Sporting myths of our time

The use of verbs with team names is down to a handful of commentators
myth - it's stipulated in the BBC style guide, as it is in the Guardian Style Guide

This use is recent
myth - plural verbs have been used with team names since team sports started appearing in the 18th century, especially in cricket, for example in Wisden's.

Sussex were put in the last innings for forty-eight runs.
Sporting Magazine 1828

Whilst we are writing Kent are playing Sussex their return match at Tunbridge Wells.
Baily's Magazine 1860

and in 1862 Eton were declared the victors late on the afternoon of Saturday.
The Saturday Review 1865

and before the clock struck 6, the M.C.C. were all out for 112.
John Wisden's Cricket Almanack 1870

When Cambridge were out for 134 there was much shaking of heads.
Baily's Magazine 1877

In the cricket match between Oxford and Cambridge, the former were beaten by two hundred and eixty-six runs.
The Liberal and the New Dispensation 1893

The Australian team have defeated the Derby eleven by an innings and seventy-one runs.
Ibid 1893

Is it that Sheffield United are really so good as their League position indicates?
The Sketch 1895

The Rugby 'Varsity battle is over, and Cambridge are the winners.
The Sketch 1895

Yorkshire are so sure of winning the championship that ... .
The Truth 1895

Scotland are playing two distinct teams against Wales and Ireland.
Baily's Magazine 1896

when the match ended Harrow were by no means in a bad position.
Cricket, a Weekly Record 1896

In this match Gloucestershire were quite outplayed.
Cricket, a Weekly Record 1896

Cardiff are, perhaps, the best team in the principality.
Country Life Illustrated 1897

Surrey are again showing themselves to be somewhat of a fair weather team.
Country Life Illustrated 1897

Sheffield United are still at the top of the tree in the League matches.
Truth 1897

Yorkshire were again beaten by 140 runs. The North of England were beaten by 42 runs at Manchester. Hampshire were defeated by an innings and 25 runs.
Whitaker's Almanack 1897

Bristol are running Southampton a close race for the championship.
Baily's Magazine 1897

Since 1890 Oxford have won nine races in succession.
Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes 1898

South Australia were dismissed in their second venture for 32.
The Ludgate Illustrated Magazine 1898

I'm not saying that singular verbs weren't also used, perhaps more often than plural ones; sometimes you find them in the same publication. But there are plenty of examples of plural verbs being used with team names in the 19th century.

@HS - Just to remind you that you were the one who introduced the word proof. I would never demand proof, for the reasons I've outlined in my last comment to Jasper. I just don't get this overriding concern about whether something is 'correct' or not.

@jayles - I see were still on this myth that this is down to a couple of sports commentators, despite all the evidence I've given that this is a) centuries old and b) widespread.

If some people want to ignore everything that's been written about this question over the last three hundred years or so, together with contemporary corpus evidence, that's their prerogative, but I think, that for the time being anyway, I'm out. I don't really see the point any more.

@Jasper - I wasn't suggesting that you did want 'thou' for snobbery reasons. AnWulf could probably help here, but I don't think it was simply a matter of thou being singular and you being plural. I think you was also used as a polite singular, but also to demarcate social position - when speaking to one of your 'betters' you called them you, but they might will call you 'thou'. And its still happens to a small extent in French. And as I said, when you have two singular forms like this, it can also be confusing. So if you bring it back, you must insist that you is never used as a polite form, only a plural.

On the matter of confusion - I know what the forms look like on paper, but has that ever led you to any real confusion in real life?

"I was simply stating that a usage isn't right just because it's popular,"

As I told you, I don't find right a particularly useful term, especially when it comes to teaching. It's far too simplistic and imprecise a tool.

Right when? When you're talking to your mates in the pub? Right when you first meet the rather stuffy parents of your new girlfriend? Right when you are writing a formal letter?

And right according to who(m)? According to Neville Gwynne who thinks we should be going around saying things like 'Do you see whom I see?', or right according to the way normal people speak - 'Do you see who I see?'

We spend quite a bit of time with our students talking about register, i.e. the difference between the various levels of formal and informal English, what is appropriate when. Yes, I have a responsibility to my students to teach them what is grammatically correct, but I think that's rather different from your 'right'. But I also have a responsibility to make sure that they don't come out with grammatically 'correct' but inappropriate language. The last thing I want is people laughing at my students because they're being over formal or sounding pretentious.

For example there's one website that suggests that a good example of using 'whom' is 'With whom did you eat your pizza?' Grammatically perfectly correct, but not something you'd ever put into a formal document. This is informal spoken English where 'whom' is rarely used, and to many people sounds stilted and pretentious.

Lets go back to 'grammatical' and 'right'. This sentence is obviously ungrammatical - 'That's the man which gave me the money.' - no native speaker of standard English would say that, but a French beginner learner might, as there is no distinction in French relative pronouns between people and things (only subject and object). We can all agree that that sentence is ungrammatical. But what about this one - 'That's the car which ran over our cat.'

