73. Prepositions for Saying How

.

“By” and “with” are typical prepositions for saying how, but others are sometimes needed instead

MEANINGS OF “SAYING HOW”

This post is about saying what helps a verb’s action to be performed. It is not about the “how much” meaning of how before an adjective or adverb (How rich…? How easily…? etc.), which is considered in this blog in 285. Complexities of Question Words, #8.

To say how an action is performed is to name something that facilitates it. However, it is possible to focus on different types of facilitator: the kind of behaviour adopted by the person or thing performing the action (for example saying that s/he or it acts quickly or with care), or another action that has to be performed in order to achieve the one in question, or equipment used in carrying it out. In grammar these three meanings are often called “manner”, “means” and “instrument” (see 101. Add-On Participles and 120. Six Things to Know about Adverbs).

Prepositions are a typical option for expressing these different meanings of “how”. Choosing the right one, however, can be a problem. Manner prepositions are especially variable and unpredictable – phrases like with care, at speed and in haste all express manner. Moreover, manner often needs to be expressed with an adverb or participle instead of a preposition. Means and instrument more reliably use prepositions and do so more predictably, but they too can cause problems.

This post is about prepositions of means and instrument. The problems of expressing manner in English can be read about elsewhere within these pages in 85. Preposition Phrases and Corresponding Adverbs and 101. Add-On Participles. The preposition that typically indicates means is by, while that for instruments is with. The main errors that are common among learners of English are mixing them up, confusing the different uses of by, and using by or with when a non-standard preposition is needed.

.

USE OF “by” TO SHOW A MEANS

The preposition by of course has many uses apart from means-showing. Vocabulary-like meanings are found in such expressions as by December (= “up to and including”) and by the entrance (= “at the side of”). A familiar grammar-like meaning is the one created by placing by after passive verbs (as well as some nouns: see 49. Prepositions after Action Nouns 2) – paraphrasable as something like “through the work of” and showing that the noun after the preposition would be a “subject” if the verb were active instead of passive.

In order to express the idea of “means”, by needs to precede an action-indicating expression – typically an -ing verb (see 70. Gerunds) or equivalent noun (see 131. Uses of “Action” Nouns, #5):

(a) One can find the optimum price for a commodity by constructing (by the construction of) a demand curve.

In many sentences like this, through is an alternative to by (see 72. Causal Prepositions). One can also use by means of instead of by alone, but only without a following action word (… by means of a demand curve above). This is acceptable because the idea of an action is already present in the meaning of means (see also the discussion of by every means in 157. Tricky Word Contrasts 5, #6).

What is not usually an alternative to by is simply using an -ing verb by itself. In sentences like (a), this conveys the different meaning that the -ing action is just happening at the same time as the main one, rather than causing it (i.e. it conveys the meaning of while rather than by – see 101. Add-on Participles, final section). Confusingly, though, a means-expressing -ing verb that is the subject of its sentence cannot have by: it would be incorrect to start a sentence like (a) *By constructing a demand curve can…. This breaks the rule that subjects cannot have a preposition in front of them (see 84. Seven Things to Know about Prepositions, #5).

Another common mistake made with means-showing by by less experienced writers of English is leaving out the action word, like this:

(b) *One can find the optimum price for a commodity by a demand curve.

This is a mistake because the by is not doing anything that it should do: it is showing neither the originator of the action of a passive verb nor an action/means. The mistake can be corrected either by adding an action word like constructing or by changing by into by means of.

Finally, note that English uses the preposition in, not by, before way meaning “means” (see 111. Words with a Typical Preposition). For example, it is normal to say in many ways, and to make indirect questions with way in which… (see 185. Noun Synonyms of Question Words).

.

INSTRUMENTAL “with”

The preposition with is an especially common way of introducing an instrumental noun. Nouns of this kind will tend to represent things that living beings, usually humans, use to carry out actions – so that with generally means using. These thing can be not just dedicated human-use objects like tools or surgical instruments, but also more ordinary objects like software (see 301. Structures with a Double Meaning 5, #4), and even abstract ideas like strength, determination or a demand curve. This means that changing by in (b) above to with is another possible correction..

Unfortunately, the preposition with is not the only one that can introduce an instrument. Alternatives seem to depend on the type and/ or size of equipment being used (and also, sometimes, on the cultural perceptions of a language community: see 295. Options in Saying Where, #5).

It is arguable that transport modes are “instruments”. Their typical preposition varies according whether or not there is an article (a / the) before them, but it is not usually with. Without an article they tend to have by, e.g. by car, by train, by taxi, by bicycle, by bus and by lorry / truck. With an article, by contrast, these nouns usually need on or in: on a train, on a bicycle, on a bus and in (the cab of) a lorry, in a taxi and in/on an aeroplane. Interestingly, Dutch, one of the closest relatives of English, does actually use a word meaning with before many transport nouns.

Another exception to the with rule is with container nouns, such as a refrigerator, a drawer and a house. The normal instrumental preposition here is in (unless the use is an unexpected, non-containing one, like wedging). This use extends even to containers of a more metaphorical kind, such as diagrams, tables and photographs (see 104. Naming Data Sources with “As” and 111. Words with a Typical Preposition). Even the use of in with some transport modes could be viewed as a subdivision of the containing use. Also worth mentioning is the fact that larger non-containing tools, such as a screen, a gas cooker and a table, seem often to prefer on, as do the data locations a page and a map.

