Rule: Nouns used with specific definite reference require a definite determiner. Nouns that have specific indefinite reference require an indefinite determiner or the zero article.
Examples of errors:
Most violations of Rule 1.2.1 involve omission of the definite article, but sometimes other definite determiners, such as possessive or demonstrative adjectives, are called for (cf. (9)-(ll)). The problems in interpreting this rule are essentially the same as those ,discussed in 1.1. Except for (9) and (21), where famous authors refers anaphorically to German authors, and people to Iranians, respectively, all of these sentences are also cases of first mention; i.e., the factors which determine that the reference should be definite --whatever--they are--can be sought within the sentence.
Again, with the exception of of phrases (cf. (12 and(14)), it is difficult to say what kind of modifiers correlate with specific definite or generic reference. In fact, the usage often seems so arbitrary that one is tempted to postulate definiteness as a purely lexical feature of individual nouns (like countability in English, or gender in German and other languages). Why should it be the death penalty.in (2) but capital punishment if this noun phrase were substituted in the same sentence? Likewise, why the Finnish language in (1) but excellent Finnish, the oriental mentality in (6) but oriental behavior, or the oil crisis in (8) but nuclear power? As a matter of fact, just in these examples it does seem that definiteness correlates with countability--perhaps mere coincidence, but a possibility that might be explored. In some cases the predilection for the definite article seems governed by the modifier rather than the noun: in the wrong way in (7) but in an improper way.
There is one observation that might be included as an addendum to Rule 1.2.1:
Nouns which can be immediately understood as referring, to mankind as a whole or to a particular geographical political, or cultural area have definite reference.
Quirk et al. (1972:§4.37) refer to this as "situational reference" and the indexical the". The words which are usually cited as examples of this usage occur in the sentences above primarily among the unmodified nouns, although the oil crisis and the death penalty can be seen in this light. Since situational reference means that certain nouns refer to entities or concepts which are understood to be unique, or at least specific enough within a given culture and language not to require further modification, it is not surprising that such nouns usually occur without modifiers. The problem is that it is not possible to predict which nouns qualify for this usage.
The line between situational specific and generic reference seems thin indeed--particularly when abstract nouns are involved. The environment in (15) and the future in (17) are situationally specific and definite, whereas society and industry in 1.1 (16) and (17) are generic, but it is difficult to say why it should not be the other way around. It would be equally difficult to predict the aeneric use of law in 1.1 (29) and the specific definite use in 1.2.1 (24). One wonders if this situational the, at least with singular nouns, isn't in fact better described as generic, as in The cow is a domestic animal (cf. 1.1).
Despite these reservations, it is useful to consider that many nouns that take situational the can be assigned to certain semantic categories--for example, celestial bodies (the earth, the sun), parts of the body (the heart, the lungs), public institutions (the Army, the police, the fire department, the doctor), some geographical terms (the city, the country, the mountains, the woods, the desert). There are many counter-examples, of course.
The presence of the indefinite article in (29) and (30) can be considered idiomatic in the same way as the article is in expressions like at first sight, take into consideration, etc. (of. 1.1). (27) is included here, although it illustrates again the difficulty of distinguishing between generic and specific reference, since either correct alternative--a composition subject or composition subjects--could be read as generic as well as (specific) indefinite. This ambiguity may be related to syntactic function, since when the noun phrase is in subject position there is a preference for the plural form and one is more inclined to call the reference generic:
Composition subjects are difficult to select
is definitely preferable to
A composition subject is difficult to select
whereas
It is difficult to select composition subjects
It is difficult to select a composition subject
are equally acceptable.
In (28) the plural form is not possible, without changing the meaning, since ages would imply different ages, but the question remains as to whether a here is specific or generic. Most people in (32) seems clearly generic if thought of as analogous to people (i.e. in general), but specific and indefinite if analogous to some people. The same applies. to most women in (33). In semantic terms, the difference between one, some, most, and all is not one of being either specific or generic, but one of degree. It may be that the specific-generic distinction becomes neutralized in at least some cases of indefinite reference, just as definite-indefinite is neutralized in generic reference, or as singular-plural is neutralized in mass nouns.