I’m not a linguist, but my guess is that it’s because.
Take these sentences where a similar thing happens.
- “Look out the window.”
- “I’m heading to the gym.”
- “You should hold the door for people.”
- “You need a trip to the barber.”
In these cases, the noun isn’t actually that important, more than it is what you’re doing with the noun. These nouns represent the general act of doing something, and I guess since that action is a singular specific thing, we use “the”.
This applies to “Look in the mirror.” The actual mirror doesn’t really matter much. The focus is on the general act of looking at your clear reflection.
Wow, that’s a really good question. I’m not sure, but if you end up posting it on the English stack exchange you might get a better answer. I’d upvote it, anyway, if you linked it here.
in my experience, people use both, but in different contexts.
“in the mirror” tends to more often refer to a metaphorical “mirror”, typically when discussing self-reflection
- “I took a look in the mirror and decided to change my ways.”
“in a mirror” tends to refer most often to actual mirrors that exist in reality, not metaphorically
- “I looked into a mirror to fix my eyeliner.”
I’ve seen people use each interchangeably, but i would consider that a common mistake of style and form, not as a common valid usage.
A fair guess, but this isn’t one of those times when a grammatical error becomes normalized through common usage.
There is no grammar rule that separates speaking literally versus metaphorically in this case.
“You have something on your face; go take a look in the mirror” is just as grammatically correct in English as “You need to take a good look in the mirror and change your ways.”
I’ve explained why this is standard usage in English in my comment here.
“You have something on your face; go take a look in the mirror” is just as grammatically correct in English
yes, but only if you’re referring to a specific mirror. so, “go look in the mirror” would be appropriate if you’re also indicating to/pointing at a mirror, or there’s been a specific mirror under discussion already (or if the audience already knew there was only one mirror they could be referring to.)
also, it’s not technically a grammatical error, but one of poor style/form.
edit: also, i’m not a fan of the “using the grammar and spelling of a 3 year-old is valid because language is fluid!” argument. bad grammar and poor style/form are just that. just because doing so may be popular doesn’t magically make it “valid”. to me, that whole argument reeks of, “I’m not wrong for being ignorant, you’re wrong for pointing out my mistake-- so it’s magically not a mistake anymore so I can avoid acknowledging ever being wrong!”
Nope, as I explained in my other comment, it’s standard usage.
In English, we often use the definite article when speaking in general about a specific activity or action that involves a non-specific object. E.g. “go to the bathroom” or “catch the bus”, or “read the newspaper”. It’s not poor form at all.
Nope, as I explained in my other comment, it’s standard usage.
you explained more or less what i did, except the whole “using the grammar and spelling of a 3 year-old is valid because language is fluid!” BS argument i outright reject–
and your claims of being an English teacher? it bears no weight here.
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument.[1]
The argument from authority is a logical fallacy,[2] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.[3][4]
That’s a common mistake, an argument from authority is only a fallacy if the person is not an authority in the field. Quoting Neil deGrasse Tyson on political views is an argument from authority, quoting him on astrophysics is not.
Wrong. Authority is not what makes an argument correct— facts are. And those exist regardless of any claimed authority— therefore, to argue that one’s authority makes them correct is a fallacy, for it is facts and evidence, not authority, from which truth is derived.
If Neil Degrasse Tyson said something that’s incorrect and then claimed he was correct simply because he was a physicist does not make him correct.
Thanks for playing!
The thing is that facts are not as clear cut as you think, that’s a very childish vision of the world (to think that it is always possible to differentiate a fact, don’t believe me? What am I wearing now? There is a factual answer, but you have no way of knowing it)
Plus if Neil deGrasse Tyson claims something about astrophysics and you claim he’s wrong, you better have at least someone as knowledgeable as him in astrophysics to back that claim, otherwise I’m siding with the expert on the matter.
Plus all discussions rely on the backing of experts, otherwise any discussion is impossible, I could just claim your argument is wrong because some word you used means the opposite of what you meant, your only counter argument would be to point to a dictionary, which is by your own definition an appeal to authority fallacy.
Lol well teaching this professionally surely makes me some form of authority (albeit of course not the authority!) on this subject.
To clarify, your original point sounded like you were making a distinction between metaphorical mirrors and actual mirrors:
“in the mirror” tends to more often refer to a metaphorical “mirror”, typically when discussing self-reflection
- “I took a look in the mirror and decided to change my ways.”
“in a mirror” tends to refer most often to actual mirrors that exist in reality, not metaphorically
- “I looked into a mirror to fix my eyeliner.”
This incorrect distinction is what I was objecting to, because of course we can use both the indefinite and definite articles to refer to either real or imaginary mirrors.
Lol well teaching this professionally surely makes me some form of authority (albeit of course not the authority!) on this subject.
no, it doesn’t, because even if you could prove that to us (which i’m sure you won’t), your authority doesn’t trump evidence and facts.
This incorrect distinction is what I was objecting to, because of course we can use both the indefinite and definite articles to refer to either real or imaginary mirrors.
and, as i said previously, it’s not technically grammatically incorrect, it’s just bad style/form. and i reject your argument that bad form is “acceptable” just because its common.
your inability to parse what i’ve said here and your insistence on pursuing a needless argument really doesn’t add credibility to your position that you should be considered an authority-- or your claim that you’re an english teacher.
Hey. You’re being a dick. Settle down.
My assumption would be that it’s because we don’t really look at mirrors per se but rather the reflection in them, so the definite article is indicating the fungibility of the mirror itself. This total speculation on my part though and I might be totally wrong.
