Why do people omit the definite article?

I'm used to always hearing or seeing a definite article before certain nouns. Yet on certain occasions the article is totally omitted, and it bothers me. I'm wondering what the justification for omitting the article is, especially when the definite article would seem to be required, or if it is just bad English either on the part of the individual in question or more likely by tradition.

The most frequent place I hear this is at the doctor or dentist's office. In every one I have ever visited, the receptionist or assistant always says things like "Doctor will see you shortly" instead of "The doctor will see you shortly."

The wikipedia article linked above says this: "A definite article indicates that its noun is a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener". In the case of a clinical setting, I know who the doctor is, especially if this is not my first visit. The people in the office know the doctor even better than I, so it would seem to be inappropriate to omit the article. Even the indefinite article would be incorrect. It further says, under "Zero article": "In languages having a definite article, the lack of an article specifically indicates that the noun is indefinite." Since the noun is not indefinite, why are they omitting the article?

Another place I see the article omitted is with the word "bar". Bartenders apparently don't say "I tend the bar" they say "I tend bar". Unless a bartender works in multiple bars, it would seem like an article would be required. Furthermore, "the bar" can mean any bar a person goes to, so even in a case like this question, it seems like the word "the" should be in the sentence. The only thing I can think of in this case is maybe the speaker doesn't want to confuse the listener into thinking they work in the legal field.

Is this just a bad habit, a historical corruption or tradition, or is there really a valid reason (or perhaps more than one) for these omissions?

Solution 1:

In the first example, Doctor is being used as the name of the person; the doctor is more of a descriptive phrase. It's short for Doctor <his name>.

tend bar is a set phrase, it's a synonym for being a bartender. It's also similar to the way other people describe their work: a mailman could say I deliver mail, a programmer would say I write code, a garbageman would say I collect garbage, and a composer would say I write music. These are all using the noun to refer to the general concept, rather than any specific item, so no article is needed. You would add an article when you need to be specific, e.g. I write the music in TV commercials.

Solution 2:

_{(Adapted from my answer on English Language Learners to a similar question, following a request to migrate that answer to English Language & Usage and discussion on Meta.)}

Let's look at a concrete example before going deeper.

Consider someone who calls himself Cookie Monster.

Saying that he is a cookie monster conveys the idea that there is a group of entities that are each called cookie monster, and he is one of them.

Saying that he is the cookie monster conveys either that the 'group' of entities really has only one member (him), or that he is the most outstanding member of the group.

In each case, the focus is on some kind of classification scheme.

Saying that he is cookie monster says something about him personally - he really enjoys cookies, eat them messily, etc.

It's a similar case with your bar example. "I tend bar" uses the null article, as distinct from the zero article. (Your doctor example works differently. A regionalism is at play here, using Doctor as a proper noun instead of using a common noun with determiner, 'the doctor'. I don't address this at length here.)

The zero article is the most indefinite article, and the null article is the most definite. Peter Master arranges articles in order from most indefinite to most definite:

zero (Ø1)--some--a--the--null (Ø2)
- Peter Master, "Acquisition of the Zero and Null Articles in English", Issues in Applied Linguistics, 14(1)

Here's an example of the zero article and null article from the same paper:

• Zero article: The boys ate chicken.
• Null article: Mr. Jones was appointed chairman.

The null article example has a similar quality to your "mayor" example.

Note that both zero article and null article refer to something that is absent from the sentence. It can seem a little odd to describe something missing as potentially having two polar opposite possibilities. Masters goes on to say:

The zero and null articles can be readily distinguished by their paraphrasability by either an indefinite or a definite article, respectively

That is, if the sentence retains its sense when you insert an indefinite article, the original had a zero article. And if it retains its sense when you insert a (the) definite article, the original had a null article.

In your example, "I tend bar" uses the word bar in the same manner that "Mr. Jones was appointed chairman" uses the word chairman. It uses the null article.

Solution 3:

'Zero article' applies to class nouns, not proper nouns. Titles are class nouns that can be used as proper nouns. 'Doctor' can be used as a title, although you are less likely to hear the nurse say "I'll get Doctor for you."