I get this question often at work and it seems better suited for linguists than grammarians. Is there evidence to suggest that there is a difference between the following phrases:
I invited the man in a red sweater.
I invited the man in the red sweater.
I think the last sentence is correct (at least in American usage), because it seems more of a restrictive sense, i.e., to identify the man. Using a in the first sentence seems to suggest a non-defining role, like as a casual comment — when used right. I don't have any sources that back this up; I'm guessing. Does anyone agree, disagree, or can offer evidence?
the man in a/the sweater
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
the man in a/the sweater
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To me,
I invited the man in a red sweater.
Implies that I invited a man who happened to be wearing a red sweater. No real information given, or implied that you the listener know who I am talking about.
I invited the man in the red sweater.
Implies I invited a man in THE red sweater. As in, you the listener, and I the speaker, are both aware of which red sweater I am speaking.
The above was GOING to be my response, until I noticed the 'the' before man in the first sentence.
I invited the man in a red sweater.
The use of 'the' implies shared knowledge between the speaker and listener.
I took the car to work. (You and I both know which car)
I took a car to work. (I took a car, but you don't know which one necesarilly)
So when I see "I invited the man in a red sweater" and only focus on the "a red sweater", it seems that we're talking about something nondescript. however, the entire noun phrase "man in a red sweater" is defined by "the", which would seem to imply we both know which man we are talking about.
I think therefore that I would never actually say the first sentence. If I were talking about a random man I invited I would say:
"I invited a man in a red sweater".
I invited the man in a red sweater.
Implies that I invited a man who happened to be wearing a red sweater. No real information given, or implied that you the listener know who I am talking about.
I invited the man in the red sweater.
Implies I invited a man in THE red sweater. As in, you the listener, and I the speaker, are both aware of which red sweater I am speaking.
The above was GOING to be my response, until I noticed the 'the' before man in the first sentence.
I invited the man in a red sweater.
The use of 'the' implies shared knowledge between the speaker and listener.
I took the car to work. (You and I both know which car)
I took a car to work. (I took a car, but you don't know which one necesarilly)
So when I see "I invited the man in a red sweater" and only focus on the "a red sweater", it seems that we're talking about something nondescript. however, the entire noun phrase "man in a red sweater" is defined by "the", which would seem to imply we both know which man we are talking about.
I think therefore that I would never actually say the first sentence. If I were talking about a random man I invited I would say:
"I invited a man in a red sweater".
That was what I was thinking. Are you British? I ask because when I get lots of questions about something conflicting with what I previously thought or advised, it usually turns out to be a British-American difference.
Apparently the Taiwanese Ministry of Education has insisted on this usage before (the first sentence), and our company gets questions from non-native teachers as well, so I just don't know if something's out there that I'm not aware of or if it's just a misunderstanding widely expounded — which can happen in foreign countries. They sometimes ask for evidence to justify our edits (while rarely providing any of their own).
I thought Metal's link to the British Corpus was great, but for some reason, I can't use it at work. Is there a similar link that I can try at work?
http://view.byu.edu/
Apparently the Taiwanese Ministry of Education has insisted on this usage before (the first sentence), and our company gets questions from non-native teachers as well, so I just don't know if something's out there that I'm not aware of or if it's just a misunderstanding widely expounded — which can happen in foreign countries. They sometimes ask for evidence to justify our edits (while rarely providing any of their own).
I thought Metal's link to the British Corpus was great, but for some reason, I can't use it at work. Is there a similar link that I can try at work?
http://view.byu.edu/
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simple:
There were a number of men at the bar and I invited the one in a red sweater.
There were a number of men at the bar and I invited one who was wearing a red sweater.
There were a number of men wearing sweaters at the bar and I invited the one in the red sweater.
*There were a number of men at the bar and I invited one who was wearing the red sweater.
There were a number of men at the bar and I invited the one in a red sweater.
There were a number of men at the bar and I invited one who was wearing a red sweater.
There were a number of men wearing sweaters at the bar and I invited the one in the red sweater.
*There were a number of men at the bar and I invited one who was wearing the red sweater.
Could you build a short example dialogue that would include "I invited the man in the read sweater."? It may help us know what went before. What was said, or took place, just before that sentence?jotham wrote:Hm, maybe this is British. I would still be inclined to say the man in the red sweater, whether or not there were other men wearing sweaters and I needed to specify which sweater.
Well, there wasn't any context. The actual sentence they asked me about was this:
I like the doll in the white skirt.
Teachers wanted to know if it were possible to read:
I like the doll in a white skirt.
I'm sure there is a context in a story somewhere, and then they develop exercises based on it.
Maybe a context would be a daughter with her mom in a toy store:
Mommy, I want a doll.
Which one do you want?
I want the doll in a white skirt.
I told them a year ago to use the structure I prefer and explained above, so our textbooks do that now, but the government committee and teachers intermittently challenge us and ask for evidence, apparently. It keeps coming up. I usually can provide them justification, but it is hard to prove something wrong if we native speakers don't really say it. I used Google for "a/the man in a/the sweater" and it pretty much backs up what I was saying.