For linguists and EFL grammarians there is no question, 'which' has been used in defining (restrictive) relative clauses for centuries. But in 1908, the Fowler brothers thought it might be a good idea when talking about things to restrict 'which' to use in non-defining relative clauses and only use 'that' in defining relative clauses. This idea was largely ignored in their home country but taken up by certain style guides in the States and elevated into a golden rule. So while I maintain that that sentence is perfectly grammatical, there are some (many, even) who would consider it wrong. This is known in linguistics circles as 'whichhunting'. And funnily enough, they also use the confusion argument, although it never seems to bother them with 'who', which is of course used for both defining and non-defining.

My concern for myself and my students is that we should use language which is grammatical, appropriate to the situation, natural and idiomatic. What other people do or say is really none of my business. I know it's a minority view here, but I think the whole idea of 'correct' lacks nuance, is often divorced from linguistic reality, and in some cases can lead to a rather unpleasant air of smugness and superiority.

This article at Macmillan Dictionaries more or less sums it up for me.

http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/because-i-say-so

@jayles - OK, but there isn't really a rule about this. Some British newspapers for example have no policy, some generally use plurals, others (like the Times) have a policy of using a singular verb. The Economist say(s) use your common sense, the BBC has about three different policies, depending which part you're talking about. Funny that, I automatically used plural for the Economist, but singular for the BBC. I wonder why?

A lot of international publications will follow American practice, so if there's any doubt it's probably better to go for singular, but make sure any personal or relative pronouns agree.

I notice that IELTS Language Practice uses singular verbs with jury, and the fact that IELTS is often asked for by Australian institutions is another factor in favour of using singular. In any case it's probably easier for students, as we've both already said.

My position in this discussion has never been to advocate the use of plural verbs with collective nouns, only to say that it is perfectly standard British English and is an available option for those who want to use it. And to point out that, as they say at MWDEU, "All grammarians and usage commentators agree on the basic principle." (Mistyped in my previous post).

I would also stress that it is only used for groups when they are seen as individuals "doing personal things like deciding, hoping or wanting" or doing actions of some sort. Merely following them with 'is/are' is not going to give you this sense of action, nor are passive sentences like "A murder of crows was seen in the field." - by using the passive, the crows are no longer the agents.

And incidentally (naughty!) - "Each family are" is simply ungrammatical. Dig down and you'll find they were all things like "members of each family are". On Ngram, I really think you have to force 'family' to be the subject by capitalising the first word.

That last paragraph should have read:

What has surprised me is that in fact the theoretical grammar, as outlined in the MWDEU and in Garner's book linked to above is pretty well identical in both British and American grammar; the difference is in usage.

@jayles - Ngram is mainly based on books, and it is generally accepted that singular forms occur more often in more formal language. You could perhaps try with the British National Corpus - simply google BNC

I deliberately put in couple and pair as there doesn't seem to be such a difference here between AmE and BrE - see this from Bryan Garner - in fact this is an excellent account of the grammar of collective nouns and its history by one of America's most respected commentators on language, Bryan Garner.

http://books.google.pl/books?id=mVcJqKs1isUC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=bryan+garner+collective+verbs&source=bl&ots=zuuXpCTeCA&sig=J5qG3sAY3YfWAUTbGehmSklDAEU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bIh4U4SrM-_Q7AalxoDACg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bryan%20garner%20collective%20verbs&f=false

The Economist recommends using plural for both couple and pair. But as I keep saying, nothing is automatic; it's your choice.

'each family' - of course 'is' is going to predominate here, by using 'each' you have already identified them as entities, and something pretty similar is happening with 'this'.

Change 'this' to 'my' and you'll get a rather different result. Family, by the way, is one of the key words in the difference between American and British usage.

BNC - my family are - 21, my family is - 12

But basically these phrases you're trying are too open to other things happening to be very meaningful; you need to look at the context underneath. For example for 'my family is', we get things like:

"The most inexpensive bonding activity I've done with my family is enjoying ..."
"My family is something I have inherited"
"and the soul of my family is the act and the process of creating itself"
"The past of my family is in a sense my identity"
"the separation from my family is a Sacrifice"

That's five out of the first twenty, and the rest include both American and British examples. Ngram is a very blunt instrument unless used very carefully.

We might argue about the grammar, but as for there not being a Transatlantic split, that goes against what just about every professional commentator says. I would refer you to Bryan Garner again.

@HS - so, what's wrong with using standard British English ???????????????

"Nigel Farage's UKIP are on the verge of winning a Scottish seat" - The Daily Record

"Ukip are the pro-Europeans' most dangerous weapon"- The Telegraph

"Ukip are true libertarians" - The Guardian

"Eric Pickles: Nigel Farage's Ukip are 'xenophobic' but not racist" - The Standard

"Ukip are a racist, anti-white party encouraging the genocide of British people, the British National Party have said." Huffington Post (UK)

"UKIP are very adept at ignoring the (generally accepted scientific) truth" - The Economist

"But that could all soon change, as UKIP are now a serious electoral force in Essex." - BBC

"UKIP are desperate to make waves in the European elections" - Sky News

I know they are basically a one-man party, bit in theory at least they are a group of people. And is it really so strange that the British media should reflect the language of its/their readers?

