# owing to vs due to



## andersxman

I witnessed a non english native speaker being corrected by an english professor (who teaches english and is incredibly skillful and reliable) when they said used "due to". They were told to use "owing to". It appears that they are not interchangable, then. It may not be easy, but is anyone able to explain the fundamental differences between the two? 

Thank you very much.


----------



## laurahya

As far as I am aware, there is no difference between them. I can't think of a specific situation which would require one or the other. I'm aware that that isn't a particularly 'technical' answer, but perhaps you could give the example that was corrected so we could discuss it?

-Laura


----------



## elroy

I think that in modern English usage they are pretty much interchangeable.  However, some pedants argue that using "due to" as a preposition is incorrect.  So it's not that there's a different meaning; it's that some people are against the prepositional usage of "due to" period.

Here's what dictionary.com has to say: 



> _*Usage Note: *__Due to_ has been widely used for many years as a compound preposition like _owing to,_ but some critics have insisted that _due_ should be used only as an adjective. According to this view, it is incorrect to say The concert was canceled due to the rain, but acceptable to say The cancellation of the concert was due to the rain, where _due_ continues to function as an adjective modifying _cancellation._ This seems a fine point, however, and since _due to_ is widely used and understood, there seems little reason to avoid using it as a preposition.


----------



## petereid

Both "due" and "owing" once had the same financial meaning in "money due" = "money owing".
Both are now used in the form  "due to" and "owing to"  to mean "Because of"
"Because of" is unambiguous.


----------



## andersxman

Right, it all comes together now.. My professor is, undoubtedly, one of the very pedantic persons who insists on "due to" being used only as an adjective..

Thank you.


----------



## river

Due to = attributable to
Owing to = because of

_Owing to/because of_ your negligence, the dog ran away from home.

The accident was _due to/attributable to_ alcohol.


----------



## Mr.Blue

> The use of _due to_ to mean "because of " as in the example *He was late due to an accident* is regarded as unacceptable by some people. It can be avoided by substituting
> *His lateness was due to an accident* or *He was late owing to an accident.*


 
This was taken from the OED , it might give you a clue.


----------



## Greg_the_egg

This is a very old thread but I thought I would point out anyway, that "due to" and "owing to" are used in exactly the same way by the vast majority of native English-speakers. However, the difference is between an adverbial and an adjectival usage (i.e. whether it refers back to a noun or a verb). 

"Owing to" is adverbial
"Due to" is adjectival 

Example: 
_The road was closed owing to difficult conditions._
Here the difficult conditions did not cause the road but rather it's                 closure.

_There was an influx of visitors to the attraction due to the recently installed exhibition._
Here the recently installed exhibition resulted in an influx of visitors - that is to say a noun.

This is at any rate my understanding, but certainly this is not an issue about which one should be excessively concerned.


----------



## Jeevesimus Prime

There is a subtle difference between the two terms:  something can be due to you (eg money or a holiday etc), but won't necessarily be owed to you until a particular amount of time has passed or other conditions have been met, at which point you are both it is both owed and due to you.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I agree with some of the things which have been said here. I think careful speakers - I'm sorry to hear them abused as pedants - observe the difference noted between _due to_ and _owing to_.  So I agree with Andersxman's English professor.

I once asked a class of bright BE students if they recognized a difference, without indicating where I thought the difference lay, and 90% answered a short series of written exercises in a way which showed that they wanted to avoid adverbial use of _due to_.

So I'd say:

1. This is a real difference, observed by many careful speakers of BE still. Certainly many BE speakers don't observe it, but that doesn't make it invalid.

2. If you are in doubt, there's nearly always a form using _because_ which is satisfactory: correct and clear.


----------



## sophisticated_penguin

It's a shame that people who try to get things correct are branded as pedants ...

This is how I remember this:

If you can use 'caused by' then you can also use 'due to':

The cancellation of the flight was due to (caused by) high winds.

If you can use 'because of' then you should use 'owing to' rather than 'due to' (or leave it as 'because of'):

The flight was cancelled owing to (because of) high winds.

Hope this helps!


----------



## wha262

I would take Sophisticated Penuin's comments one step further.  In school a very good english teacher instructed us that "only rent, term papers and babies are 'due'".  This may be an oversimplification but I think it works best - i.e., avoid "due to" unless you are referring to a situation that does not involve causality and does include time.  

"My mortgage is due (to or at) the bank on the first of the month."

"The cancellation (of whatever) was caused by (whatever)"

"The Trip was (whatever) because of (whatever)"

Keep it simple - stay away from Due To unless you're talking about something with a time element.  Plus, caused by and because of are clearer and sound better. 

just my 2cents.


