Use of the definite article

Try changing the 'in' following research to 'of'.

I don't think the definite article is necessary here to be honest. You immediately mention neuroscience, so that in itself specifies which discipline of science your research is aimed at.

The definite article "the"

In the sentence, "Although I had been following research in neuroscience, my colleague Susan Stephenson first suggested that I start thinking about what that research might really mean for child development," do not use the definite article "the." Your sentence is correct as presented.

Writing "the research" would mean you were referring to research already known to the reader, perhaps from a prior sentence. "Mayo Clinic's research into neuroscience has been very helpful. Although I had been following the research, my colleague [...]"

Using no article at all tells readers the research you mean is (thus far in your esssay) general, non-specific, and previously unmentioned. You will naturally and fluently add "the" later in the essay when the reader's reference is clear, just as you naturally and fluently wrote "that research" later in the same sentence.

And speaking of "that," you have two of them in the sentence. This is a good word to consider removing from time to time. Its first appearance introduces a clause after the main verb ("...suggested that I begin thinking...") and is 100 percent correct. But muscular, modern American syntax encourages a writer striving for concinnity to eliminate it when no confusion would result. It's an option, not a requirement, but it's fun to try it and see if you lose anything.

Cheerio.

SpiderGal said:

Thanks.

I have to also ask why we use "the" when referring to musical instruments as in "I am going to learn to play the piano.". Why not say "I am going to learn to play piano?"

Click to expand...

It's a habit, probably from family, region, or other language group. Many of us say "I play piano." Myself, I play flute. Some editors (we call them a nasty name, "prescriptivists") will ask for a prior reference before letting you write "the piano," demanding, "Well, which piano?"

Here's a just-one-of-those-things: Notice Americans say "Mom's in the hospital," and Brits say "Mom's in hospital." And we both say "Agatha's in school."

Now get busy on that manuscript and leave the editing to editors!

Cheerio.

"I have been following research in neuroscience" and "I have been following the research in neuroscience" are both possible, but I'd read them a bit differently. The difference isn't easy to explain, though, and I may have got it all wrong in the first place. So bear with me and be wary.

Consider the following sentences:

A) My cat is hunting brids in my garden.
B) My cat is hunting the birds in my garden.

In (A) "in my garden" is adverbial to "is hunting": [Subject[My cat] verb[is hunting] object[birds] adverbial[in my garden.]]

In (B) "in my garden" defines the birds: [Subject[My cat] verb[is hunting] object[the birds in my garden.]]

I think the difference between "research in neuroscience" and "the research in neuroscience" is similar. The effect, for me, is that you're making a stronger claim if you add the "the": you're claiming to be an expert; you have followed the research. Whereas if you leave out the "the", it sounds more non-commital. You don't make the research specific; you've been following research, which happens to be in neuroscience.

I may be totally off there, though. It's just a hunch.

Dawnstorm said:

Consider the following sentences:

A) My cat is hunting brids in my garden.
B) My cat is hunting the birds in my garden.

In (A) "in my garden" is adverbial to "is hunting": [Subject[My cat] verb[is hunting] object[birds] adverbial[in my garden.]]

In (B) "in my garden" defines the birds: [Subject[My cat] verb[is hunting] object[the birds in my garden.]]

I think the difference between "research in neuroscience" and "the research in neuroscience" is similar. The effect, for me, is that you're making a stronger claim if you add the "the": you're claiming to be an expert; you have followed the research. Whereas if you leave out the "the", it sounds more non-commital. You don't make the research specific; you've been following research, which happens to be in neuroscience.

I may be totally off there, though. It's just a hunch.

Click to expand...

Hi, Dawn -- I'm not sure the implication of "expertise" is carried in the grammar. Using "the" creates a definite reference (hence the name, definite article) to a specific thing. Expertise, you are right, clearly develops from "reading the research," that is, reading research previously mentioned or known to the reader. Expertise is implied more by the sentence's content and meaning and less from its grammar, methinks.

In sentence A, see if you might agree "in" is best described as a preposition. And, as written, the prepositional phrase "in my garden" might easily describe the position of either the subject (my cat) or the position of the object (birds). It's ambiguous.

In sentence B, "in" remains a preposition. Adding a definite article to the object makes it "definite" which birds your cat hunts. Your mean old tom is hunting the birds in your garden (and not hunting the birds on your roof).

You are absolutely right: even very small changes in grammar can create large alterations in meaning. Adding a little old "the" can spell the difference between a cat who's in the garden and a bird that isn't, anymore. Cheep! Cheep! Che..!

And cheerio.

Old Word Wolf said:

Hi, Dawn -- I'm not sure the implication of "expertise" is carried in the grammar. Using "the" creates a definite reference (hence the name, definite article) to a specific thing. Expertise, you are right, clearly develops from "reading the research," that is, reading research previously mentioned or known to the reader. Expertise is implied more by the sentence's content and meaning and less from its grammar, methinks.

Click to expand...

Agree with everything you said, here.

A lot depends on situations. For example (and this is testable) I'd expect more people to ask "what research?" if you leave out the "the".

In sentence A, see if you might agree "in" is best described as a preposition. And, as written, the prepositional phrase "in my garden" might easily describe the position of either the subject (my cat) or the position of the object (birds). It's ambiguous.

Click to expand...

Again, I agree. Actually, I'd say that "in my garden" is a prepositional phrase in both sentences, but that it's an adverbial phrase (defined through sentence function rather than word type of the head) in A, and an adjectival phrase in B; or that it modifies the verb in A, and that it modifies the noun in B (terminology I'd prefer, actually, so I shouldn't have said "adverbial", heh).

As to the ambiguity, you're right again, except that - sorry for being nit-picky - it's not the position of the cat, but the position of the action of hunting. If you want the position of the cat your only option is, "The cat in my garden is hunting the birds," as the modifier ought to be part of the noun-phrase. There may be exceptions I can't think of right now, of course.

In sentence B, "in" remains a preposition. Adding a definite article to the object makes it "definite" which birds your cat hunts. Your mean old tom is hunting the birds in your garden (and not hunting the birds on your roof).

Click to expand...

Actually, if "the birds" refers to previously defined birds, "in my garden" could still be read as modifying "hunting"....

That's why context is always important, I suppose.

You are absolutely right: even very small changes in grammar can create large alterations in meaning. Adding a little old "the" can spell the difference between a cat who's in the garden and a bird that isn't, anymore. Cheep! Cheep! Che..!

Click to expand...

And the amazing thing is that most people get it right until they start thinking about grammar. But perhaps that isn't so amazing after all.

One use of "the" is to communicate that our noun is specific (this research) rather than general (all research). A second use is reference to a concept that has been previously introduced (first vs. subsequent mention). I believe your sentence is an instance of the first type, and "the research" would most properly communicate the specificity the sentence requires.

See http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/esl/eslart.html

The definite article is used before singular and plural nouns when the noun is particular or specific. The signals that the noun is definite, that it refers to a particular member of a group.


If we're not following all the research there is, or even all the research there is in neuroscience, but only that research in neuroscience with a possible application in child development, then we are talking about a specific instance of all the research; a definite something. A definite something takes the definite article.

My problem with the sentence was actually with the verb. What does it mean to 'follow research'? I honestly didn't know if you meant you had been pursuing a profession in research or reading some journals to keep up with it. On the definite article, I agree that it depends how big your claim is. 'The research' implies all of it, whereas 'research' could just mean some of it.