This problem is very interesting because　I myself have been always annoyed by the usage of English articles. I'll try to explain the reasons why the author uses 'a', 'the' or 'zero' article.
"The 'criticality' of conditions are extremely unstable: a small deviation in one direction will result in (1) the rapid extinction of (2) fission neutrons and, therefore, the cut-off of the nuclear chain reaction, whereas a deviation in another direction will lead to (3) a rapid multiplication of (4)the fission neutrons and the melting of the entire structure".
(1) : 'the' is normal here because 'extinction' is modified by 'of fission neutrons' to mean a particular kind of 'extinction'.
(2) : 'fission neutrons' are newly presented topic here and they are plural. So we have to use a 'zero' article here.
(4) : the fission neutrons here are the same neurons that were already mentioned in (3). So they (fission neutrons) must be modified by 'the'.
(3) : "a rapid multiplication". The usage of this 'a' article is very difficult to interpret. But native English speakers tend to use the indefinite article 'a' as a determiner of something when they want to focus it as the main topic in the following speech. I feel this (a multiplication of the fission neutrons) would be the case.
Hope this will be someway helpful.
saya
On the answer of Mi5 Mick
"There is more to the big "article" picture than this fundamental rule. (as I implied before) Anyway, a whole bunch of fundamental rules isn't sufficient; you can formulate all you want before you understand what's going on, but you might not ever understand anything at all!"
(Mi5 Mick)
"A whole bunch of fundamental rules isn't sufficient". A whole bunch, by definition, includes all the information about a certain object. And, therefore, it is sufficient, but it can never be obtained because of the many inaccuracies caused by the translation of information from a mind notion to a language.
Of course, reality is always more complicated than a set of rules. This must be compensated by practice and exepience in both the cases of using high-level and low-level rules. For example, the rule I wrote don't work in many special cases such as the names of magazines, lakes, rivers, ships, appointments...
I just prefer what I call "fundamental rules" because they are easier to remember, and they are fewer - as I already wrote.
On the answer of saya
"This problem is very interesting because　" - ???
>>1) : 'the' is normal here because 'extinction' is modified by 'of fission neutrons' to mean a particular kind of 'extinction'.<< (saya)
Compare: "Ingesting cyanide will result in a painful death." (not just "death," but a painful death...a certain kind of death as opposed to others)" (mjd)
Here 'death' in not followed by 'of [somebody]'. But I'am sure that
"Ingesting cyanide will result in a painful death of the prisoner"
is also correct, because there is an adjective before 'death' meaning "a certain kind of death as opposed to others" (mjd)
Without an ajective: "Ingesting cyanide will result in the death of the prisoner".
>>(2) : 'Fission neutrons' are newly presented topic here and they are plural. So we have to use a 'zero' article here.<<
Have you read my example about the house?
"This was an old house. The windows were boarded up". Here the windows are mentioned for the first time with the definite article, because, by introducing the house, we defined the windows.
>>(3) : "a rapid multiplication". The usage of this 'a' article is very difficult to interpret. But native English speakers tend to use the indefinite article 'a' as a determiner of something when they want to focus it as the main topic in the following speech. I feel this (a multiplication of the fission neutrons) would be the case.<<
I suspect that the native speakers wouldn't agree with you in this behalf. My opinion is shown in the answer to your comment for (1). Also see my post on Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 20:38 GMT, in the answer to Tiffany. Theese are two opposite explanations resulting in the correctness of both the usages of articles for (1) and (3). Probably the difference is imperceptible for me, but some people think that that usages are interchangeable too.
Anton
>>"A whole bunch of fundamental rules isn't sufficient". A whole bunch, by definition, includes all the information about a certain object. And, therefore, it is sufficient, but it can never be obtained because of the many inaccuracies caused by the translation of information from a mind notion to a language.<<
A whole bunch is but one bunch. Your fundamental rule is one bunch and therefore does not contain all the information on the subject of articles. (idiomatically, "a whole bunch" means "a lot") But hey, feel free to play with definitions and with my words, if you think it's constructive. And by definition....
If it's anything to you, I agree with all of what Saya wrote (including "a multiplication of the fission neutrons"), but feel free to nitpick at me for that. You could ask someone to rewrite your marked sections, ie. change the singular nouns to plural nouns, and vice versa, to see what effect this has on the articles. It's just a suggestion, so I don't want a "by definition" explanation as to why, hypothetically, this shouldn't be done!
I mistaken in the translation of the phrase 'a whole bunch'. Hence, a whole bunch "does not contain all the information on the subject of articles", but the conclusion is the same: "a whole bunch of "fundamental" rules" for a certain object is not the only thing one need to work with this object correctly.
And, therefore, I agree with the following (as I have already done) :
"There is more to the big "article" picture than this fundamental rule".
The rest part of my answer to you remains the same as in my previous post.
"I agree with all of what Saya wrote (including "a multiplication of the fission neutrons")" (Mi5 Mick)
Saya wrote:
"English speakers tend to use the indefinite article 'a' as a determiner of something when they want to focus it as the main topic in the following speech."
In the text "a rapid multiplication" and "the rapid extinction" are possessing equal rights as regards their usage in the following speech. So what is the difference? I adress this question to you and to Saya, since you are at one with Saya.
Anton
>>I mistaken in the translation of the phrase 'a whole bunch'. Hence, a whole bunch "does not contain all the information on the subject of articles", but the conclusion is the same: "a whole bunch of "fundamental" rules" for a certain object is not the only thing one need to work with this object correctly.
And, therefore, I agree with the following (as I have already done) :
"There is more to the big "article" picture than this fundamental rule".<<
LOL! Very funny... postulate away!
>>In the text "a rapid multiplication" and "the rapid extinction" are possessing equal rights as regards their usage in the following speech. So what is the difference?<<
There's no difference as far as I can tell. However, "a rapid multiplication of (4)the fission neutrons" sounds more dainty than repeating "the" twice.
* repeating "the" twice around a preposition. (ie. "THE rapid multiplication of THE fission neutrons")
Hi Anton
<Ingesting cyanide will result in death.> 'Death' is an uncountable noun. <Ingesting cyanide will result in a painful death.> 'A painful death' is a special death, not a 'death' in generic sense. <Ingesting cyanide will result in a painful death of the prisoner.> I'll say rather 'the painful death of the prisoner', because the death is a specific death.
<This was an old house. The windows were boarded up>. Yes I agree with you. By reading 'the', readers can know the widows are specified ones that belong to the house.
As for 'the melting of the entire structure', it is among the due results of the preceding phenomenon - a multiplication of the fission neutrons. It suggests the writer would not take the due phenomenon as a new topic in the coming speech.
saya
>>There's no difference as far as I can tell. However, "a rapid multiplication of (4)the fission neutrons" sounds more dainty than repeating "the" twice.<< (Mi5 Mick)
So, your 'verdict' is mostly based on the elegence of the phrase, isn't it? You probably think, that, from the viewangle of grammar, 'the' and 'a' are interchangeble, and, therefore, you are guided by the beauty of sounding. Am I right?
>>I'll say rather 'the (!-Ant_222) painful death of the prisoner', because the death is a specific death.<< (Saya)
Hmmm. It is interesting, what others think about that.
>>As for 'the melting of the entire structure', it is among the due results of the preceding phenomenon - a multiplication of the fission neutrons. It suggests the writer would not take the due phenomenon as a new topic in the coming speech.<< (Saya)
If I understand you properly, by this you want to prove the following:
>> But native English speakers tend to use the indefinite article 'a' as a determiner of something when they want to focus it as the main topic in the following speech.<< (Saya)
But I could say the same about "the cut-off of the nuclear chain reaction" on the same ground.
Anton
"a rapid multiplication of (4)the fission neutrons"
>>So, your 'verdict' is mostly based on the elegence of the phrase, isn't it? You probably think, that, from the viewangle of grammar, 'the' and 'a' are interchangeble, and, therefore, you are guided by the beauty of sounding. Am I right?<<
Strictly speaking, "a..." is possibly more correct because it's introducing an idea, but writers use "the..." and "a... " in this situation, interchangeably. For this reason, what might be "grammatically correct" is not necessarily a hard-and-fast rule, usage-wise.
And real-life usage is why analysing grammar too closely, in isolation, without venturing... can create more problems than necessary.
It seems that now I begin to understand...
Thanks, Anton