Word Routes
Exploring the pathways of our lexicon
Mailbag Friday: "These Ones"
Welcome to another edition of Mailbag Friday! Carol B. writes in with today's question:
As an American living in Australia, I'm overwhelmed by the common use of "these ones." I came across it yesterday in a British memoir! It grates on my nerves. Anybody else?
I don't know if other American expats share Carol's negative reaction, but this is not a figment of her imagination: these ones (as opposed to just plain these) does appear to be far more common in English as spoken in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries like Australia. In 2007 on Language Log (my other blogging home), Stanford linguist Arnold Zwicky looked into the matter and asked for judgments from English speakers in different countries:
The big news is that the expression [these ones] is indeed regionally distributed: my US correspondents are mostly dubious about it, but my UK correspondents find it unremarkable (and were consequently astounded by my judgment that it was non-standard).
Zwicky's correspondents in Canada and Australia agreed that these ones seemed perfectly standard to them. By and large it was only Americans who found it odd to use these ones rather than these or those ones rather than those. (The distinction wasn't entirely cut and dry: some American correspondents said that these ones and those ones were common in their dialects.)
Though Zwicky's results are anecdotal, we can back them up with more systematic data. In order to determine the frequency of patterns of words like these ones and those ones, we need a huge collection of texts, known as a corpus. And to weigh the relative frequency of a pattern in American English versus British English, we would need not one corpus but two corpora, each providing sufficient coverage of their respective dialects. Fortunately, there are two such corpora readily available for analysis. The British National Corpus, created in the 1990s, encompasses 100 million words of written and spoken English. A US counterpart, the 385-million-word Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has recently gone online thanks to Mark Davies at Brigham Young University.
these ones |
those ones |
these ones + those ones |
|
| US: occurrences | 60 | 43 | 103 |
| US: per million words | 0.16 | 0.11 | 0.27 |
| UK: occurrences | 87 | 60 | 147 |
| UK: per million words | 0.87 | 0.60 | 1.47 |
| UK/US ratio | 5.58 | 5.37 | 5.49 |
As you can see, based on the COCA and BNC data, these ones and those ones are far more likely to occur in British English than American English: roughly five and a half times more likely, in fact. Of course, this isn't a perfect test of regional distribution, since the two corpora don't offer a precise apples-to-apples comparison: the overall makeup of source texts differs somewhat, and COCA generally covers more recent material than BNC. Still, the numbers are compelling.
Though it's clear that this is a genuine regional variation, the question remains: why are these ones and those ones generally disfavored in the US but not in the UK or Commonwealth countries? The situation isn't comparable to how Noah Webster popularized American spellings like center rather than centre or honor rather than honour. No American linguistic authority has decreed that these/those ones should be avoided. As Zwicky notes, English usage guides have not seen fit to remark on this variation. (One exception: Paul Brians of Washington State University lists these ones in his "Common Errors in English," but he gives no indication that this is an American preference and doesn't provide a rationale for it.) In other words, it's largely flown under the radar of the usage mavens on both sides of the Atlantic (and Down Under too).
So kudos to Carol and her finely tuned expatriate ears for picking up on this distinction. How do other readers feel about these ones and those ones? Leave your reaction — good, bad, or indifferent — in the comments below!


Join the conversation
Comments from our users:
Further, if "these ones" and "those ones" is found to be funny, why then is "Which ones?" not? To me, the same "rule" should apply.
I guess those of you who stress over "these ones" and "those ones" would be driven mad by "you ones" (which is actually reduced to "you'ns.")
My question is when did people forget that "bring" is not the same as "take" . . .
Barry-Maryland
I think language is alive and changes to suit new events and technologies, which makes it so much fun. I love to coin new phrases and words to describe feelings and express ideas. Some work, some don't.
America - "in THE hospital", British - "in hospital"
England and America are two countries separated by a common language.
--George Bernard Shaw
"These" & "those" seem to be written language, "these ones"/"those ones" are often used in speech when the items referred to are present.
As for something that really is strange & irritatingly unnecessary, how can one justify the usage "off of" when a simple "off" (or often "from") does the job???
(And do persons from USA realise that some states in other countries carry the same abbreviated form as their own??)
Dear Adale, Don't Bother! Ten years ago Open University had a full course called 'The English Language', which glorified all 'Englishes' - American, Indian, Irish, Caribbean, antipodean, thick local dialects, etc. etc. The bottom line was that all forms of English are rich, varied and evolving fast, that all new words, forms, contractions and deformations were welcome, and that it didn't matter a good g**d**n if English-speaking people didn't understand each other! I got top marks contesting this last point vigourously, but only because they like a good argument. They truly believed it. So if English is not supposed be any use for communication, why bother to learn it at all, unless it is only for Internet?
Marcus, I wonder if 'in THE hospital' has anything to do with the former French colonies, since the French also use the definite article in this way.
I thought it hilarious that Australian TV series had to be dubbed for Americans until I watched a completely incomprehensible programme in French-Canadian!
So, maybe "in hospital," as the Brits say it, means that someone is hospitalized without being specific about the place they're staying at, and "in the hospital" refers to the building? Just a thought.
Then in Tasmania, travelling from Burnie to Hobart, we stop by a familiar farm for eggs and asked for Mr. Gray, the proprietor. We were saddened to hear that Mr. Grey went to Hobart “todie.” Having seen our reaction the person we questioned quickly told us that he would be back tomorrow.
"I'm taking these ones. Do youse guys want your ones, or those ones over there?
I agree with Julianne. The usage is largely regionally & socioeconomically (RE:educationally) based. I'd be curious to know how long it's been in use. Is grammar still taught?
"I'm taking these ones. Do youse guys want your ones, or those ones over there?