@everyone - I think it might be time for this, from the (American) Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage:

"Collective nouns ... have had the characteristic of being used with both singular and plural verbs since Middle English. The principle involved - referred to elsewhere in this book as notional agreement - is simple: when the group is considered as a unit, the singular verb is used; when it is thought of as a collection of individuals, the plural verb is used. All grammarians and usage commentators agree on the basic sentence."

"Those commentators who mention British-American differences agree in general that singular verbs are more common in American English and plural verbs more common in British English. Beyond this generality it can be unsafe to venture; where notional agreement operates, there are no absolutes."

"The difference between British and American English usage may be illustrated by the word 'family'. ". And from various studies they draw various conclusions:

1. Plural forms are more common in BrE, although there is some resistance to things like 'his family are'.

2. In BrE plural forms are used more often in speaking than in writing.

3. While in American English the singular is more common, plurals are not unknown, and they quote from Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, from Time Magazine and form Erich Segal writing in the NYT.

What has surprised me is that in fact the theoretical grammar, as outlined in the MWDEU and in Garner's book linked to above is pretty well identical; the difference is in usage.

@Jason - about thee/thou/you - one of the reasons it no doubt disappeared was that it was a great source of snobbery - thou downwards but you upwards. This can still be seen in police practices in France (although it was meant to have been changed last year). When a prisoner is charged he immediately becomes/became 'tu', but of course he still has to call the policeman 'vous'. What's more even the French can have problems knowing when to 'vousvoyer' and when to 'tutoyer', as do the Spanish - when addressing a youngish aunt, for example.

We're well rid of thou etc, except its use in dialect, where it has none of these social overtones, and I can't think of a single occasion when it has led to any confusion. These changes usually happen for a reason.

Sorry, Bryan Garner got missed out somehow - American commentator Bryan Garner.

@Jasper - 'Yes, but the converse is also true, just because other people like a usage and use it doesn't mean it's correct—it just means that it is popular, and popular opinion doesn't always constitute what's right.'

To be honest I don't think too much in terms of 'what is right' but more in terms of whether it is grammatical (acceptable to a majority of native speakers) and whether it's Standard English, in this case, Standard British English. But I'd disagree with you on two things.

In linguistics, extensive usage by educated speakers is exactly what makes something correct; that's how the rules have been formed over the centuries. Grammarians simply codified existing practice, but unfortunately some of them decided to add their own rules, or elevate tendencies into strict rules. As someone who teaches foreigners English I teach a grammar which is firmly based on descriptive grammar, and nowadays, usually on corpus linguistics.

Secondly, this is not simply a matter of it being popular. There really is no debate about this in grammar circles. The 18th century prescriptivists accepted it; all the principal commentators on British English accepted it; it is taught as standard when teaching foreign learners British English; it is accepted as standard by all the main British dictionaries, and put forward, to varying degrees, in certain media style guides, such as that of the Economist. And it's even accepted in 19th century American grammars, such as those by Noah Webster and William Chauncey Fowler. I have not seen one grammar book (and I look at a lot) that questions this. Couple that with actual usage, and I can't really see how much more 'correct' you can get than that.

What has changed is that in America the singular versions have become more popular, I would guess as a result of the influence of books like The Chicago Manual of Style. In 'Garner's Modern Usage', American commentator suggests that after the revolution, Americans still often used collective nouns with plural verbs and pronouns 'The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker etc', where today 'its' would be more common. But he points out that 'you can't be doctrinaire on this point of usage'.

And while Americans have moved in one direction, we have moved in the other.

http://books.google.pl/books?id=mVcJqKs1isUC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=bryan+garner+collective+verbs&source=bl&ots=zuuXpCTeCA&sig=J5qG3sAY3YfWAUTbGehmSklDAEU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bIh4U4SrM-_Q7AalxoDACg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bryan%20garner%20collective%20verbs&f=false

@jayles - that doesn't really work; you get too much noise. Click on 'police is' at the bottom of Ngram, and all the entries that show the words 'police is' are stuff like:

"This view of the police is in keeping with ..."
"The effectiveness of the police is also reduced ..."
"the primary goal of the police is public cooperation"
"the understanding between the general public and the police is undermined"

Add The (capitalised) at the beginning and 'The police is' virtually drops away to nothing, in both British and American English, although it seems to have been more popular before 1850.

By the way, there's something very strange about Ngram. When you do 'wide range of people were,wide range of people was' on English they are roughly equal. When you do it on British English, only the 'were' version appears, but when you do it on American English, nothing appears! It makes no sense. It's probably because the numbers are so small as to be meaningless.