----------



## JulianStuart

> In school a very good English teacher instructed us that "only rent,  term papers and babies are 'due'".



One might similarly make the argument that "only taxes, debts and obligations are_ owe_d" 

In any case, I always regarded "owing to" as sort of contrived and generally subscribe to the recommendation of your teacher - if one wishes to describe a causality, use a phrase with that word in (caused by or because of) and it will be inoffensive and unambiguous.


----------



## e2efour

It is a complete waste of time to search for a difference between _owing to_ and _due to_. Both are impeccable grammatically speaking and, as has been noted above, the vast majority of native speakers use them more or less interchangeably.

_Due to_, _owing to_ and _because of_ are all prepositions and I was somewhat surprised to hear _due to_ described as an adjective! It has been a (compound) preposition since the beginning of the last century.

While I wouldn't call anyone who claimed there is a distinction between owing to and due to a pedant, I would suggest that such persons (who are in a minority) should read a book on English usage which gives a balanced opinion, as does Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> It is a complete waste of time to search for a difference between _owing to_ and _due to_. Both are impeccable grammatically speaking...


You don't make something true simply by saying that it is true. Several of us have argued that we sense a difference, and I've given evidence that this difference is felt by young intelligent BE speakers. We are not searching for a difference, but pointing out that one exists, and that it's not only the old and the fuddy-duddy who sense it, and feel strongly about it. 


e2efour said:


> While I wouldn't call anyone who claimed there is a distinction between owing to and due to a pedant, I would suggest that such persons (who are in a minority) should read a book on English usage which gives a balanced opinion, as does Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage.


Fine. The suggestion that all books on English usage ignore the distinction is false. Here is a little of Sir Ernest Gowers (page 132) on the point. I think I'm only allowed four sentences, so I shall choose them with care:

_Owing to_ long ago established itself as a prepositional phrase. But the orthodox still keep up the fight against the attempt of _due to_ to do the same: they maintain that _due_ is an adjective and should not be used otherwise. [...] Many readers feel very strongly against the 'incorrect' use of _due to_, common though it is. The sensible writer should therefore try to form a habit of using it correctly, though he may well feel that there are many points more worth his attention.

I think that most informed people would reckon The Complete Plain Words, in its revised form, gives a balanced view. I reckon myself as orthodox as the next man, and am, I hope, a sensible writer, so I take the good man's advice, and have tried to form a habit of using _due to_ correctly.


----------



## e2efour

One of the objections raised against _due to _is that it should be used as an adjective.
  So the orthodox view, as you put it, would rewrite
  1) “The piano recital was cancelled due to illness” as
  2) “The cancellation of the piano recital was due to illness”.

  However, since compound prepositions include _due to_, _owing to_ and _because of_, I fail to see what the problem is.

  3) “The student was always making mistakes due to inattention.”
  Again it seems to me that _due to_ is best taken as a preposition. It seems a perfectly good sentence to me.

  The only sentence I can think of where there is a difference between _due to_ and _owing to is _“His success was due to his mother.” “His success was owing to his mother.”* does not seem possible.

  Merriam-Webster was published in 2002. Gower goes back to 1948, when he was 68. He is at least an improvement on Fowler and he may well have made sensible comments about language, but I would prefer a later authority, which includes the Oxford English Dictionary. It describes _due to_ as a prepositional phrase which is “widely current” and quotes from Queen Elizabeth II, the speaker of the Queen’s English: “Due to inability to market their grain, prairie farmers have been faced for some time with a serious shortage of funds to meet their immediate needs.”


----------



## Majorbloodnock

Thomas Tompion said:


> .....You don't make something true simply by saying that it is true......


In general, I'd agree with you, but not in this case.

Sorry if this sounds pretentious; it's not meant to be. However, language is only a tool to communicate, and if communication occurs effectively, the language has done its job. English isn't held back by an anglicised version of L'Academie Francaise requiring every new word, phrase or rule to be audited before inclusion, but is instead honed by constant usage. As a result, if "incorrect English" is better understood than its grammatically correct alternative and is used often enough, it *becomes* correct.

There was a time when the distinction between "due to" and "owing to" was well defined and understood. Now, that distinction is blurred to the extent that many (I'll agree, not all) respected references recognise the convergence of the two terms. To prefer to abide by the traditional distinction is fine, and I can also understand why plenty of people's feeling of what is appropriate might coincide with that distinction. However, I believe we're past the point where viewing the terms as interchangeable can be classed as wrong.


