1

Just worked with Collins Dictionary and found this phrase:

He often chose to take the role of defender in the expectation of launching a successful counterattack.

Why is there no article before 'defender'? It is a singular countable noun, not determined by other determiners. I simply can't get my head around it.

Improve this question
11
  • 2
    "Defender" is here called a 'bare role' noun phrase, one that lacks a determiner. Such NPs denote some kind of role, office, or position. Compare "Ed was elected treasurer" / Kim became president".
    – BillJ
    Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 16:55
  • The taste of apple in the wine (generic taste). The taste of the apple in the wine (specific apple).
    – Lambie
    Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 17:08
  • @Lambie: That's interesting. Is it a property of taste? The smell of apple works as well, and the texture of apple, but I'm not sure about the look of apple or the sound of apple. I'm also not sure about the taste of pea, or the taste of cashew nut, which suggest to me that this might be more about the possible use of some foods as uncountable.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 17:18
  • @ColinFine Of course, look and sound don't work. My point was only about apple and the apple. The sound of music [in the town] was very loud. versus: The sound of the music coming from the hall was very loud. Again, generic versus specific. Of course, I am sure you can find exceptions, but still....
    – Lambie
    Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 17:23
  • 1
    @Lambie, as BillJ points out, in this case, apple is non-count, so it is not the same.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 23:25

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
2

He often chose to take the role of defender in the expectation of launching a successful counterattack.

"Defender" is here called a 'bare role' noun phrase, one that lacks a determiner. Such NPs denote some kind of role, office, or position.

Compare Ed was elected treasurer / Kim became president.

Improve this answer
9
  • Dear sir, the phrase in question is "the role of defender". So if your example "treasurer" is taken, and these sentences are created, 1. [Ed was offered the role of treasurer], 2. [Ed was offered the role of the treasurer], 3. [Ed was offered the role of a treasurer]: does the rule of "no articles" before "bare role noun phrase" apply?
    – banuyayi
    Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 17:44
  • Yes, but a determiner can be optionally added. For example, "I'd like to be treasurer" and "I'd like to be the treasurer" are both OK
    – BillJ
    Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 18:04
  • But a determiner cannot be added if the NP is object: "I'd like to meet the treasurer" is OK, but not "*I'd like to meet treasurer".
    – BillJ
    Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 18:08
  • You do not answer: The role of defender is important in football. versus The role of defenders in football is important. Yes, the first is a bare noun but it does not explain the difference between having a determiner and not having one which can only be shown contrastively and semantically.
    – Lambie
    Commented Oct 15, 2022 at 19:37
  • It's a matter of syntax. If it was a matter of contrast or semantics, bare role NPs could occur freely within a clause. But in fact they are restricted to predicative complements of verbs like "be" and "become", as oblique predicatives governed by "as, and as complement of the prep "of" following nouns like "part", "position" or "role" as seen in the original example.
    – BillJ
    Commented Oct 16, 2022 at 7:45
-1

Learning what actually works:

  1. The role of defender in football can be very important. [a general statement]

  2. The role of the defender in that game was crucial. [that specific defender]

This does not involve countability or not. It involves specificity and generality.

  1. The role of defenders in football can be very important. has the same meaning as 1)

Other examples:
The role of mother is a hard one. [a general idea]
The role of mothers in our school is complicated. [general idea]

The role of the mother in that play is quite interesting. [specific]

Although there can always be exceptions, the structure of the examples above are very common. And, it does not matter about countability.

What matters is generality and specificity in an actual sentence.

The singular has been called a bare noun. Fine, but that does not explain the difference in meanings.

Improve this answer
-2

"Defender", "counterattack", these two words point towards multiplayer ball sports.

Why not "the defender"

In these sports, there are multiple defenders. So the definite article was not used with "defender". The article "a" can be used with "defender" if one chooses to use it, though it's not mandatory.

Edit: Spelling mistake corrected in the following paragraph.

The phrase "the role of defender" is an NP and already has the definite article. This makes the use of article "a" with "defender" very optional.

Improve this answer
5
  • 1
    Are the indented sections quoted from somewhere? If so, please identify where from. Neither of the paragraphs after you repeat the question makes much sense to me. As BillJ's comment on the question shows, this grammatical issue has absolutely nothing to do with "ball sports"; and nor does it depend on whether there the role is single or multiple. And "the head of a company" is an NP that already has the definite (not "definitive") article, but definitely required "a".
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 17:11
  • So you've deleted one paragraph, making the last sentence of my comment irrelevant, but left the rest.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 17:20
  • Deleted the superfluous part and I wrote definitive (not definite) by mistake. I apologise. "The role of the head" and not "the role of a head", because there is only one "head". "The role of the head of a company"."The role of defender in a team". Sure, sometimes "The role of a head of a company" can be used if the sentence so demands.
    – banuyayi
    Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 17:26
  • The question was why is there no article?, and you have not answered that. You are addressing a different question from the one asked.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 17:28
  • There is no point in arguing (from my side). You are more knowledgeable.
    – banuyayi
    Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 17:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .