Word Count

Writers Talk About Writing

Towards a Fuller Understanding of Usage

Jonathon Owen is a copy editor and student of linguistics who "holds the paradoxical view that it's possible to be a prescriptivist and descriptivist simultaneously." Here, he investigates the word towards, a favorite target of American editors, who love to lop off that supposedly superfluous -s.

I remember when my family got WordPerfect 5.2 for Windows, roughly twenty years ago. I was excited because it came with a grammar checker called Grammatik, and I, as an aspiring young writer, thought it would help me improve my writing. But I soon came to find its advice more frustrating than helpful. I particularly remember it telling me not to use towards because it was British; I was supposed to use toward instead.

I was perplexed. I'm certainly not British, so how was it that I came to be using a British word? But this wasn't just some fluke of Grammatik; many usage commentators say the same thing. Bryan Garner says confidently and unequivocally, "In Am[erican] E[nglish], the preferred form is toward." Note the bare passive "preferred" — one wonders, preferred by whom? But I'll get to that later. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage more fairly states, "Both words are commonly used in the U.S., but toward is undoubtedly more prevalent." Searches in the Corpus of Contemporary American English and Google Books Ngrams confirm this. The Corpus of Historical American English, on the other hand, gives us a bit of a hint of what's happening by showing usage change over time. In the 1820s, towards outnumbered toward in print by almost 4 to 1. By the first decade of the 2000s, the situation had reversed and then some: toward outnumbered towards 10 to 1.

By itself, this data seems to indicate that Americans have moved away from towards. And why shouldn't they? We've also moved away from colour and organise and other British forms. But the numbers are deceptive. Remember that these corpora all rely on published writing, and published writing is edited writing. When we peek inside the editorial process, things become clearer: it's editors who are driving the change. I can testify that editors love to strike out that supposedly extraneous -s. I've seen it over and over in my twelve years as an editor.

For part of my master's thesis, I gave volunteer editors raw manuscripts and asked them to edit them. Then I catalogued all the usage and grammar changes they made. One particular finding was rather surprising but also validating: authors used toward and towards in roughly equal numbers. In about 35,000 words of unedited text, toward appeared nine times, and towards ten times. Let me be quick to point out that these manuscripts were academic journal articles. If Standard English is the formal usage of educated writers, then towards is clearly standard. After the editors were through, though, there were seventeen instances of toward and only two of towards, which is close to the 10-to-1 ratio found in the corpora. Eighty percent of all instances of towards lost their -s.

In a nutshell, towards is seemingly rare in American English because copy editors make it rare. Lexicographers note its rarity in print and list toward as the primary form. Usage writers conclude that towards is British and should be avoided in American writing. Their prescriptions, which appear to be based on actual usage, then give editors added support for deleting the -s, and the signal is strengthened in a feedback loop. We're just using past editorial practice as justification for current editorial practice. Curiously, Garner places towards at stage 4 in his "language-change index," meaning that "the form becomes virtually universal but is opposed on cogent grounds by a few linguistic stalwarts." I'm not sure what cogent grounds there are here, but his index assumes that disfavored forms are upstarts fighting against tradition. In this case, the "few linguistic stalwarts" are usage writers and the editors who follow them, and they're driving towards out of print, not fighting a losing battle against it. They're the one who prefer toward to towards and who are imposing their preference on the rest of us.

I know that some of you out there are still thinking, "But why include the -s? You don't need it!" as if a letter that could be deleted is automatically one that should be deleted. But it's a fairly large logical leap from "you don't need it" to "you should get rid of it." And besides, towards has been a part of the English language for as long as there has been an English language. It's still common in educated speech and unedited writing. Why is it so important to get rid of it now?

That's just the thing. It isn't. We copy editors aren't doing our readers a service by deleting the -s. It's just mindless mechanical work based on an incomplete view of usage. It's past time we move away from that view and towards a fuller one.


Rate this article:

Click here to read more articles from Word Count.

Jonathon Owen is a copy editor and book designer with a master's degree in linguistics from Brigham Young University. His thesis explores the role of copyediting in regulating English usage, and he holds the paradoxical view that it's possible to be a prescriptivist and descriptivist simultaneously. He writes about usage, editing, and linguistics at arrantpedantry.com, and he also writes a column on grammar for Copyediting newsletter. In his free time he likes to play Scrabble and design word-nerdy t-shirts. You can follow him on Twitter at @ArrantPedantry Click here to read more articles by Jonathon Owen.