----------



## JasonEole

I've just been doing an exercise on the website of OUP New English File Advanced. The gap fill question is - The concert was cancelled ___________poor ticket sales. The choice is a) because of  b) due to   c) owing to.  
The only answer they accept as correct is "due to". Why??


----------



## JulianStuart

I'm sure you have read the whole thread, right?  Do you see a consensus in the responses and explanations proposed by the various members?  Exactly.  The OUP place has taken a position and therefore THEY deem the correct answer to THEIR question is as shown.  Why? Because they deemed it so.  Others will have different thoughts.  Many will accept a as a response that will always be acceptable, while b and c generate controversy.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JasonEole said:


> I've just been doing an exercise on the website of OUP New English File Advanced. The gap fill question is - The concert was cancelled ___________poor ticket sales. The choice is a) because of b) due to c) owing to.
> The only answer they accept as correct is "due to". Why??


 Pay no attention, JasonEole.  There's nothing the matter with a. or c.  I would reckon the only one which was likely to offend careful speakers was b.  In other words, the only one they say is correct is the one which some educated people would say was wrong.  

Get a new book.


----------



## JasonEole

Thanks. Yes I'd followed the thread.
And that's the way I had seen it too.
As a BE speaker I think I would naturally put " due to", but didn't know why. But, then again, didn't think the others were wrong. So, I don't seem to have the same opinion as Thomas another BE. 
In their grammar section, they don't discuss this point, leaving the impression that they think they are interchangeable.


----------



## Parla

In my experience and observation, they are fully equivalent in the US, and we are more likely to use "due" than "owing"; the latter, I think, seems to American ears to refer specifically to a debt.


----------



## JasonEole

Having lived in France for the last 33 years  and worked with Americans, their language must have rubbed off onto me.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Parla said:


> In my experience and observation, they are fully equivalent in the US, and we are more likely to use "due" than "owing"; the latter, I think, seems to American ears to refer specifically to a debt.


 Perhaps to some American ears.  In the hundreds of examples of 'owing to' in the COCA I couldn't find one which refered specifically to a debt.


----------



## e2efour

You seem to be right. I could only find one recent one from a book in 2003:
"At the very least, you need to be able to track receivables (*money* *owing* *to* the business), payables (what you owe to others) and expenses (what you've spent on the business)." (from COCA)

How about (frojm COHA) "That is the only Russian war *debt* *owing* *to* the United States government. Russia also has a private debt to the National City Bank." (from the Nation, 1932).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> You seem to be right. I could only find one recent one from a book in 2003:
> "At the very least, you need to be able to track receivables (*money* *owing* *to* the business), payables (what you owe to others) and expenses (what you've spent on the business)." (from COCA)
> 
> How about (frojm COHA) "That is the only Russian war *debt* *owing* *to* the United States government. Russia also has a private debt to the National City Bank." (from the Nation, 1932).


I wasn't, of course, saying that it never meant that, just questioning the statement that the expression _owing to_, 'seems to American ears to refer specifically to a debt.' The COCA suggests that this is far from being the case.


----------



## sumit goyal

basically there is no difference between these 2
but gramatically we use
owing to in the starting of a sentence
e.g.
owing to rain, i could not come

and due to in mid of the sentence
e.g.
i could not come due to rain


----------



## se16teddy

The prescriptive grammarians have got their knickers in a knot more about this issue than most others. See this site, which points out some of the contradictory advice: http://slb-ltsu.hull.ac.uk/awe/index.php?title=Due_to_-_owing_to

I was taught the rule that elroy referred to in his 2006 post above: don't introduce an adverbial clause with _due to... _

Clearly no approach will please all the prescriptivists all the time. Is there any point in trying to please them?


----------



## Franz_Kafka

I have been reading a book on grammar, which pointed out the inadequate use of 'Due to', however without offering a detailed explanation. This is to negate the claim made by a few members that all books on grammar accept the two as interchangeable. 

*"language is only a tool to communicate, and if communication occurs effectively, the language has done its job....As a result, if "incorrect English" is better understood than its grammatically correct alternative and is used often enough, it becomes correct."

*Communication doesn't happen only through colloquim but through written material as well. Even if one is not fussy about the usage of words, the correct usage definitely has a positive implicit effect, in the sense that Sartre, Naipaul and Orwell's writings would not have been so powerful had they been 'better understood' passages written in informal English. Correct English doesn't get anyone a medal as such, but reading and listening to grammatically correct English with appropriate use of words is a joy in itself, and avoids many a faux pas. 

p.s. "Can I come in?" of course, you can unless you were unable to walk.


