(an)arthrous abbreviations
The
Economist Style Guide
(2005), p. 7, advises us:
the
: not needed before pronounceable abbreviations like NATO, UNESCO
Rachel Cristy unearthed this in a search through usage manuals for
instances of Omit Needless Words (ONW) and Include All Necessary Words
(IANW) advice. This one looks like an ONW case, but my first
reaction to it was that no advice was necessary: things like "The NATO
is an international organization" seemed to me to be just
ungrammatical, and unlikely to occur with any frequency; for me,
acronyms like
NATO are
obligatorily anarthrous (an-arthr-ous, lacking an article). [Reminder: acronyms and initialisms are both abbreviations made up of initial letters of words in some expression. But an acronym is pronounced like an ordinary word, while an initialism is pronounced as a sequence of letter names. The
Economist's advice is about acronyms.] But,
yes, there's
variation out there. As Geoff Pullum
noted
here recently in connection with another set of proper names, there are
some generalizations about arthrousness, but also many exceptions, and
there is variation from speaker to speaker (and, in fact, for a single
speaker on different occasions).
[Terminological note: following the
Cambridge
Grammar of the English Language, Geoff uses the technical terms
weak and
strong rather than my
arthrous and
anarthrous, respectively. The
intended image is that arthrous proper names can't stand on their own;
they're weak and need an article, while anarthrous names require no
such support. Unfortunately, I can see a rationale for using the
terms
weak and
strong in exactly the reverse
fashion: arthrous names come with an article and so have strength
"built in", while anarthrous names are weak because they're missing an
element. So rather than trying to remember which metaphor
CGEL had in mind, I've opted for
technical terms that, it seems to me, can't be confused. I'm also
just fond of these terms.]
First, it's not hard to find examples where the definite article in a
full proper name (like
the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization) is preserved in the corresponding
acronym; very often a writer goes back and forth between the arthrous
and anarthrous variants, as on
this
website, which begins:
Why is NATO wrong?
The NATO is treated as beyond moral judgment: for most politicians in
Europe, it simply exists, like gravity. For them, the only issues are:
who should join, and where should it intervene? Nevertheless, the NATO
has no moral basis: its existence and its fundamental purpose are wrong
- let alone its interventions
Perhaps the writer intended the arthrous variants to be read out in
full and the anarthrous ones to be pronounced as single words, but that
seems unlikely to be true of all the cases you can find.
Be that as it may,
FOR ME the following principle is (I
think) exceptionless:
The Acronym Principle: Acronyms are
anarthrous (even when the full names they abbreviate are arthrous).
This covers
NASA,
FEMA,
MOMA,
Unicef,
NOAA and other acronyms whose full
forms are arthrous. It covers at least some hybrid abbreviations,
like
SFMOMA (part initialism,
part acronym), and covers in general "coerced" acronyms, where vowels
are inserted to make strings of letters (especially long strings of
letters) pronounceable. like
NOGLSTP,
pronounced like "nogglestup" and standing for "The National
Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals"
(yes, I know, not a catchy name, but at least it's full of information).
[Style note: throughout this posting, I'll cite abbreviations without
periods in them. I understand that most style sheets call for
periods in some of them, but my personal preference is for this very
spare style.]
On to initialisms (abbreviations that are read as sequences of letter
names). Here the large generalization is just the opposite of the
Acronym Principle:
The Initialism Principle: In general,
initialisms are arthrous if their full forms are (and, of course,
anarthrous otherwise).
Hang on: there are plenty of exceptions, but this is the overarching
generalization.
Some examples:
the FBI,
the CIA,
the NSA,
the GAO,
the SHC (the Stanford Humanities
Center),
the EU,
the LSA,
the ADS,
the AAUP,
the AARP,
the NAACP,
the NSF,
the NIH,
the NEH,
the NEA (the National Endowment for
the Humanities, the National Education Association). I've given a
fair number of examples to convince you that there's a real phenomenon
here, hoping that you can multiply the examples with others of your
own. (For the Acronym Principle, this is no problem.)
A digression. Before I go
on, I want to confront an idea that some people have advanced to me
about the facts so far: that the anarthrous abbreviations lack an
article because they're seen as holistic proper names (like
John Smith), while the arthrous
abbreviations are seen
AS abbreviations, and so
preserve aspects of the corresponding full forms. (Of course, the
expressions we're looking at are all both proper names and
abbreviations.)