I agree with Julianne. The usage is largely regionally & socioeconomically (RE:educationally) based. I'd be curious to know how long it's been in use. Is grammar still taught?
While I grew up hearing the phrases and most certainly using them conversationally, I'm willing to bet that is the first time I've ever used them in writing. The phrases do look awkward to me written, though I'd never give them a glance askance when hearing them spoken. I'm sure that means on some level they would seem natural as written dialogue for characters in a novel.
I liked "those ones" as it felt informal and more friendly.
One of my favorite greetings by a shop keeper heard all around the mountains of North Carolina was "What can I do you for?"
To me, "ones" is a perfectly acceptable plural pronoun that can take the place of a plural noun that is already understood to be the topic of the sentence. If we're talking about the comparative quality of two bins of tomatoes at the grocery store, I would have no problem saying "These ones look riper." Saying "These look riper" would suffice but would sacrifice the pointed comparison between "these ones" and "those ones."
I don't think any of the commenters have expressed a similar distate for "This one" or "That one." Why isn't "these ones" a perfectly natural pluralization of "this one," and "those ones" of "that one?" If asked to choose between two tomatoes, I would say, "I want this one." (Not "I want this.") Why shouldn't I say, if asked to choose between two groups of tomatoes, "I want these ones?"
As a born in American, now Canadian, I've had to adjust to a surprising number of different usuages and customs (vinegar on fries being one that I've not adopted in close to 50 years of living here!). I grew up in Pennsylvania Dutch country, and my parents jumped on me for any use of the colloquial. But I find the PD dialect beautiful and fun to read.
In fact, (I had typed 'as a matter of fact' but then decided it would be found to be 'wordy'!) I am trying to find a copy of, or an example of, writing that appeared in the Morning Call-Chronicle, Tales My Gosfader Told Me. They were low German renditions (a creole, perhaps) of fairy tales, quite understandable, however, in English.
Though many common usuages today bother me, I'm thrilled by the diversity of English. And as I meet more English speakers from round the world, I'm thrilled with what we do with our Mother Tongue, in addition to being upset by those who 'abuse' it, the ones (I think that's justifiable!) who should know better.
But having a thing about 'lie' and 'lay' myself, and 'irregardless' and many other usuages, I'm not in a position to refer to anyone else as picky.
Oh, to our UK friend who said, "Football is not as popular in the U.S.A. as it is in other English speaking countries. Perhaps 'those ones' refers to a group of goal keepers?"
Football is extremely popular, not just in the US, but in Canada. (We have bigger balls than the Americans.) But we use the term to refer to a game that has little to do with feet connecting with balls. We call your game soccer, as you well know, having had your tongue far into your cheek when you wrote that!
And for the person in Switzerland who finds French Canadian incomprehensible, take comfort in that my born in France husband was corrected there for asking for pommes des terres instead of potates. When I as him to translate something I hear from a Francophone here, he cannot. And he taught university level French here for years, so he's reasonably current, though not with what might be French slang now.
It's a dialect that dates from colonial separation from the Mother Country, just as our English does. But it has diverged more, or stayed more as it was, separated -- than American English.
When we travelled to Nova Scotia and heard Acadian French, neither my mother-in-law, a woman still very much French, nor my husband, had a clue as to what was being said.
But all this is wonderful! The Francophones here speak differently from the Quebecois, but then we differ too in speech from the Newfoundlers.
An American friend commented to our British friends at a website, asking why the crowd roared when a young girl mentioned putting her hair in 'benders'. She meant 'curlers', but there's a double meaning.
I was tempted to comment on 'curlers', that to me, they are involved in another ice sport! But I decided to let a sleeping dog lie!
One UK usage that confounds me is 'I was sat' there, thinking about dinner.'
That use of 'sat' instead of 'was sitting' grates, but is fairly common usage, I've learned.
The difference enchants and intrigues.
If I said 'Thank you' to someone, and that person said nothing, in my social set that would be rude.
But I don't think that you had my context clear, and you would probably then (in that situation) simply say 'you're welcome'.
My pet redundancies are "continue on" and "return back". Arrgggggh!!
It's interesting that German, closely related to English, doesn't have this distinction: "diese" serves as a distance-neutral pronoun equivalent to "these," but there's no corresponding equivalent to "those." The closest Germans can manage is "diese dort," which translates literally to "these there." "Diese" also is used for both singular and plural nouns. So English has four words ("this," "that," "these," "those") where German only has one. I wonder if the common ancestral language had the distinction, which has since died out in German but not in English?
Upon thinking more, I realize what a pity it is, that someone supposedly so well educated as he, can by so gleefully and noisily defining the United States by its opposites, miss so much of its beauty and power.
I feel sorry for him. But I shouldn't. He'll live happily half-time in his elite world and never see the huge reality just 'beneath' him. He'll not miss it. His 'greys' don't include the United States I know and love and still admire, the place where my family lives.
And I don't love my British friends any less for having become aware of him.
"Now in case this is sounding like an attack on American values and traits, let me say that my love, admiration and fascination for America remains intact. I am taking a line for a walk, I am playing with ideas here, not denouncing America and America’s characteristics, but delineating them as I see them from my wholly secular and idiosyncratic pulpit, this lectern."
I didn't have time to read the entire speech, but I read it anyway. Absolutely marvelous! The best thing I've read in a long time.
And I'm just like him! Half the time...
"I want the truth. I want it unsweetened. I want to wash my mouth free of all sweeteners. I want to test all claims and statements on the anvil of experience or by empirical, double-blind randomised cohorts according to best scientific practice. I want to doubt, to experience, to think, to challenge and to scoff.... I want learning, language and literature, not philistinism, fantasy and infantilism."
Right! But only half the time. And it isn't a gray sort of thing for me.
Thanks, Carl!