Last week in college, a student [with a thick South Asian accent] asked me:

"Excuse me, where can I find the room 401?".

I realized that to my native English ears, the word "the" sounded non-native. This had me realize that we sometimes use no article.

I am learning French; in French, we seem to always use some kind of article before nouns. It surprised me, at that moment, to realize that English doesn't always do the same! (That, and using the definite article in "the room 401" seems to make sense if I think about when definite articles are used).

Is there a grammatical name or concept for this "no article" aspect of our language? Are there any websites that can explain this to me?

  • 2
    I've wondered about this too. At the same time, we use the in expressions like "In the year 2525". Commented Nov 21, 2015 at 6:53
  • 1
    "the room 401" is ungrammatical. Battleship Potemkin and "the battleship Potemkin" are both grammatical but "the room 401" isn't.
    – TimR
    Commented Nov 21, 2015 at 16:20
  • 3
    The other answers already say the important bits, but I thought I'd mention that, at least in American English, the noun may also be omitted in speech when it's not a particularly important place and the meaning is obvious. To use your example, one could say "Excuse me, where is 401?" and be understood perfectly, as long as you meant the 401 in the current area (building, complex, street, etc).
    – phyrfox
    Commented Nov 21, 2015 at 17:07
  • Not to be confused with the Room 101!
    – Golden Cuy
    Commented Jan 25, 2016 at 8:40
  • Excuse me, where can I wind the page 404? Commented Mar 15, 2016 at 9:10

4 Answers 4


This answer addresses the two questions at the bottom of the body of your question, but only tentatively addresses the question in your title.

The grammatical construct where the article is missing appears to be called the zero article. There is also a book written about the zero article.

One might have thought that zero articles are used when the noun is inherently unique, since there is no need then for an article to distinguish any one of many from a specific one of many. However, English is inconsistent here. One example that has come up in a similar discussion is The Eiffel Tower. Another example (from the book, IIRC) is The Baltic Sea. In both cases, the noun is unique but the definite article is part of its name.

One suggestion is that we always use the zero article with names. In examples such as The Eiffel Tower and The Baltic Sea, the word The is considered to be part of the name rather than a separate article. Street names are similar. For example, "Where is Main Street?" has no article but "Where is The Strand?" does because The is part of the name The Strand. Note that this doesn't cover all cases since "I can design an Eiffel Tower" and "I can pave a Strand" are arguably acceptable. In many cases, though, this 'rule' holds.

In the case of your question, Room 401 is the name of the location, but the location is not so grand as to warrant having "The" as part of its name. The definite article is therefore not used before Room 401 in the sentence in your question's title.

  • 1
    +1. One can see saying "Where is The Room 401", if the subject were, for instance, a book. Commented Nov 21, 2015 at 15:24
  • 1
    @MaxVernon: I'm not sure what your point is.  Would you say "Where is The Fahrenheit 451?"  Or are you talking about books like The Color Purple, where the article is part of the title — which Lawrence's answer already addresses? Commented Nov 21, 2015 at 16:55
  • 1
    Merely agreeing that the sentence might actually be "correct". Commented Nov 21, 2015 at 20:37
  • 2
    @Scott "Where is the Fahrenheit 451 that I lent you last week" is a perfectly reasonable English sentence. "Where is the copy of Fahrenheit 451..." might be more grammatically correct, but eliding "copy of" in conversation would be completely acceptable.
    – Mike Scott
    Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 10:16
  • 2
    Where is the room 451 (located)? is grammatical. Also @MaxVernon. See this answer.
    – GoDucks
    Commented Jan 16, 2016 at 14:26

The other answers may actually say this, but they are long and convoluted, and I don't see this in either of them.  So I'll just say it:

You don't use an article when you're using a name.

Cases where an article is part of the name, like The Hague, The White House, The Lord of the Rings, or An American in Paris, appear to be exceptions, but aren't, really.  For example:

  • Where is the doctor?
    Where is Dr. Smith?
  • Is there a doctor in the house?
    Is Dr. Smith in the house?
  • I dropped my keys on the street.
    I dropped my keys on Main Street.

etc.  "401" is the name of the room, so you don't use an article.

