Specificity

Question

Could you please just tell me how to use "the" article with uncountable nouns? the problem of specificity? how to define specificity? what is specificity?

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

'Specificity' means that the noun is a specific one known to both speaker and listener.

The sugar in the bowl is old and caked. Which sugar? Not just any sugar, but the specific sugar in the bowl.

The other main use of the article is for 'previous mention': the noun has been mentioned before in the context:

I bought sugar and milk today. The sugar is in the sugar bowl and the milk is in the refrigerator.

Anonymous · Answer

However there are some special context that we have to determine if there is specificity.

for example:

The building is in danger of collapsing.

Why "the" article is not used before "danger", even though the danger is specific enough to mean which one?

We know this danger belongs to the building. Isn't it specific enough?

CalifJim · Answer

There are hundreds of expressions that consist of a preposition and a noun without an article. in danger is one of them. One of the most likely places to find an uncountable noun without an article is after a preposition.

She jumped for joy.
They took the item on approval.
We were in danger.
She sighed in resignation.
He beamed with pride.
They reacted with laughter.
They acted under duress.
He struck the table with force.
We are in doubt about it.

... in sympathy, above board, in fear, above suspicion, under investigation, in progress, with concern, ...

to be of use / of assistance / of interest

It's made of cardboard / wood / gold.

a bottle of wine, a piece of bread, a cup of flour

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you, CalifJim.

Doesn't it contravene the rule of article/specificity?

Anonymous · Answer

But sometimes, to me, it is quite difficult to differentiate between general and specific references.

What I am meaning is like the following...

1. Danger of collapsing is everywhere. (this danger is general, any danger, I can understand this)

2. The building was in danger of collapsing last night. (this danger is limited, related to this building only, happened last night only, but still general, this is where I do not understand)

My problem is why the second danger is still not specific or limited enough?

I nearly lost my hope and wanted to give up learning it.

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousDoesn't it contravene the rule of article/specificity?

Perhaps it does, but that's because it's a special idiom "in danger of" that doesn't follow the rules.

"in danger of (happening)" means "dangerously near to (happening)", "at risk (for something to happen)", "about to happen" (said of a possible undesirable result). The words after "in danger of" describe the awful result that could happen. The focus is on the result of the dangerous situation.

"the danger of (something)" means "the danger inherent in (something)", "the danger associated with (something). The words after "the danger of" describe the thing that is dangerous. They say what is dangerous. The focus is on the identity of the danger.

For example:

Although they didn't know it, drivers of the Ford Bronco were in danger of rollovers.
[These drivers risked rollovers. The result might have been a rollover.]

Ford's testing with the Bronco discovered the danger of rollovers.
[Rollovers were the dangerous thing that was discovered.]

And:

The ambassador believes that nuclear weapons are in danger of proliferating to other states.
[It looks like nuclear weapons are about to proliferate to other states. This would be a dangerous result.]

The need to eliminate nuclear weapons lies in the danger of these weapons proliferating to other states.
[The proliferation of nuclear weapons to other states is itself the danger.]

And:

Those who play recklessly with fireworks put themselves in danger of fires and explosions.

[They risk the result. There could be fires or explosions as a result of their reckless play.]

The Acme Fireworks Company is striving for a reduction in the danger of fires and explosions from its products.
[Fires and explosions are the danger they wish to reduce.]

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousI nearly lost my hope and wanted to give up learning it.

Don't lose hope! Help is on the way!

The danger of collapsing is everywhere. Collapsing is identified as the danger.

The building is in danger of collapsing. There is a risk that a collapse of the building will happen, maybe soon. The collapse is the unfortunate result that will happen.

After an earthquake we need to protect ourselves from the danger of collapsing buildings because at that time many buildings are in danger of collapsing.

Anonymouswhy the second danger is still not specific or limited enough?

In this case it has very little, if anything, to do with what is specific or limited. It has to do with the idiom "in danger (of)" which has a special meaning having to do with the risk that a certain result could happen or is about to happen.

See my previous post.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

CalifJim"the danger of (something)" means "the danger inherent in (something)", "the danger associated with (something). The words after "the danger of" describe the thing that is dangerous. They say what is dangerous. The focus is on the identity of the danger.

Thank you for your further elucidation, CalifJim.

I think you have clear my perplexity. You are kind-hearted, thank you.

The identity is the deciding factor in determining whether a writer/speaker should use "the" article or not.

For example:

After an earthquake we need to protect ourselves from the danger of collapsing buildings because at that time many buildings are in danger of collapsing.

Actually, both the type/class of the dangers above is specified with the prepositional phrase - of collapsing (buildings).

However, we use "the" in the first danger because the context forces us to identify which/what type of danger we need protect from. With the prepositional phrase, of collapsing buildings, we can identify the type/class of the danger. Thus, the prepositional phrase is defining because the listener/reader knows which people or things we are talking about.

On the other hand, the same prepositional phrase with the second danger also specifies the type/class of the danger, but the focus is not on the type/class of the danger, its focus is on something else. According to the context, I would say the focus is on the existence of a state of danger, regardless of what/which type of danger.

Sorry about my disagreement on this point, because I beg to differ.

That explains why:

1. Pasta's basic ingredients are flour and water, sometimes with the addition of eggs or oil. (Because the context is concerned with ingredients, so the types/ingredients of the addition are the focus here, so "the" is needed for specific identification)

2. There is (a) danger of collapsing everywhere. (the focus is on the existence of danger)

Thanks again, CalifJim.

Specificity

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions