a couple who is arguing

[jutfrank]

WordReference.com states:

"Here in the States when "couple" refers to fiancées or to husband and wife, it takes the third person singular form in the present tense."

I would like to ascertain whether there really do exist cultural preferences for this. I would like to ask native speakers of American, Canadian, Australian, British and any other varieties of English to select either is or are for each of the following.

1. Daisy and Larry are talking ​about a couple ​who ___ arguing in the same bar.
2. A couple ___ seen through a shop-window near Via Condotti.
3. When a couple ___ feeling stressed, humor can be an effective way of breaking through the tension.
4. There ___ a French couple living next door.

I'll be interested to hear any reasons (if there are any) for your choices.

 

[bhaisahab]

WordReference.com states:

"Here in the States when "couple" refers to fiancées or to husband and wife, it takes the third person singular form in the present tense."

I would like to ascertain whether there really do exist cultural preferences for this. I would like to ask native speakers of American, Canadian, Australian, British and any other varieties of English to select either is or are for each of the following.

1. Daisy and Larry are talking ​about a couple ​who _are__ arguing in the same bar.
2. A couple __are_ seen through a shop-window near Via Condotti.
3. When a couple _is or are__ feeling stressed, humor can be an effective way of breaking through the tension.
4. There _is__ a French couple living next door.

I'll be interested to hear any reasons (if there are any) for your choices.

No logical reason.

 

[GoesStation]

1. Daisy and Larry are talking ​about a couple ​who ___ arguing in the same bar.
2. A couple ___ seen through a shop-window near Via Condotti.
3. When a couple ___ feeling stressed, humor can be an effective way of breaking through the tension.
4. There ___ a French couple living next door.

I'll be interested to hear any reasons (if there are any) for your choices.

American English speaker:
1. "Are". It doesn't feel natural to associate arguing with a singular subject.
2. "Is". I perceive the couple as a unit.
3. "Is", for the same reason.
4. "Is" again, for the same reason.

 

[GoesStation]

The questions are somewhat interesting. However, I think it's best to re-cast any sentence that raises this kind of doubt. For example, sentence 1 could be safely written as Daisy and Larry are talking about a couple arguing in the same bar.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

In American English, nouns representing groups (couple, army, pariament, gang, band) are usually (usually!) treated as singular nouns.

There are agreed-upon exceptions (for instance: the Beatles are wonderful), and because this is English, which is full of gray areas, there are times when it's okay to apply some discretion.

So in your examples, I'd treat 2, 3, and 4 as singular nouns and 1 as a plural noun.

Why do I make an exception of 1? Because an argument requires two parties. Is it arguing with itself or are they arguing with each other? It's simply more logical to think that they - the couple - are arguing with each other.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

PS - And now I notice that GoesStation, another American, broke it down the same way I did, for the same reasons.

But Robert, another American, sees it differently. So again, English has a lot of gray areas and often leaves room for your discretion.

 

[Roman55]

1. are
2. is or are
3. is
4. is
The only one that I hesitated on was 2. I'm still not sure what I'd say.

 

[jutfrank]

For the record, I'd select:

1) are
2) are
3) is
4) is

Given the variety of different answers on this thread, do members think it's reasonable to conclude that there do exist cultural pressures that determine preference? Charlie Bernstein maintains that

In American English, nouns representing groups (couple, army, pariament, gang, band) are usually (usually!) treated as singular nouns.

I'm interested to know whether members think there is reasonable basis for this claim. If so, how can this be explained? If not, how did this notion come about and why does it persist?

My feeling is that the preference to choose is/are is psychological rather than cultural. That is to say, the choice depends on the structure of the image represented in the mind of the reader, rather than on any linguistic conventions.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I'm interested to know whether members think there is reasonable basis for this claim. If so, how can this be explained? If not, how did this notion come about and why does it persist?

My feeling is that the preference to choose is/are is psychological rather than cultural . . . .

Good question. Two things.

First, in US schools, we're taught that "the army is retreating." The reasoning? An army is one unit, and that unit is retreating. The difference is certainly cultural in the sense the US and UK are two separate cultures. Both nations are made up of many cultures, though, but the two countries usually (usually!) hold to their slightly different grammars across their respective cultures. So in that sense, the difference is more national or geographic than cultural.

Second, I mentioned exceptions. If you look at the different American responses above, I'd say the exceptions are based on logic. Is there a psychological side to logic? I think so.

 

[jutfrank]

First, in US schools, we're taught that "the army is retreating." The reasoning? An army is one unit, and that unit is retreating.

You're really taught something like that at school?! This comes as a great surprise to me. How can a school tell you the best way to view something. Surely, an army can be seen in both ways. It would really depend on use. (Of course I agree that armies are usually best considered as a single units -- I doubt any speaker of any variety would disagree.)