I like this interpretation. Fungible is a great way to describe the function of the physical mirror in the phrasing.
I feel like it has to do with the “mystical” or metaphorical perception of mirrors, especially early on.
Like, as if looking “into a mirror” is analogous to looking “into a (or rather: the) mirror world”, if that makes sense.
Kind of the same reason we use the preposition “in” or “into” rather than the more physically correct “at”.
Maybe there’s a cultural idea about mirrors being somehow “the same”. After all, a mirror shows the same thing regardless of which one it is. Or related in cultural mythology to a singular adjoining world that contains your doppelganger (in such media, you don’t usually have a separate mirror-self for every mirror, but one that can be accessed from any mirror). Also could be a turn of phrase that stuck without a good reason.
English teacher here. Articles in English can be really confusing but essentially we use the definite article in this situation because:
- Uniqueness: In most situations, there’s only one mirror in a room or building that’s readily available for someone to look into.
- Generality: Similar to “going to the bathroom,” “look in the mirror” refers to the general act of using a mirror to see oneself, not interacting with any specific mirror.
Ukrainian here. IMO, the first statement is half-stupid, the second one is half-overcomplicated :) no offense to you personally, of course. I understand the whole concept of articles in English and know (at least I thought I knew before this post) their correct usage, and in all use cases I can remember the article uses are logically acceptable for a foreigner, but this one with the mirror and the bathroom is messed up a bit :)
IMO, the first statement is half-stupid, the second one is half-overcomplicated :)
Welcome to English, my friend. No one ever clained that it wasn’t a pain in the arse to learn :)
:) no, it’s not, because for people to understand you you don’t need to grasp 75% of the concepts of the English language, and IMO, this is the measure of “pain in the ass” of a language. so still not even half as complicated as Ukrainian and not even half a pain in the ass as Ukrainian :)
The second example is quite good imo. You would never say “I’m going to a bathroom.” Even if you were in a stadium with hundreds of bathrooms, you would still say you are going to the bathroom.
Same as you might say I’m taking the train. Not usually taking a train, though I’ve heard that too sometimes. Though oddly you usually say I’m taking a plane, not the plane. Also I’m taking the freeway, not a freeway. I’m usually going to the doctor, less often than a doctor.
The second example is quite good imo. You would never say “I’m going to a bathroom.” Even if you were in a stadium with hundreds of bathrooms, you would still say you are going to the bathroom.
you are justifying this statement “because of reasons” :) this is not a logical explanation. there are a bunch of bathrooms in the world. Am I going to the one specific that was mentioned before in the context? then it’s “to the bathroom”. is this bathroom just a random one that I will encounter on my way? then why not “to a bathroom”?
same with trains: even if you are speaking about a train route with a specific number, you are not talking about a specific train, then it should be “I’ll be taking a train”. if you are going to take the specific locomotive for a ride in a museum, then, obviously, you are going to take “the train”. this sounds logical for the usage of Articles in the English language, at least in my head.
same with doctors: if you are going to a specific doctor, and your opponent knows which one by the context, then it should be “to the doctor”, otherwise it would be a random doctor that will be assigned to you as soon as you arrive to the clinic, it cannot be “the doctor” by the same principle I always thought exists :)
whoa, another meaningless “the” appeared. “The English Language” phrasing is used despite there are at least four? five? English languages.
so… it’s complicated :D but this does not prevent English from being The Language of the World, and I cannot name a language that could have been on its place.
Tell me you haven’t read Jonathan Strange without telling me you haven’t read Jonathan Strange 😏 obviously it’s because all mirrors are connected - as entrances to the King’s Way of old.
Mirrors used to be expensive so I imagine it came from a whole family sharing just 1. And perhaps they were not common enough for them to even think about other mirrors. So they would just refer to the singular mirror they had.
Yes I know this, the reason that I asked this question is because it is a departure from the rules laid out here. Oftentimes we say “the mirror” even though we are not referring to any specific mirror.
then the answer is ‘oftentimes youre wrong’
You never said or heard “look in the mirror”? Because it’s not wrong.
English StackExchange has a thread about this, though I’m not seeing a lot of sources. According to this website, looking in (the) mirror has been used since at least the 15th century.
I think the phrase is just a side effect of a less common use of the definite article “the”, as the last answer on SE suggests.
According to Merriam-Webster, one of the uses of “the” can be:
l —used as a function word before the name of a commodity or any familiar appurtenance of daily life to indicate reference to the individual thing, part, or supply thought of as at hand
talked on the telephone
I suppose it’s just an idiomatic way of using “the”. I can’t find any information about why this usage has developed, but other languages similar to English do the same, so it could just be a Germanic or Latin language quirk?
Because no matter in what mirror you look, they‘re all the same. That‘s why we say the clock or the calendar. It‘s universal.
how about “going to the doctor”? :D
We say “the doctor” when talking about the concept of a doctor. We tend say “my doctor” and not “the doctor” when talking about what our respective doctor told us. Kind of like how we refer to the clock as “my clock” when we notice a difference to the universally accepted concept.
I can’t answer your question. But I’ll bet it’s the same reason we say we saw something “on the TV.”
I feel like that’s an elderly thing. Most people cut out the “the”
I suspect it has to do with being a sort of household appliance. Similar to the fridge, the TV, the bathtub, etc. People think about it in that sense most frequently and it becomes the common parlance.
Because there’s only one mirror world and all mirrors are windows into it.
Yes, that’s what I came here to say
We like to think English follows a consistent set of rules.
It doesn’t.
