I think the reason for “The Ohio State University” (to whatever extent that construct actually exists) is that there are many Ohio state universities. Kent State University is an Ohio state university. Bowling Green State University is an Ohio state university. Cleveland State University is an Ohio state university. But only the one in Columbus is the Ohio State University.
In real life, there’s no ambiguity that made the “the” necessary. No one thought you might be referring to Kent State or Bowling Green When you said “Ohio State University.” It was pure public relations hogwash.
IIRC, it’s not “Winnie Pooh,” but “Winnie the Pooh.”
What’s “ordinary speech”? The absence of a rule is the problem from the perspective of a language learner. Why, on one hand, is the title “The Ohio State University,” and yet as you say, few people say the article when referring to the institution? Your students may not simply ignore the issue. You may tell them to, but they won’t.
You can tell them that there are some institutions, corporations, etc., that think they can distinguish themselves by deviating from normal linguistic habits, like screwing with capitalization (eBay) or punctuation (Yahoo!). Capitalizing a “The” at the beginning of a name of a group entity like a university or a company is like this. There’s no linguistic rule to teach here and students are free to ignore it.
One of the many hard things to learn about our beautiful language is how just about all the so-called rules are petty flexible. The big problem for a student is that they have to learn the current set before they can go ahead and break them for artistic or any other reasons.
I grew up with all the old saws - I before e except when it isn’t; never split an infinitive; never start a sentence with a preposition or a conjunction etc etc. The solution is that you have to adapt your writing to your audience. On a fairly erudite forum like this, I try to keep [mostly] to the accepted norms. Of course, being English, I use those from this side of the Atlantic. When I send a text to a friend I care a lot less about spelling and grammar. If I was writing something important like a CV, or editing someone else’s, I would leave it to marinate for a while and then go back and make corrections as required.
Our children were both bi-lingual. They were fluent in (more or less) correct English and also in playground argot.
As both an ESL teacher and someone who learned a foreign language to the point of close to fluency, I am appalled by this advice.
One wants students to understand the rules (and exceptions) as much as possible. There are cases where there aren’t good explanations or that explanations are too detailed and not useful (such as the reason for the “f” sound for “ph” in “phone” for beginning students learning to spell that word) but this isn’t one of those cases.
This is an example of a case with a clear rule which the student can readily understand and follow.
It can be explained simply by the fact that it’s part of a formal title and should therefore be included, but this leads to questions about why it’s in the title in the first place. The Ohio State State University was probably thought of as the premier flagship university for Ohioans at the time of its founding, which is why it includes the definite article.
Yeah, language students don’t typically accept “That’s just the way we do it.” Language functions based on coding and structure that merge to create meaning. Learners rely on both conscious and unconscious learning.
I’m sorry, but why tell them it should be included? There is no general rule of language that requires it. Better to tell them that that’s how the university formally refers to itself, but that no one else is obligated to do so, and, indeed, few people do, except in a joking manner.
But that’s offering speculation as truth.
It’s no sillier than saying that a scientist who identifies a new species of animal has “discovered” it. In this context, “discover” doesn’t mean the first person to see it, but the first to identify and properly characterize it in the manner accepted by experts in that field. Ms. Brewster observed and described a meaning for “a” that no previous lexicographer had identified. That’s a discovery.
In no way did I mean to detract from the value of Brewster’s contribution. I just mean to say that it isn’t a usage which was “unknown” prior to that time. There’s been this debate in an area where the philosophy of language and linguistics intersect, about whether proper names are “predicative,” meaning that they are not solely referential to a specific individual who holds certain properties, but rather are a special kind of common noun, which services to designate those properties. [See Quine (1960) and Burge (1973).] The various participants in this debate occasionally mention this usage from the OP of the indefinite article with a proper name, though they are more concerned with the role of the definite article used with proper names. For their purposes, there was no important difference between *The young Mozart arrived in Vienna in 1762.*and A young Mozart arrived in Vienna in 1762. Paul (1994) obliquely mentions the indefinite article, and implies the difference is purely discursive, and not of importance to his argument.
But that distinction in the use of the article a (which is discursive, and not grammatical, though many in this thread are getting stuck on that), is exactly the usage which the OP is addressing, and what Brewster included in the dictionary, very much to her credit. I just don’t think “discover” is the best way to describe what she did, because linguists had at least obliquely been addressing it for a while. The work that lexicographers do, on the other hand, is by its nature somewhat limited in describing many dimensions of language, because dictionaries are indexed by single lexical units, which hinders them from addressing these discursive aspects of language. That probably is why it took so long for the entry to be made.
So while lexicographers did not know about it when Brewster added it, linguists clearly did.
Burge, T. (1973). “Reference and Proper Names.” Journal of Philosophy 70: 425–439.
Paul, M. (1994). “Young Mozart and the joking Woody Allen. Proper names, individuals and parts.” In M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Vol. 4, pp. 268–281). Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.
Quine,W. V. (1960), Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.