The difference is certainly cultural in the sense the US and UK are two separate cultures. Both nations are made up of many cultures, though, but the two countries usually (usually!) hold to their slightly different grammars across their respective cultures. So in that sense, the difference is more national or geographic than cultural.

Perhaps I should have said 'conventional' instead of 'cultural'.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Yes, it's our grammar. For an exact answer, I just cracked my two favorite US grammar references, Diana Hacker's A Writer's Reference and The Chicago Manual of Style.

Hacker says:

Treat collective nouns as singular unless the meaning is clearly plural . . . .

Singular: The class respects the teacher.
Plural: The class are debating among themselves. [This is just like The couple were arguing with each other.]

To underscore the notion of individuality in the second sentence, many writers would add a clearly plural noun such as members: The members of the class are debating among themselves. . . . [That's what GoesStation suggested.]​

Chicago says:

. . . . As the subject of a sentence, a mass noun usually [there's that usually again] takes a singular verb (the litigation is varied). But in a collective sense, it may take either a singular or a plural verb form (the ruling majority is unlikely to share power) (the majority of voters are satisfied). A singular verb emphasizes the group; a plural verb emhasizes the individual members. If a collective noun appreas throught a piece of writing, use one verb form consistently.​

So we just do it differently here. It's like driving on the left or the right. It doesn't matter which you do as long as the rest of the country does it the same way.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

It's very simple. The noun 'army' is singular and singular nouns go with a singular verbs. That's what I was taught at grammar school in England sixty years ago. We have become more relaxed about this and other rules since then; Americans are a bit more rigid than we are.

I'm surprised, since I see "the army are" and "the government are" so often in British novels. I just finished Evelyn Waugh's 1937 Scoop last night, and he was doing it there.

But yes, British writers and editors are much more relaxed about grammar and punctuation than Americans. American speakers are, of course, a different story!

 

[jutfrank]

It's very simple. The noun 'army' is singular and singular nouns go with a singular verbs. ... Americans are a bit more rigid than we are.

That makes sense as an explanation of how the notion came to be.

I find it strange to think that a school would teach a rule like this. Who, for instance, would prefer a couple who is arguing in the first sentence?

 

[jutfrank]

I'm surprised, since I see "the army are" and "the government are" so often in British novels. I just finished Evelyn Waugh's 1937 Scoop last night, and he was doing it there.

Could you possibly post an excerpt from the Waugh novel? One including "the army are"?

 

[jutfrank]

British writers and editors are much more relaxed about grammar and punctuation than Americans. American speakers are, of course, a different story!

This is an interesting point. So when we use a label such as 'American English', we should make a distinction between the language that is expected to be used (by American schools, editors, etc.) and the language that is used (by native speakers/writers).

I know this might seem obvious to most, but it's important to keep in mind.

 

[GoesStation]

I think it's strictly linguistic. In American English we tend to use singular verbs with collective nouns. There's no need to look further.

 

[GoesStation]

You're really taught something like that at school?! This comes as a great surprise to me.

Me, too. I certainly can't remember ever being taught whether army takes a singular or plural verb. It comes out naturally as singular because that's how it works in American English.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, it's our grammar. For an exact answer, I just cracked my two favorite US grammar references, Diana Hacker's A Writer's Reference and The Chicago Manual of Style.

Hacker says:

Treat collective nouns as singular unless the meaning is clearly plural . . . .

Singular: The class respects the teacher.
Plural: The class are debating among themselves. [This is just like The couple were arguing with each other.]

To underscore the notion of individuality in the second sentence, many writers would add a clearly plural noun such as members: The members of the class are debating among themselves. . . . [That's what GoesStation suggested.]​

Chicago says:

. . . . As the subject of a sentence, a mass noun usually [there's that usually again] takes a singular verb (the litigation is varied). But in a collective sense, it may take either a singular or a plural verb form (the ruling majority is unlikely to share power) (the majority of voters are satisfied). A singular verb emphasizes the group; a plural verb emhasizes the individual members. If a collective noun appreas throught a piece of writing, use one verb form consistently.​

So we just do it differently here. It's like driving on the left or the right. It doesn't matter which you do as long as the rest of the country does it the same way.

All of what Hacker and Chicago advise makes a lot of sense, but I don't see how any of this differs for other varieties. What here is unique to AmE?

 

[Tdol]

All of what Hacker and Chicago advise makes a lot of sense, but I don't see how any of this differs for other varieties. What here is unique to AmE?

Most BrE speakers nowadays would use the plural for both, and some style guides for BrE recommend this.

 

[jutfrank]

Most BrE speakers nowadays would use the plural for both, and some style guides for BrE recommend this.

Both what?