.

CASES WHERE “with” AND “by” ARE BOTH CORRECT

Some nouns that can correctly follow with (or its alternatives) are also correct with by – though this will usually be subject-showing by rather than the means-showing one.  Consider this:

(c) The liberated gas is collected … a gas jar.

It is possible to use by here, suggesting that a gas jar would be the subject if the passive verb is collected were active. It would mean that all responsibility for collecting the gas belonged to the gas jar rather than to any human. On the other hand, in is also possible, suggesting that the gas jar is only a tool used by a human being for collecting the gas. The existence of these different meanings can be confirmed by rewriting the sentence with a gas jar at the start as subject. The by meaning results in The gas jar collects …, while the in meaning produces The gas jar is used (in order) to collect. For more on this kind of contrast, see 104. Naming Data Sources with “As”.

The other use of by (means-showing) can also be replaced by with or equivalent in some contexts:

(d) (MEANS) Firms may motivate their workers by (the) introduction of new practices.

(e) (INSTRUMENT) A speaker can motivate the audience with a well-constructed introduction.

This sort of change is possible with “action” nouns that have an alternative non-action meaning, usually with different countability (see 14. Noun Countability Clues 1: Action Outcomes). In (d) introduction is uncountable (it would be strange to add an before it), and hence has an action meaning, equivalent to “introducing”, with the result that it expresses a means and needs by. In (e), on the other hand, a … introduction is countable, meaning something like “A first part”, and hence must be an instrument and take with.

72. Causal Prepositions

.

Causes and reasons can be shown by prepositions that vary slightly in meaning and use

THE VARIETY OF CAUSAL PREPOSITIONS IN ENGLISH

Causal prepositions help to show either a cause or a reason (see 306. Ways of Giving a Reason). There are surprisingly many in English. Common ones are through, with, out of, because of, behind, as a result of, due to, down to, over, owing to, on account of, thanks to and courtesy of. The multi-word nature of most of these does not stop them being prepositions (see 221. Multi-Word Prepositions). This post is mainly about the differences between them.

The main characteristic that establishes the above expressions as prepositions is their need for partner wording, usually placed after them, that is a noun or noun-like but not the subject, object or complement of a verb (see 84. Seven Things to Know about Prepositions, #1). Consider this:

(a) Children are vulnerable because of their trust in adults.

None of the partner words after because of here is a verb. The central word trust is a noun, shown to be such by the noun-needing word their before it. If we wanted to use the verb TRUST instead, we would have to put it into the the noun-like form (their) trusting (see 70. Gerunds), or replace because of with the verb-allowing conjunction because (+ they trust: see 61. “Since” versus “Because”).

.

ADJECTIVAL VERSUS ADVERBIAL USES

In English as a whole, combinations of a preposition and its partner wording (“preposition phrases”) are typically usable like either an adjective (saying something about another, earlier noun) or an adverb (saying something about a verb, adjective or whole sentence). For detailed examples, see 53. “As”, “Like” and “Such As”.

Sometimes, however, an English preposition + noun has only an adjectival or only an adverbial use. Except cannot make adverbial phrases unless it has a following adverb or additional preposition (+noun) – combinations with a directly-following noun are usually adjectival (see 215. Naming Exceptions). Elsewhere, the choice of a particular preposition with a particular noun may create a restriction: on the whole, for example, is adverbial, its adjectival equivalent being as a whole (see 164. Fixed Preposition Phrases).

Some causal prepositions allow both adjectival and adverbial uses, and some do not. Because of is in the first group, as the following examples show (capitals highlighting the described word each time):

(b) ABSENCE because of sickness costs a great deal. (ADJECTIVE USE 1)

(c) The country’s sports SUCCESS was because of government funding. (ADJECTIVE USE 2)

(d) Malaria SPREADS because of poverty. (ADVERB USE)

The adjective uses in (b) and (c) correspond to the two main uses of adjectives in English: next to their described noun (= absence) or separated from it by a link verb like BE (cf. success). The only feature that adjective-like preposition phrases lack compared to adjectives is ability, when next to the noun they are describing, to go directly before it.

In (d), because of introduces an adverb phrase clarifying a verb, spreads. This cannot be describing the only noun in the sentence, malaria, because SPREAD is not a linking verb like BE. The function is also adverbial in (a), where the clarified word is an adjective (vulnerable). Adverbial because of phrases can, in special circumstances, drop because of without losing its meaning (see 311. Exotic Grammar Structures 9, #6).

In older grammar books, one of the differences between causal prepositions in the list above involves the adjectival and adverbial uses. Due to is said in these books to be usable only in the adjective ways, while owing to is held to be solely adverbial. Hence, these books would rule out the use of due to in (a) and (d), and the use of owing to in (b) and (c). However, many mother-tongue speakers of English today seem unaware of this difference, as due to in particular is increasingly heard in both uses.

