0

Could you explain why is this news report using "sift signal from noise" instead of "sift the signal from the noise"? According to some native speakers, it is utterly incorrect to avoid "the" because the word "signal" is countable (but "noise" isn't, so should "noise" not be preceded by "the"...?). According to others, "the" should only be used if it is specific. What is the rule for good here? Thanks.

Part of America's failure was an improper ability to sift signal from noise and to disseminate this information bureaucratically.

https://asiatimes.com/2022/12/pearl-harbor-redux-us-risks-repeating-strategic-errors/

Improve this question
1
  • [correction: Could you explain why this news report is using etc.]
    – Lambie
    Commented Dec 27, 2022 at 17:39

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

to sift signal from noise

This usage is perfectly fine.

From the horse's mouth, see below:

Anyone interested in language and communication and/or translation should read this article:

THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF COMMUNICATIONS by Claude E. Shannon and Warren Weaver

  • All of these changes in the transmitted signal are called noise.

  • In oral speech, the information source is the brain, the transmitter is the voice mechanism producing the varying sound pressure (the signal) which is transmitted through the air (the channel).

Please note the use of the word signal in the singular in various places in this most important article.

The words signal and noise are concepts in communication theory and as such do not require the plural in a journalistic context. The article is not talking about "signals" per se. It is the basic principle of noise versus signal along a channel between a sender and a receiver (recipient).

Improve this answer
0

"Signal" in this case is a singular noun. "Sift signals from noise" would be acceptable. "Sift the signal from noise" also so. As would "sift the signal from the noise" (although "sift the signal from the noises" would be considered clumsy, as "the noise" refers to the abstract concept of noise and "the noises" refers to specific auditory disturbances).

Used in the context of the article there, "sift signals from noise" would have been more appropriate, as it's referring to the ability to get ANY signal from the background static, and therefore is not referring to a singular signal, but rather any of a multitude.

Also, I just noticed your "New Contributor" tag! Welcome to ELL! I hope you find it - indeed, any and all of the StackExchange platforms - friendly and helpful! Welcome!

Improve this answer
7
  • Thank you. What would be the criteria to use "the" or not before "signal(s)" and before "noise"? Why do some native speakers say that omitting "the" is altogether wrong?
    – lorentz
    Commented Dec 27, 2022 at 9:34
  • When referring to the plural (signals) either mode (with or without "the") would be correct. Think of it like this: if one knows specifically what signal they are looking for, then it's appropriate to say "sift the signal from the noise". If one is looking for any signal AT ALL, then it would be correct to say "signals from the noise". "The noise" refers to the singular feed they are trying to get from. The key here is plurality. If there's only 1 feed they're all listening to, in an attempt to find signals, it's "the noise". If there's just 1 signal they're all trying to find, "the signal".
    – NerdyDeeds
    Commented Dec 27, 2022 at 14:50
  • If they're looking for ANY signal inside that one feed, "signals from the noise." If they're looking for ANY signals inside ANY feed, "signals from noise." If they're looking for one specific signal inside ANY feed, "the signal from noise." The "the" is pinning down the signal to "one specific signal" or pinning the noise down to "one specific source of noise." If it's NOT a single instance (of signals or of noise) then one can omit the "the", but then one needs to use the plural from of the subject. "Noise" is one of those obnoxious English exceptions that can be singular OR plural, alas.
    – NerdyDeeds
    Commented Dec 27, 2022 at 14:56
  • Thank you very much! This is extremely clear and helpful. I only have one last question, if I may. I hadn't paid attention to the fact that the example sentence was using the expression in a literal sense (signal & noise from telecoms)! Actually, however, my doubt was how to use the expression in a figurative sense (that's how that example sentence came up in my research). Do your answers change in any way if the expression is used metaphorically? Some people told me that "sift signal from noise" or "sift signals from noise" are wrong, and that I must use "sift the signal from the noise".
    – lorentz
    Commented Dec 27, 2022 at 15:19
  • Again, this is an example of plurality, although in this case it's an example of of using it in the abstract. When used metaphorically, it refers to a mutually-understood idea of A signal and of A source of noise. For example: "take the high road" (an idiom meaning "do the right thing or things") or "he's under the weather" ("he feels unwell"). Both refer to a singular abstract concept that it is accepted both people understand. One would not say "take high roads" or "under weathers." In this case, the subjects are treated as singular because we both know the abstract being referred to.
    – NerdyDeeds
    Commented Dec 27, 2022 at 16:16

You must log in to answer this question.

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