This universal describes the increased tendency of languages to omit the definite article when the possessor is preposed rather than postposed (independently of the position of the article).Haspelmath 1999: 235 suggests an economy-based approach to explain this: “if the possessor precedes the head noun, then at the time the hearer encounters the head noun he or she already has the information about its probable definiteness. Thus, overt indication of definiteness is still more redundant under these circumstances. Conversely, the definite article is relatively more useful with postposed possessors because at the time the head noun is encountered the anchoring information of the possessor is not yet available.”
This universal describes the increased tendency of languages to omit the definite article when the possessor is preposed rather than postposed (independently of the position of the article).Haspelmath 1999: 235 suggests an economy-based approach to explain this: “if the possessor precedes the head noun, then at the time the hearer encounters the head noun he or she already has the information about its probable definiteness. Thus, overt indication of definiteness is still more redundant under these circumstances. Conversely, the definite article is relatively more useful with postposed possessors because at the time the head noun is encountered the anchoring information of the possessor is not yet available.”