  • 2
    +1. This is the only answer that's easy to understand and remember. Commented Nov 21, 2015 at 17:23
  • 8
    This is straightforward (and I've upvoted it), but not quite foolproof. Occasionally we'll use articles in conjunction with proper names; e.g.: What happened to the McDonald's that was on this street? Also, when a proper name is used adjectively, we can use an article: I saw the flyer on the Room 204 bulletin board (although we'd omit the article when saying: ...on the bulletin board in Room 204). One other odd exception: we can use the to differentiate between a famous person and someone who happens to have the same name: Mick Jagger came over, but not the Mick Jagger.
    – J.R.
    Commented Nov 21, 2015 at 23:44
  • 1
    @J.R. Your examples still follow the rule. McDonald's is the name of a type of thing in the same way that 'chair' is the name of a type of thing. Both McDonald's and chair could be any McDonalds or chair that exists, it is only when you add 'the' that you are talking about a specific McDonald's or Chair. "Bulletin board" can also mean any bulletin board, but what your example is really saying is "the bulletin board for Room 204." Mick Jaggar refers to anyone with that name, while the Mick Jagger refers to the specific Mick Jagger that most people would think of when they hear the name.
    – user0
    Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 0:54
  • 1
    @Bananable: No, "McDonald's" is a name (a proper noun), but "chair" is an ordinary (common) noun.  These are handled similarly, but not interchangeably.  For example, you are the person who posted the comment to which I am responding, but you are not the Bananable. Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 1:05
  • 1
    @Bananable - Even if the restaurant wasn't a chain, I would still include the definite article: What happened to the Arnold's that was on this street? And if McDonald's is an "improper noun" as you allege, why does it remain capitalized? (The common noun version would be: What happened to the restaurant that was on this street?) The "rule" as stated here is: You don't use an article when you're using a name, and it's a fine rule, except, like most English rules, it has a few exceptions – like when the proper noun is used like an adjective: The Mars probe crashed in 1999.
    – J.R.
    Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 9:26

I've leafed through Quirk et al.'s "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language".

In the Note to Unit 17.88 they say this:

Postposed numerals and letters perhaps imply the ellipsis of the words number and letter:

"Line (number) 12"; equation (number) 4; room (number) 10A; ward (letter) C. If this is so, the phrases contain appositional constructions, with the number or letter being in apposition to the ellipted word number or letter, e.g.: "number 10A -> The number is 10A". We also find premodifying numbers and letters, particularly on signs like "No. 2 Platform, G Block". The following constructions are fully acceptable in onomastic use:

Number 3, No 3, (esp AmE) #3

Ch(apter) 6, Class 2b, Fig(ure) B, Section 10, Table 8, Type A

There is no type (a) with a definite determiner possible in the following use:

Are you in number 103? (NOT: "*The number 103")

The book's Unit 17.88 is titled "strict restrictive apposition" and describes the three types of strict restrictive apposition of noun phrases.

In type (a), the first appositive is preceded by a definite determiner:

That famous critic Paul Jones
the year 2000

In type (b), we have a reversed situation:

Paul Jones the critic

In type (c), the word order is as in (a), but we omit the determiner:

Farmer Brown
Soprano Janet Baker (esp. AmE)

The authors say that this absense of the determiner occurs when the first determiner "becomes a premodifier and resembles a title". This happens generally then the second appositive is the name of a person, and this is why we cannot say "year 2000" without a determiner.

So, naturally, since there's no expression like "year number 2015", we cannot elide "number", and the only option left is "the year 2015".

I'll need to look up Huddleston and Pullum's opinion on this issue, if there's any.

  • 1
    +1. Thanks for linking to this question under the one I'd asked before. I deleted mine; it was (almost) a duplicate.
    – Færd
    Commented Feb 8, 2016 at 5:29
  • Why the downvote? Commented Jul 26, 2016 at 9:46
  • I really like this answer. This would be the difference between "bus number 3" and "the number 3 bus".
    – Matthew W
    Commented Jan 22, 2019 at 23:37

We do use it, when we want to make a definite reference to it.

Where can I find the room 401?

This is a natural, grammatical sentence in English in a given real world communicative context. Hotel desks hear such sentences all the time.

When might a speaker ask this? Offhand, I can think of two or three examples, and there are probably more. I will stick to just one.

Let's say a person is walking down a hallway and sees Room 351, 371, 391, 411 but fails to find/see Room 401. He sees that the others exist and reckons that 401 exits also (maybe he knows it exists or only hypothesizes that it exists), but he is licensed by Engish grammar to go up to the information booth and ask:

Where can I find the room 401?

The phrase the room 401 can be taken as an elision of some such phrase as the room called 401, the room designated 401 or the room numbered 401.

If 371, 391 and 411 exist, he has every right to think, believe, assume that 401 exists, and so he can ask about it using a definite reference to it even though he has not found it.

The above is an unforced, natural (grammatical) complete, actual, natural, contextual, meaningful sentence, based on the communicative intention of the speaker.

The speaker, in the same context, could also, if he so desired, make an indefinite reference:

Where can I find a room 401?

Here, perhaps the speaker is a little less sure that 401 exists.

Incidently, suppose a guy is at a huge apartment complex and he is looking for Building 401. Let's say he can find Buildings 101, 201, 301, 501, you get the picture. In this scenario it seems more natural to me if he goes up to someone, anyone (guard, information desk, receptionist, passer by) and asks

Where can I find a Building 401?


Can you tell me where I might possibly find a building 401 around here?

I think he is probably less sure that 401 exists as a building in this scenario than he is sure that 401 exists as a room in the other scenario. For whatever reason, asking about the room 401 seems more natural and likely than asking about the building 401 even though the mental contexts are similar. Is this because not being able to find a building is less excusable than not being able to find a room?! But even asking about the building 401 is grammatical and possible.

You must log in to answer this question.

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