A more definite restriction applies to behind, a metaphorical derivative of the basic positional word (see 229. Metaphorical Prepositions). It seems to allow only adjectival uses (see 306. Ways of Giving a Reason, #3).

Of the other causal prepositions, with needs to start its sentence (along with a noun + participle) – always an adverb-like use:

(e) With its supplies exhausted, the group had to return to base.

For more about such sentences, see 88. Exotic Grammar Structures 1, #7.

As a result of seems able to make both adjective and adverb phrases; but the adjective-like use has a variation: after a link verb (BE, SEEM, LOOK, REMAIN etc.) in sentences like (c), it usually drops as, e.g. was a result of….

Down to mostly follows a link verb, as in sentence (c) – it does not easily make adverb phrases, or directly follow the noun it is describing. However, it does introduce an adverb phrase in the idiomatic expression put X down to Y, which means “believe X is caused by Y” (see 139. Phrasal Verbs, final paragraphs).

Out of and over seem typically to make adverb rather than adjective phrases, like owing to, but can be adjectival after an “action” noun, e.g. arguments over dates, disruption out of malice.

Even because of may be slightly restricted. Composing example (c) above – illustrating the use after verbs like BE – proved surprisingly difficult. In many potential examples, due to seemed more natural, or there was a temptation to use the conjunction because (+ verb) instead.

.

DIFFERENCES OF MEANING

A major differentiator between the various causal prepositions may be the sort of cause or reason that the noun after them expresses. Because of, due to and owing to seem to allow the widest range of possibilities. We might say, indeed, that because of is all-purpose – always available to express a cause or reason.

Behind tends to suggest a cause or reason that is not visible or obvious. Quite often, it may suggest deliberate concealment of dubious behaviour.

The causal meaning of out of is, like that of behind, metaphorical. It seems particularly likely before causes within humans or animals, especially emotions. Thus, one might say that a person acts out of greed or love, but not *out of prosperity or *qualifications. Other common possibilities include anger, desire, hope, ignorance, pity and solidarity.

Over too is likely to introduce the cause of a human or animal action, but external and purpose-suggesting rather than internal. Thus, cats that fight out of a territorial instinct consequently fight over territory.

Through seems to suggest an immediate link between a cause and its result. In sentence (b) above (absence … because of sickness), it can easily replace because of, whereas in (d) (malaria … because of poverty) it cannot. I think the reason is that sickness in (b) is a direct cause of absence, but poverty in (d) is not an immediate cause of malaria – bites by mosquitoes are.

This suggestion of greater immediacy sometimes allows through to replace by. This is unlikely after passive verbs; but after active ones, where the meaning is “by means of” (see 73. Prepositions for Saying How), a choice is often possible. One can say, for example, that someone succeeded either by or through hard work. The difference here is perhaps again one of immediacy, but with through now showing a less immediate cause. Thus, through seems to be intermediate between by and because of, showing less immediacy than the former but more than the latter.

Regarding thanks to, many years ago, when I used to assess the academic writing of French-speaking students, I noticed that they used this expression more frequently than I was accustomed to seeing in English, and that in some cases because of seemed better. Knowing a little French myself, I quickly realised that thanks to was a direct translation of grâce à, which I guessed was more common in French than thanks to is in English. To help the students, therefore, I needed to work out exactly when thanks to is appropriate in English and when it is not.

It may be that thanks to is relatively literal (non-metaphorical) in English. In other words, the idea of gratitude, which is normally expressed by thanks, might still be quite strong in it. This means that it would normally need to be followed by a cause noun that deserved gratitude – expressing something desirable rather than the opposite. Here is a typical thanks to sentence:

(f) Thanks to everyone’s hard work, the road was soon clear.

This sentence does more than explain why the road became clear; it also conveys the speaker’s gratitude to, and even praise of, the workers.

Sometimes, however, thanks to is used slightly differently. When the result (not the cause!) is clearly unpleasant, it can imply criticism instead of thanks:

(g) Thanks to the policies of the Government, the economy is in a mess.

In the underlined result here, it would be hard to interpret the negative word a mess as something desirable or praiseworthy, and hence the cause cannot be receiving gratitude and will be understood instead as an object of criticism. The use of a normally positive word like thanks to express an opposite meaning is an example of that peculiar English habit of irony, similar to saying that a boring experience had been “wonderful” or an unpopular politician was “universally loved”.

Now here is a sentence from an academic context, where thanks to might be less appropriate because a neutral, non-emotive message is required:

(h) Cats fight less in the wild because of the greater size of their territory.

Using thanks to here would probably suggest that large-sized cat territory was a good thing (reduced cat-fighting being also good). Using because of (or owing to or on account of), on the other hand, gives no clue about the desirability or otherwise of large cat territories, but instead keeps attention focussed on the factuality of the sentence.

Courtesy of is similar to thanks to in expressing gratitude about a cause. However, it perhaps also suggests that the cause is a person who has consciously offered their help. An example might be:

(i) This road was built courtesy of a donation from the Mayor.

Finally, down to, besides being restricted in the grammatical ways mentioned above, is also restricted to informal contexts: it is more likely, for example, in speech than writing.