If you don't mind, I'd like to continue this thread, because it seems I'm still missing something. I've read an article recently about article usage (Definiteness and Identification in English by Barbara Abbott) which includes several examples of "use of" without any determiner. Here they are,
1) "...In each of these examples the underlined definite description denotes an entity (Red Bullet, Christmas) which is extremely accessible and in fact the topic of the preceding text. If use of a definite description just meant “low accessibility”, then these examples should feel unnatural, but they don’t."
2) "We would argue that what is required for felicitous use of the definite article (and most uses of other definites) is that the speaker must believe that the hearer is able to individuate the referent in question from all others within the discourse model."
3) "It seems accurate to say that use of a definite conveys an assumption that the addressee can access or identify or individuate a referent."
4) "...I believe that the use of the definite in this example may also be in conscious imitation of a kind of snooty use of the definite by upscale department stores; cf. also phrases like $50 the pair. Use of the phrase "the catalog" in this way brings home the striking fact that human body parts are to be treated just like shoes and hats."
How are these different from my example above, "The use of article in English writing follows several basic rules..."?