Nouns of multitude

This is quite a long and technical post so I have divided it into three sections (What; Which and why; So) and have included a lot of examples.

What

Nouns of multitude are wholes that comprise similar parts. They are a type of collective noun; examples include committee, team, government, jury, Ministry, army, group, party, crowd, flock, generation, mob, department, family, crew, clergy, herd, syndicate, faculty, audience, public, company, Congress, orchestra, firm, and Parliament.

There is confusion over whether nouns of multitude are singular (the collective entity) or plural (the individuals in it). In fact they are both, or rather they can be either. This ambiguity means that there are better and worse ways to use them – but there is no definitive right and wrong way. To tease out the details we must look more closely at how they are used.

When using nouns of multitude with verbs and pronouns, the main thing is to be consistent. The following examples are not:

After the jury returns with their verdict…
The committee has agreed that after their AGM next week…

These lines are missing what is known as “notional agreement” or “notional concord”. They are unlikely to bother the casual reader, but they are likely to be revised in edited prose. More conspicuously aberrant is an example I read over the weekend:

Stan Carey - nouns of multitude in RTE rugby story

From: Ireland crowned grand slam champions, RTÉ News, 21 March 2009. The Minister’s original statement (“They are deserving winners…”) was fine; RTÉ introduced the incongruence of making team both singular and plural in the same clause.

Which and why

So if a noun of multitude can be singular or plural, which should it be, and why? The team was, or the team were? The jury finds, or the jury find? Your decision depends first on whether you are writing U.S. or British English. The plural form is more common in British English (The press have reacted swiftly), though the singular form is also standard (The Government anticipates). The singular form is more common in U.S. English (The press has reacted swiftly). But these are mere generalities; there is considerable variation.

Your decision also depends on what you want to emphasise. To stress a group’s plurality, use the plural; to stress the group as a unit, use the singular:

The department is prepared for cutbacks (the department as a whole is prepared)
The department are to be praised for their efforts (all individuals in the department deserve praise)

Sports teams usually take the plural in British English (the team were deserving winners; Liverpool are beating United), but in business contexts and U.S. English they can just as suitably take the singular (Manchester United is a wealthy club; Baltimore beats Browns).

If you are still unsure, a pronoun might help you decide. You would not write: “the board fought among itself” because it takes at least two to fight; this implication immediately suggests the plural: “The board fought among themselves”. (It is perhaps easier to succumb to contradictions when speaking than when writing, and easier to ignore contradictions when listening than when reading.)

So

With these conventions and principles in mind we look again at earlier examples:

After the jury returns with their verdict…

Singular and plural forms (returns and its, or return and their, respectively) are both standard in British English; the singular form dominates in the U.S. Both are fine.

The committee has agreed that after their AGM next week…

The singular (has and its) is acceptable, but suggests a unit agreeing with itself, whereas the plural (have and their) suggests round-the-table agreement by all the members of the committee. This connotation makes the plural the better choice. Subtle distinctions sometimes accompany the verb, and might help you decide whether singular or plural is preferable.

If it does not clutter your syntax, you can elaborate for the sake of accuracy and clarity, e.g. by referring to the Cabinet as the Cabinet members, or the members of the Cabinet, both of which are plainly plural. This tactic is less likely to work if the collective noun appears frequently, because it would lead to the aforementioned clutter. And you won’t see it in a headline, where economy is paramount.

Finally, using a collective noun as both singular and plural in the same context is inadvisable if you want to maintain notional agreement, but in casual or colloquial usage it presents no problem. To borrow an example from Eric Partridge’s Usage and Abusage:

The family is well and send their regards.

The family as a whole is [are] well, and the people in it send their regards. Were the family to send its regards, it would seem less personal.

About these ads

7 Responses to Nouns of multitude

  1. Sean Jeating says:

    Much appreciated little lesson. Thanks, Stan.

  2. Stan says:

    My pleasure, Sean, I hope it was helpful. As blog posts go, it is relatively long, so you are kind to call it a “little lesson” – little as in Little John, perhaps!

    Though he was call’d Little, his limbs they were large,
    And his stature was seven foot high
    Where-ever he came, they quak’d at his name,
    For soon he would make them to fly.

  3. PK says:

    Nice post, Stan. Curiously enough, I have been considering writing a column on this very topic myself – specifically in relation to an ongoing example that irks me: the American music fan’s use of band names. The one that got my goat recently was a quote from Wayne Coyne: “They have good tunes, but they’re pricks, so fuck ‘em. Who does Arcade Fire think they are?” Who DOES Arcade Fire think THEY ARE… I’ve got a multiple personality disorder just thinking about that sentence. Sheesh!

  4. Sean Jeating says:

    Ah, gentlemen you are filling my heart with relief. Two languages, about the same issues (sic! hahaha).

  5. Stan says:

    PK: I’m all for innovative new usage, but that’s a shocker. Wayne Coyne, who do he thinks he are? Good luck with the column – let me know if you end up writing about notional concord!

    Sean: Yes, we could call them languages of multitude.

  6. Claudia says:

    So grateful Sean’s blog told me about you. I grew up French a long time ago, married a British-Irish without really knowing the language (except: I do!). Learned English reading Dickens. Arduous but satisfactory. Since then, I’ve absorbed whatever I could from people with different backgrounds, in Canada and USA, and I read voraciously. What you wrote today clarified a problem I’ve been having for over 30 years…Nobody ever seemed to handle those sentences in the same way. So I played it by ear most of the time, adopting what sounded right at that moment. From now on, please consider me a devoted student of your little (or tall) lessons.

    Appreciate your sense of humour, gentlemen!

  7. Stan says:

    Delighted to have you on board, Claudia! And I’m very pleased to have helped clarify a long-standing problem. Many people whose first language is English did not learn its structure and grammar in much detail, so they end up playing it by ear too. You’re in good company, and your English is excellent. Reading Dickens and other great writers is a fine way to learn!

    I remember reading (in Paul Martin’s Counting Sheep: The Science and Pleasures of Sleep, I think) that Dickens sometimes walked for many miles throughout the night, writing in his head in a half-awake, half-asleep state: what Italians call dormiveglia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,827 other followers