I'm inclined to think that the pure-proper-name idea is an illusion
created by the forms: no
the
= pure proper name,
the =
mere abbreviation.
To put the question in a larger context, let's look at some expressions
that aren't abbreviations. Note the uniform arthrousness of
proper names with the head common noun
river (
the Mississippi River,
the River Nile) vs. the uniform
anarthrousness of proper names with the head common noun
lake (
Searsville Lake,
Lake Washington). Similarly,
arthrous
building (
the Brill Building) vs. anarthrous
hall (
Carnegie Hall), though there is
some American/British variation in the second case (note:
the Royal Albert Hall).
There's a real system here (though one exquisitely dependent on the
particular common noun that serves as head in the proper-noun
constructions). I can't see any non-circular way of viewing this
as a matter of conceptualizing things in different ways; it's just
convention.
In fact, it makes sense for both versions to be possible. Proper
names have (contextually) unique reference, and uniqueness is one of
the two circumstances in which referring expressions are semantically
definite. [Further digression: givenness (in context) is the
other, and scholars differ as to whether there are two kinds of
definiteness here, or only one (and if only one, whether one of the
circumstances is fundamental, or whether they are both manifestations
of a single more general meaning), and as to whether languages (or
varieties) can differ as to the status of the two circumstances.
But in the case at hand, uniqueness is what's at issue, and we can put
off these deeper questions.]
So much for
SEMANTIC definiteness. What we're
looking at now is the question of how definiteness is marked
syntactically and morphologically. There are two schemes
available, and each of them has a rationale:
Economy:
If the referent is unique in context, use no syntactic or morphological
mark of definiteness, because it's unnecessary. (Omit Needless
Words!)
Clarity: If the referent is
unique in context, use a syntactic or morphological mark of
definiteness to indicate this fact.
(These principles apply to languages in general. English has only
a syntactic marker of definiteness, the article
the, though other languages
(including a number in the Indo-European language family, as well as
many outside it) have affixes marking definiteness, either instead of
or in addition to a syntactic mark, and syntactic marking other than
via an article -- by word order, for instance -- is also possible.)
The competition between economy and clarity, as abstract principles,
comes up all the time. See, for example, my discussion (in my
posting
on at about) of
economical (implicit) vs. clear (explicit) marking of relations --
there with reference to bare NP adverbials vs. P-marked
adverbials. Both principles are valid, but they can't be
satisfied simultaneously; instead, the competition is negotiated though
a system of conventions for specific cases, with one principle holding
sway in some cases, the other in others.
So it is with proper names in English. For personal names,
English almost entirely opts for economy:
Arnold (
Zwicky), not
the Arnold (
Zwicky); yes, I know about
the Donald. (Other languages
insist on clarity -- definite marking across the board -- or have
definite marking for personal names in some contexts and lack it in
others.) In other spheres, English is much more variable: there
are conventions, of several different sorts, and exceptions to those,
and variation, both within speakers and between speakers. Recall
the
river/
lake and
building/
hall cases, consider the examples
that Geoff Pullum gave in his posting --
There are some generalizations, but
also many exceptions. Cities,
boroughs, and regions are usually strong (like Amsterdam or New York or North Africa or Antarctica) but a few are weak
(like the Hague or the Bronx or the Maghreb or the Antarctic). And remarkably, to
a rough approximation at least, numerical freeway names are weak proper
names in Southern California ("Get on the 55") but strong proper names
in Northern California ("Take 17 South").
and check out the somewhat longer treatment in
CGEL (pp. 517-8); and be prepared
for more variation in the material to come. (But bear in mind
that these discussions are only samplings of the phenomena, not
complete inventories. A full treatment of definite marking in
English proper names, including a survey of the variation, would fill a
book.)
Digression over. We're
now ready to get back to initialisms. For initialisms, English
generally goes for clarity: the Initialism Principle.
But there are exceptions, and there's variation. Though it's
almost invariably
the BBC
(and not just
BBC), it's
also, on this side of the Atlantic, almost invariably
NBC,
ABC, and
CBS (not
the NBC etc.). For me, it's
mostly
the OED, but I've
occasionally written
OED
instead; meanwhile,
AHD is,
for me, almost always anarthrous (possibly because it's so often paired
with
NOAD, which is
anarthrous because I read it as an acronym). You can also find
anarthrous occurrences of some American government agency names (
NSF,
NIH,
NEH,
DOD), though these names are
usually arthrous.
