+0
Hello!

Please, could you explain me what is the difference between those two:

1.A history of English language

2.The history of English language

For me it seems natural that the definite article should be used in this case, but I have encountered both of them many times. They seem to co-exist. Please, could you make it clear for me?
+0
Hi,

Please, could you explain me what is the difference between those two:

1.A history of English language The writer is thinking 'There are many opinions about the history of English. This book reflects my opinions and reesearch. Other books will be different'.

2.The history of English language The writer is thinking 'There is only one correct version, and this is it'.

For me it seems natural that the definite article should be used in this case, but I have encountered both of them many times. They seem to co-exist. Please, could you make it clear for me?

Here are correct ways to say this, depending on whether 'English' is used as a noun, or as an adjective describing the word 'language'.

A history of the English language

The history of the English language

A history of English

The history of English

Best wishes, Clive

Comments  
1.A history of the English language
2.The history of the English language

There's really no difference between the two. It's just a matter of what the author wants for his title.

To the extent that there is any difference I guess you could say that "a history..." is the author's way of saying that he has written just one of many histories of the language while "the history..." is the author's way of saying that he has written the (one and only) history of the language that anyone could ever need. The fact is, though, that no one would ever take "the history..." as meaning that so, at the risk of repeating myself, there isn't really any difference.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
 Clive's reply was promoted to an answer.
Thank you very much!