I like the doll in the white skirt.
Teachers wanted to know if it were possible to read:
I like the doll in a white skirt.
I'm sure there is a context in a story somewhere, and then they develop exercises based on it.
Maybe a context would be a daughter with her mom in a toy store:
Mommy, I want a doll.
Which one do you want?
I want the doll in a white skirt.
I told them a year ago to use the structure I prefer and explained above, so our textbooks do that now, but the government committee and teachers intermittently challenge us and ask for evidence, apparently. It keeps coming up. I usually can provide them justification, but it is hard to prove something wrong if we native speakers don't really say it. I used Google for "a/the man in a/the sweater" and it pretty much backs up what I was saying.
<Mommy, I want a doll.
Which one do you want?
I want the doll in a white skirt. >
For me, that's the same as the situations I explained above.
Mommy, I want a doll.
Which one do you want?
I want the doll in a white skirt. (There may be dolls wearing other items of clothes apart from skirts or naked dolls, i.e. the girl is thinking "clothes".)
Mommy, I want a doll.
Which one do you want?
I want the doll in the white skirt. (There are dolls with other colours of skirt, i.e. the girl is thinking "skirts".)
In this context:
*?I want the doll in a white skirt, not the one in a red skirt.
I want the doll in the white skirt, not the one in the red skirt.
Which one do you want?
I want the doll in a white skirt. >
For me, that's the same as the situations I explained above.
Mommy, I want a doll.
Which one do you want?
I want the doll in a white skirt. (There may be dolls wearing other items of clothes apart from skirts or naked dolls, i.e. the girl is thinking "clothes".)
Mommy, I want a doll.
Which one do you want?
I want the doll in the white skirt. (There are dolls with other colours of skirt, i.e. the girl is thinking "skirts".)
In this context:
*?I want the doll in a white skirt, not the one in a red skirt.
I want the doll in the white skirt, not the one in the red skirt.
Contextman
Hey all!
I personally would not use the indefinite article as presented in
"I invited the man in a red sweater."
because there is one particular man and he is wearing a particular red sweater when I invite him. Thus the use of "the". Also thinking about parallelism.
In the case of the doll, if I hear
"I want the doll in a white skirt."
I would understand
"I want you to put the white skirt on the doll before you give it to me."
Perhaps the first might mean
"I invited the man the day that I was wearing a red sweater."
I don't remember what he was wearing.
peace,
revel.
I personally would not use the indefinite article as presented in
"I invited the man in a red sweater."
because there is one particular man and he is wearing a particular red sweater when I invite him. Thus the use of "the". Also thinking about parallelism.
In the case of the doll, if I hear
"I want the doll in a white skirt."
I would understand
"I want you to put the white skirt on the doll before you give it to me."
Perhaps the first might mean
"I invited the man the day that I was wearing a red sweater."
I don't remember what he was wearing.
peace,
revel.
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
Substitute "that" for "the":
Looking in a toyshop window
I want that doll in a red skirt.
I want that doll in that red skirt.
In the first case only the doll is in the universe shared by speaker and listener.
In the second case both doll and skirt are in the shared universe. The speaker supposes that the listener has mentally registered the skirt.
Same goes for the man and the sweater.
Looking in a toyshop window
I want that doll in a red skirt.
I want that doll in that red skirt.
In the first case only the doll is in the universe shared by speaker and listener.
In the second case both doll and skirt are in the shared universe. The speaker supposes that the listener has mentally registered the skirt.
Same goes for the man and the sweater.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
WARNING: If you are under the age of eighteen years you should not read the following explanation. Log off immediately and go back to play with Barbie or GI Joe.
A set of girls are having a hen party. After the evening in the pub they are going back to a friend's house to continue the merriment. One of the girls remarks, "Oh, I've invited somebody back".
"Who?"
a) "The waiter with the big dick."
Now the use of the two definite articles here suggest that both the waiter and his appendage are known to the gaggle of girls.
b) "The waiter with a big dick."
The use of the first definite article suggests that the waiter is known to the girls (presumably it's one from the pub), but that the size of his appendage (and thus which waiter it is) is not known by anybody apart from the girl who did the inviting.
c) "A waiter with a big dick."
Now the waiter could be any waiter in any establishment and none but the person who invited him may have met him before or known of his existence.
End of adult zone: little girls and boys may once again come out to play.
A set of girls are having a hen party. After the evening in the pub they are going back to a friend's house to continue the merriment. One of the girls remarks, "Oh, I've invited somebody back".
"Who?"
a) "The waiter with the big dick."
Now the use of the two definite articles here suggest that both the waiter and his appendage are known to the gaggle of girls.
b) "The waiter with a big dick."
The use of the first definite article suggests that the waiter is known to the girls (presumably it's one from the pub), but that the size of his appendage (and thus which waiter it is) is not known by anybody apart from the girl who did the inviting.
c) "A waiter with a big dick."