A striking
GENERAL exception to the Initialism
Principle is the naming of educational institutions:
The Educational Principle: In general,
initialisms naming educational institutions are anarthrous.
So we get:
MIT,
OSU,
UCLA,
UCSD,
RPI, etc. I say that I have a
Ph.D. from
the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, not
Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (the full name is arthrous), but I say
that I have a Ph.D. from
MIT,
not
the MIT (the initialism
is anarthrous).
But, as usual, there is variation. The Educational Principle is
pretty firm for me, but it's clear that it doesn't work for everybody:
The MIT is going to change its
curriculum structure that was famous for teaching Scheme in
introductory courses. (
link)
As for the large educational institution in Columbus, Ohio, usually
known familiarly as
OSU, it
famously tries to insist on a
the
in
its
full name (
The Ohio State
Unversity), a quirk that is sometimes carried over to its
initialistic version, as
the OSU (or
The OSU):
Department of Electrical Engineering,
The Ohio State University ... More recently, the Center of Intelligent
Transportation Research (CITR) at the OSU is ... (
link)
NASA support draws upon the Byrd Polar Research Centre of the Ohio
State University .... of the data acquisition plan while the OSU is
responsible for, ... (
link)
(You can find similar instances of
the
OSU referring to Oregon State. And some other unexpected
arthrousness for other institutions.)
And, in fact, the (no doubt originally snarky) orthographic variant
tOSU (or
tosu or
Tosu) -- an acronym pronounced
/tosu/ -- has grown up to represent the arthrous variant:
Michael Floyd commits to tOSU (
link)
Why is Ohio State referred to as tosu by some people, mostly Michigan
fans and others who don't like Ohio St? (
link)
Note that because the Educational Principle applies specifically to
names of educational institutions, there are minimal contrasts in
arthrousness for initialisms: when such initialisms stand for other
things that have arthrous full names, they are almost uniformly
arthrous:
the
MIT for the metal/insulator transition, the Millvale Industrial
Theater, the Management Improvement Team (of the USA Freedom Corps),
etc.
the OSU for the Overseas
Singaporean Unit, the Operation Support Unit (Denton County, Texas,
Sheriff's Office), the Oxygen Servicing Unit (McNaughton Dynamics UK),
etc.
Syntactic footnote. All
of the preceding was about proper names standing on their own or
serving as arguments; some of these names are normally anarthrous, some
normally arthrous. But other syntactic constructions can impose
their own requirements. As a result, it's easy to find instances
of normally anarthrous names preceded by
the, and also instances of normally
arthrous names without preceding
the,
but these aren't relevant to the classification of proper names with
respect to arthrousness.
So: acronyms (like
NATO) are
normally anarthrous, as are initialisms referring to educational
institutions (like
MIT).
Abbreviated proper names can serve as prenominal modifiers --
NATO support 'support from/by
NATO',
MIT buildings
'buildings at/of MIT' -- and the resulting expressions can have
preceding determiners, which means we can get things like
the NATO support and
the MIT buildings, which have the
structure
[ the [ NAME HEAD ] ],
not the structure
[ [ the NAME ] HEAD ].
That is, they do not contain the arthrous proper names
the NATO and
the MIT;
NATO and
MIT are anarthrous here as
elsewhere.
In fact, if the head noun is a proper name, the resulting
expression is a (more complex) proper name, which may itself require
a definite article:
the NATO
Secretary General,
the MIT
Media Lab. But once again, the article belongs to the
outer layer of structure, and
NATO
and
MIT are again anarthrous,
despite the preceding
the.
In the other direction, though initialisms are generally arthrous, an
abbreviated proper name serving as a prenominal modifier is
obligatorily bare, so we get things like
A local startup has gotten CIA funding
(with
CIA funding 'funding
by/from the CIA'), not
A local startup
has gotten the CIA funding. The condition on prenominal
modifiers trumps the arthrousness of initialisms.
zwicky at-sign csli period stanford period edu
Posted by Arnold Zwicky at September 17, 2007 02:35 PM