're defining the corner, not the piano? . . . . There's even specific rule pointed out - when there's only one of something, use the.

Andrey Balaguta It seemed to me that I should use "the piano" earlier.

I'm afraid that "specific rule" would not be very reliable!
The choice often depends on our intention. What meaning do we intend to convey.

"A" is called the "indefinite article," and "the" is called the "definite article."

Join us at the table, if you can find a chair.

This is a big table. There may be three empty chairs, and there may be none. In making this invitation, we don't know how many chairs there are, and we don't really care. We certainly don't have a particular (definite) chair in mind.

Join us at the table, if you can find a space/spot. (any space!)

Join us at the table, if you can find the room. (Again, we don't know if any room/space exists.)

Why do we use "the"? Because we have defined "room" as the specific amount of space necessary for someone to join us at the table.

Tim sat down on the chair nearest to the door.

I assume you titled your thread "specificity" for a reason.

There can be only one specific chair which is nearest to the door. This sentence refers to a definite chair.

Tim sat down on a chair near the door. There may be several chairs which are near the door.

Tim sat down on one of the chairs near the door. (There are several chairs near the door.)

This refers to a definite group of chairs.

You can see that your rule of one is not very reliable.

Tim sat down on a chair which suited his needs. (There may have been several which suited him.)

Tim sat down on the chair which [best] suited his needs. (There was only one which suited him.)

By changing the article, we change the meaning of the sentence.

Tim sat down at the piano and started to play. Tim can play the piano well.

Tim picked up a flute and started to play. Tim can play the flute well.

"Tim can play a flute well" is also possible, but less common. (same meaning)

Tim saw a flute lying on the table. Tim picked up the flute and started to play.

Tim noticed that there was a piano in the corner of the room.

Tim noticed that the piano had been moved into a/the corner of the room.

CalifJim · Answer

Anonymous- Tim sat down on the chair nearest to the door
- There was a piano in the corner of the room
...

Why in the first case we have the, and in the second - a?In the first sentence the existence of the chair is presupposed. The use of 'the' indicates that the speaker believes that the words 'the chair nearest to the door' specifies which chair without ambiguity. He believes that by his use of these words the listener will know exactly which chair he is referring to.

The second sentence contains "existential there", that is, the "There is/are/was/were" construction. This construction almost never takes a definite expression (e.g., one with the). The whole purpose of this construction is to call the listener's attention to the existence of an example of something at a particular place. This sentence does not presuppose the existence of the piano. The central message is that a piano exists (can be found) in the corner of the room. There is therefore no need to say anything to indicate which particular piano it is - as opposed to any other piano.

The difference is between saying words that help identify which thing we're talking about (the) and saying words that merely point out that an instance of some thing exists somewhere (a, an).

CJ

Andrey Balaguta · Answer

Avangi, CalifJim, thank you both very much! It is a little bit clearer now. Now I see that all these specific rules in grammar books we see about articles just help us to define this distinction between specific and non-specific. In my language (russian) it is implied, so we never give a thought about it.

Anonymous · Answer

Faqir Muhammad SurhioFrom PakistanPlease guide me if I'm correctBothA and B answerscan be correct according to the situationExample 1There are two chairs in the room which  are nearest to the door.So the sentence"Ali sat on a chair nearest to the door" would mean(There were two chairs nearest to the door and Ali sat on one of them)Example 2There are three or four chairs in the room but only one chair is nearest to the door and Ali sat on it.So the sentence"Ali sat on the chair nearest to the door"Would mean( There were three or four chairs in the room but Ali sat on only one chair which was nearest to the door)

A/the - specificity

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions