Learn English – “the Red Cross” but no article in Greenpeace, UNICEF, or Amnesty International

definite-articlesgrammar

In an English language textbook for Italian middle school students, there is a reading exercise where students have to fill in the gaps. Here is a completed excerpt

The International Red Cross/Red Crescent is a global charity and humanitarian organisation. It believes that people everywhere have a right to life and health. …blah, blah, blah… The Red Cross / Red Crescent began its work in 1863. Today, it operates in 186 countries and every year it gives help to about 250 million people.

My two private students had to write a paragraph about a charitable institution of their own choice. We came up with 1. Médecins Sans Frontières (in Italian Medici Senza Frontiere) which is also known as Doctors Without Borders 2. Greenpeace and 3. Amnesty International. They each chose an institution and they all started their paragraphs with the definite article "the" just like in the textbook.

  1. The Doctors Without Borders is a global charity and humanitarian…
  2. The Greenpeace is a global charity and pacific organisation…

I crossed out the articles and said they weren't needed. Samuele asked me why–good for him–but I didn't know what to say, so I promised I would look into it.

While I can explain that the definite article is needed when we mention the United Nations Children's Fund because it is a collection of states/nations, and it is omitted when it is shortened to UNICEF. I don't know why the article is needed for the Red Cross but not for Doctors Without Borders or Amnesty International.

I'm also aware that if the name of a company or band starts with "The" e.g. The Beatles, The Leathersellers’ Company, and The Body Shop the article is always obligatory and always capitalised. However, the charity's name used in the book name is International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and yet the article is needed.

  • Is there a reason? Why is the definite article necessary in the International Red Cross, but not for Greenpeace or Amnesty International?

Best Answer

There is reasoning for this. According to the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS):

Articles and other determiners are used with proper nouns only when part of the noun is a common noun or the determiner provides emphasis. (5.6)

So, if you compare this to the "Red Cross" and "Doctors Without Borders", you will see that only the former has a common noun. Thus, the former is the only one requiring a determiner. Neither "Doctors" nor "Borders" meet the criteria required to be a common noun; they aren't singular.

The CMOS also states:

Names of companies, institutions, and similar entities are generally treated as collective nouns—and hence singular in American English, even when they are plural in form {General Motors reports that it will earn a profit} {American Airlines has moved its headquarters}. (5.15)

"Doctors Without Borders" does not need a determiner because it is treated as a collective noun in the singular form. I hope this clears things up.

Related Topic