Join the conversation

Comments from our users:

Tuesday March 19th 2013, 8:39 AM
Comment by: Patricia H. (Philadelphia, PA)
I bet copy editors are deleting the -s to make space.
Tuesday March 19th 2013, 9:42 AM
Comment by: Augustine R. (Mc Farland, WI)
I bet copy editors are using software such as Grammatik as a first pass editorial process.
Tuesday March 19th 2013, 9:50 AM
Comment by: Craig J. (Mundelein, IL)
Pity the poor prescriptivists who suffer the slings and arrows of outraged descriptivists for holding the line against anarchy (the inevitable result of untempered democracy). Both points of view are necessary to making language, particularly written language, achieve its greatest utility. Some prescriptivist efforts are futile and/or arbitrary, like knocking the "s" out of "towards" (as described above), but without their work linguistic drift would be excessive amongst millions or even billions of people plying each their own brand of English. No one likes being "spanked" (unless they're a true masochist), but the preferences of the few, or the one, should sometimes be subordinated to the needs of the many.
Tuesday March 19th 2013, 10:27 AM
Comment by: TheErn (Bedford, TX)
Yes, interesting to a point -- but until Owen digs into Strunk's constancy regarding the possessive "'s" following possessors's names ending in "s", I'll reserve judgment. the Ern
Tuesday March 19th 2013, 10:57 AM
Comment by: Roberta M. (Redmond, WA)Top 10 Commenter
How come 'rating this article' seems to be dead for this one? I'd like to rate it highly and can't make a star show. Bug? *Conspiracy by prescriptivists?*
Tuesday March 19th 2013, 11:06 AM
Comment by: Sue B.Top 10 Commenter
I'm not sure I can quite agree with Craig J. in his assertion that without prescriptivists linguistic anarchy would reign. After all, language's function is successful communication, and it seems to me that the success and failure among the users of a language is prescriptive enough. I tried to think of another social function that required a "board of what's right" to allow people to successfully wield it, and couldn't come up with one. Maybe someone else can?
Tuesday March 19th 2013, 11:24 AM
Comment by: Nancy FriedmanVisual Thesaurus Contributor
Fascinating article, Jonathon! As a former copy editor myself, I admit I got a little thrill to think that the profession had so much power.

I'm wondering whether another force may be at work in S-deletion on the ward words. The Old English suffix was, in fact, weard, not weards, and even British English has maintained S-less versions, usually but not always for the modifier forms. Consider "Onward, Christian Soldiers" (written in 19th-century England), "the forward path" (in a 19th-century English translation of Dante), "forward player" (in cricket), and "forward-thinking" (first citation from a 1958 issue of the Times Literary Supplement).

Perhaps the first copy editor to delete the S on "towards" was thinking about consistency: why should -wards and -ward coexist? Or maybe he was a frustrated scholar of Old English.
Tuesday March 19th 2013, 11:49 AM
Comment by: Erin B. (Haverhill, MA)Visual Thesaurus Contributor
Nancy, that's an interesting point. I think that mindset of "why should two forms coexist" is a problem. Our attitude should be "why shouldn't it exist?"
Tuesday March 19th 2013, 1:19 PM
Comment by: Jonathon O. (UT)Visual Thesaurus Contributor
Patricia: That might be the case for some newspaper editors, but I doubt that it's much of an issue in book publishing. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the initial impetus for favoring "toward" in American English, though then I'd have to wonder why it's not an issue in the UK.

Augustine: It could be, but I've also seen plenty of editors strike out that "s" manually. They're not simply doing an automatic find-and-replace.

Craig: That's an interesting claim, but where's the evidence that prescriptivists are keeping anarchy at bay? Do you know of any examples where prescriptivists weren't allowed to do their work and the language spun out of control? Also, do we have any good way to know which efforts are futile and which are helpful?

Sue: Good point. The anarchy claim is a red herring, I think. As long as people have an interest in understanding others and being understood, they'll work together to make sure it happens. I don't think we need overt regulation as much as some people claim we do.

Nancy: Thanks! It's not entirely true that Old English had weard but not weards. The OED has a citation for towards from King Alfred the Great in about 888 AD. Plus, there are cognate formations in Dutch, German, Gothic, and other languages, indicating that it probably goes back to 500 BC or so. I think you're right that it was initially just an issue of consistency (and maybe saving a little space, as Patricia said).

Erin: Exactly. I think the default attitude should be to let it be, unless there's a pretty compelling reason to do something about it.
Tuesday March 19th 2013, 3:46 PM
Comment by: Kristine F.Top 10 Commenter
Nancy, thanks for bringing some other "ward words" into the conversation. In addition to the ones you mentioned (onward and forward) we have inward, outward, upward, downward, backward ... and of course northward, southward, etc. ... landward, skyward, seaward, heavenward, homeward ... and probably some I've forgotten. I suppose we should also mention made-up, one-time-use words that indicate the goal or direction of motion or attention (desk-ward, marriage-ward, party-ward, chocolate-ward, money-ward ...), but let's not include them in my query:

Jonathan, I won't ask you to answer this question in depth, but generally speaking have those words followed paths similar to that of "toward(s)", and are they currently as hotly contested and editorially managed?

The Happy Quibbler
(also a BYU alumnus ... go Cougars!)

P.S. FYI, in case you are curious, as I was, "awkward" does not mean "moving in the direction of a black and white diving bird of northern seas." I looked it up. You're welcome.
Tuesday March 26th 2013, 8:17 PM
Comment by: Jonathon O. (UT)Visual Thesaurus Contributor
Kristine: I haven't run corpus searches on other "ward(s)" words, but I would imagine that they're following roughly the same trajectory. I think towards is sometimes singled out simply because it's so much more frequent than the others.

(Rise and shout!)

Do you have a comment?

Share it with the Visual Thesaurus community.

Your comments:

Sign in to post a comment!

We're sorry, you must be a subscriber to comment.

Click here to subscribe today.

Already a subscriber? Click here to login.