Now the waiter could be any waiter in any establishment and none but the person who invited him may have met him before or known of his existence.
End of adult zone: little girls and boys may once again come out to play.
Applying the knowledge we have gained from the previous example, it is clear that both sentences are correct. The use of 'the' is suggestive that the mother paid attention to the red skirt or that it is clearly visible to the shop assistant, whilst the use of 'a' does not suggest this shared intimacy. Obviously as skirts are normally more visible than male sexual organs the difference in this example is not as clear, but both sentences are correct and I would say that in most contexts either could be used.I like the doll in the white skirt.
Teachers wanted to know if it were possible to read:
I like the doll in a white skirt.
And I get in censured for saying the author of Great Expectations.
Hm, I've not heard this before. Revel and Jimbobob seem to agree with me. Juan and Stephen seem to be saying one thing (shared knowledge), and Metal another (distinguishing between sweaters). I've not heard this before. If I knew the doll had a wooden leg and no one else did, I would still say, "the doll with the wooden leg." I might expect a reply like "Which doll is that?" or "One of them has a wooden leg?" But I wouldn't change my language because I was aware someone wasn't aware. Can you cite me any reference talking about it? Is there evidence in the Corpus? Could it be a dialect, or is it Standard? British or American? At any rate, these nuances of meaning are probably beyond the scope of our elementary students. Any other opinions?
Hm, I've not heard this before. Revel and Jimbobob seem to agree with me. Juan and Stephen seem to be saying one thing (shared knowledge), and Metal another (distinguishing between sweaters). I've not heard this before. If I knew the doll had a wooden leg and no one else did, I would still say, "the doll with the wooden leg." I might expect a reply like "Which doll is that?" or "One of them has a wooden leg?" But I wouldn't change my language because I was aware someone wasn't aware. Can you cite me any reference talking about it? Is there evidence in the Corpus? Could it be a dialect, or is it Standard? British or American? At any rate, these nuances of meaning are probably beyond the scope of our elementary students. Any other opinions?
Are the doll and skirt attached? Is the doll wearing the skirt?I want that doll in that red skirt.
Are all these possible?
Suzy: I want the doll in a red skirt.
Mum: OK, I'll get the doll for you and ask the assistant to dress the doll in the red skirt.
Suzy: I want the doll in a red skirt, not the one in a blue skirt!
Mum: OK, calm down. I'll get the doll wearing the red skirt.
Suzy: I want the doll in the red skirt, not the one in the blue skirt!
Mum: OK, calm down. I'll get the doll wearing the red skirt.
Suzy: I want the doll in the red skirt, not the one in the blue skirt!
Mum: OK, calm down. I'll get the doll wearing a red skirt.
Last edited by metal56 on Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
No problem. That would be pointing out the uniqueness of the doll, which is what "the" is often used for.If I knew the doll had a wooden leg and no one else did, I would still say, "the doll with the wooden leg."
You seem to be trying to force one solid rule here, but as you have seen, there are diverse opinions on usage with this issue. Tell your students that.
Jotham - I'm from the U.S.
After reading some replies, I can think of a few situations where I would mix determiners, like in "The man in a red shirt". However, to me, these have to be specific contexts, where the first object is known, and the second isn't.
In most contexts I can think of, you and the speaker would either share the whole knowledge
we both know which man and we both know which shirt =
"The man in the red shirt"
Or The listener isn't expected to know either one (Or maybe even I don't):
"I invited a man in a red shirt"
Some examples where I would mix, include:
Using the doll example, if I were having my doll re-dressed by some professional doll 'guy' (bear with me here, I'm stretching) I might say:
I want the doll in a red dress.
Meaning - I want the doll (It's my doll, you and I both know which doll I mean) in a red dress (I don't know what dress, just want it red, you decide and put it on the doll please).
So basically, It all comes down to circumstances. We can come up with lots of examples to mix determiners, use the same ones, whatever, but it DOES change the meaning I believe, and depends on context. Good luck getting that across to whomever you need to explain it to.
After reading some replies, I can think of a few situations where I would mix determiners, like in "The man in a red shirt". However, to me, these have to be specific contexts, where the first object is known, and the second isn't.
In most contexts I can think of, you and the speaker would either share the whole knowledge
we both know which man and we both know which shirt =
"The man in the red shirt"
Or The listener isn't expected to know either one (Or maybe even I don't):
"I invited a man in a red shirt"
Some examples where I would mix, include:
Using the doll example, if I were having my doll re-dressed by some professional doll 'guy' (bear with me here, I'm stretching) I might say:
I want the doll in a red dress.
Meaning - I want the doll (It's my doll, you and I both know which doll I mean) in a red dress (I don't know what dress, just want it red, you decide and put it on the doll please).
So basically, It all comes down to circumstances. We can come up with lots of examples to mix determiners, use the same ones, whatever, but it DOES change the meaning I believe, and depends on context. Good luck getting that across to whomever you need to explain it to.