----------



## old dog lawyer

It is both entertaining and informative to read the various perspectives brought to the topic of "what in the world does the phrase "due and owing' mean".   The answer from a legal perspective is as simple as it is brief.   And perhaps most clearly explained by this equally simple example.  Assume a loan of $100 that is to be repaid in one year.  From a purely legal perspective, the sum of $100 is legally "OWING" in the sense that it is a present and binding legal obligation to repay, however the sum is not legally "DUE" in the sense that payment is not enforceable until one year has passed.   The beauty of precision to the English language.


----------



## colonelbonkers

andersxman said:


> I witnessed a non english native speaker being corrected by an english professor (who teaches english and is incredibly skillful and reliable) when they said used "due to". They were told to use "owing to". It appears that they are not interchangable, then. It may not be easy, but is anyone able to explain the fundamental differences between the two?
> 
> Thank you very much.




This is surprisingly straightforward. At school in 1958 (in the days when its importance was still recognized) I was taught this simple mnemonic:

(D)ue to = cause(D) by
(O)wing to = because (O)f

Using this rule, there is never any ambiguity.

After 54 years I think it's the only thing I can identify has having learned at school (although I suppose there must be a few more!)


----------



## old dog lawyer

I may be as dense as a fence post, but to test "using this rule, there is never (such an open challenge!) any ambiguity".

Assume a flood.  Assume damage to one's home as a result of the flood.   Our possessions were damaged due to the flood, OR our possessions were damaged owing to the flood.....

The latter does not quite sound right (familiar?)  but that does not mean it is not correct, does it?


----------



## PaulQ

I must declare that I am in the "couldn't care less" camp. Use either *due to* or *owing to* with abandon. I should think that less than 0.01% of the English speaking world is aware of any difference and those that are constantly find themselves using the wrong one.

The great length of this thread is entirely *caused by* pedantry.
The great length of this thread is entirely *because of* pedantry.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Paul's second sentence seems ungrammatical to me, and maybe also to him.  It gives the lie to what ColBonkers was taught at school in 1958.

I think it probable that a great majority of English speakers are ignorant of the difference, but that doesn't make such ignorance any less ignorant: there is an important minority of BE speakers and writers who distinguish very carefully between the two.


----------



## colonelbonkers

Well, "Our possessions were damaged owing to the flood" sounds a lot better to me. Alternatively one could say "The damage to our possessions was due to the flood". That, I believe, is the way "due to" should be used. Of course, one would actually say "our possessions were damaged by the flood"!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Actually, Colonel, I think I underestimated that rule you were taught, which sums up the difference very well, I think.  I always thought that difficult cases could be solved by discreet use of 'because of'.  But *X (the damage) was because of Y (the flood)* doesn't work; in such a case you need a truly adjectival construction, as you point out in your latest post.


----------



## jamese

Since school in 1962, I have consulted 'An ABC of English Usage' by Treble & Vallins, which relies upon pre 1960 sources, including Fowler & other Oxford Dictionary sources. I can live with that.
If I consider Shakespeare's First Folio and the King James Bible as the corner stones to the ongoing understanding of the language for the last 400 odd years, I will always be suspicious of spongy word morphing which leads to loss of meaning.  
Fewer and less, due and owing, each lose.


----------



## Shanarev

In current English we usually avoid *owing to* *directly after a forme of be:*

E.g: The company's success is due to the director. (not....is owing to...)

However, *owing to* is used *after be + a degree adverb* such as *entirely, largely, mainly, partly: *

E.g: The low election turnout* was partly* *due to*/*owing to* the bad weather.

We can often use either *it was due to...that or it was owing to ...that:

*E.g: It was owing to his encouragement *that *she applied ofr the job. (or It *was due to .*..that)

I hope I could help you.


----------



## sunyaer

Shanarev said:


> In current English we usually avoid *owing to* *directly after a forme of be:*
> 
> ...



Good point. Other than this, it seems to me there is no need to distinguish between "due to" and "owing to".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sunyaer said:


> Good point. Other than this, it seems to me there is no need to distinguish between "due to" and "owing to".


I wonder what makes you say this, Sunyaer.  I know many young BE speakers who would disagree with you.


----------



## sunyaer

Majorbloodnock said:


> There was a time when the distinction between "due to" and "owing to" was well defined and understood. Now, that distinction is blurred to the extent that many (I'll agree, not all) respected references recognise the convergence of the two terms. To prefer to abide by the traditional distinction is fine, and I can also understand why plenty of people's feeling of what is appropriate might coincide with that distinction. However, I believe we're past the point where viewing the terms as interchangeable can be classed as wrong.





Thomas Tompion said:


> I wonder what makes you say this, Sunyaer.  I know many young BE speakers who would disagree with you.


Majorbloodnock makes a good point, which I base my opinion on. Even many native speakers don't make the distinction, why do second language learners bother to do that? Again, my statement came from a practical perspective: language is a tool for communication.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sunyaer said:


> Majorbloodnock makes a good point, which I base my opinion on. Even many native speakers don't make the distinction, why do second language learners bother to do that? Again, my statement came from a practical perspective: language is a tool for communication.


I just wonder what gives you a basis for assessing such points.  Many native speakers don't make the distinction, but many do.  A meticulous non-native like you will have noted this fact, which is why some of us continue to try to help you.

The problem with your practical perspective is that there are some people who communicate mostly by inarticulate grunts.   WR is trying, it seems to me, to enable its learners to do more than that.


----------



## sunyaer

Thomas Tompion said:


> I agree with some of the things which have been said here. I think careful speakers - I'm sorry to hear them abused as pedants - observe the difference noted between _due to_ and _owing to_.  So I agree with Andersxman's English professor.
> 
> I once asked a class of bright BE students if they recognized a difference, without indicating where I thought the difference lay, and 90% answered a short series of written exercises in a way which showed that they wanted to avoid adverbial use of _due to_.


If we put these questions to an English professor or those bright BE students who may become English professors or lawyers in the future, it is for sure that they will see a difference. My point is: If one wants to be an English professor, a lawyer or a professional writer, yes, the difference needs attention. For ordinary people, especially for most second language learners (maybe not including me), there are more important things to worry about than this subtlety. As long as there will be no confusion, language has achieved its goal.


Parla said:


> In my experience and observation, they are fully equivalent in the US, and we are more likely to use "due" than "owing"; the latter, I think, seems to American ears to refer specifically to a debt.



I completely agree with Parla here. I am a non-native speaker of English, but here I sense the language almost as a native.


Thomas Tompion said:


> I just wonder what gives you a basis for assessing such points.  Many native speakers don't make the distinction, but many do.  A meticulous non-native like you will have noted this fact, which is why some of us continue to try to help you.
> 
> The problem with your practical perspective is that there are some people who communicate mostly by inarticulate grunts.   WR is trying, it seems to me, to enable its learners to do more than that.



First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Thomas and other forum members who have been helping me with my English. Actually, I am studying the language, not learning. But for many second language learners, they should learn, not study, the language. 

There are often times in this forum when a forum member who is a professional editor says a sentence is wrong, while many others show complete acceptance to it. 

My practical approach, I would say it's only valid for non-native speakers, came from my belief that there are other things more important than these subtle distinctions of vocabulary. I am not saying that WR should stop its mission to do more than help people to communicate more accurately than by "inarticulate grunts", as Thomas termed. On the contrary, the discussions in WR help me understand how native speakers, ranging from ordinary ones to advanced users and professionals, express their thoughts by using the language at different levels.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thank you for saying these things, Sunyaer.

I can't help thinking that your point about other things being more important is not germane: nothing is more important in a thread than the subject of the thread.  That's what we are asked to concentrate on.

We aren't being asked to prioritise linguistic issues here.  What is important for one person will be less so for another; it's not as though there is an order of importance which can be applied to everyone who is learning the language.

This thread is about the difference between _owing to_ and _due to_, not about the relative importance of the difference and any other particular problem of learning English.


----------



## sunyaer

Thomas Tompion said:


> ...
> 
> This thread is about the difference between _owing to_ and _due to_, not about the relative importance of the difference and any other particular problem of learning English.



I still haven't had my point come across. If a second language learner (as many Chinese learning English) pays too much attention to or spends (I am hesitating to use "wastes" here, but others have said that) too much time on one little thing in their learning process, then they have no time left to spend on other things. Life is short. That's why I summarized my opinion earlier that there is no real need to distinguish between "due to" and "owing to", as even many native speakers do not do that either. Once again, my advice goes only to people learning English as a second language, especially people from Chinese background, as I am one of them.

Yes, this thread covers the difference between _owing to_ and _due to_. But we end up having to tell people how to master them. This is the reason why I came up with my advice. To everyone, language is a tool, not the goal.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sunyaer said:


> [...]To everyone, language is a tool, not the goal.


I'm sure you know this is an absurd generalisation, and for many serious students learning a language is not just a matter of acquiring a means of communication.


----------



## sunyaer

Thomas Tompion said:


> sunyaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...] To everyone, language is a tool, not the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you know this is an absurd generalisation, and for many serious students learning a language is not just a matter of acquiring a means of communication.
Click to expand...


This might be off topic. But I still believe that language is a tool. And of course, there may be other functions that language can be used in.


----------

