Over the last year or so I’ve noticed some language change happening to the word ‘provide’ and how it’s used with prepositions – the words that tell you the relationship between the nouns (and pronouns).
A verb like ‘provide’ can be transitive, intransitive or ditransitive. That is, it can work:
- without an object (intransitive): We hope the state will provide.
- with an object (transitive): They provided food.
- with an object and an indirect object (ditransitive): They provided her with food (or They provided food to her).
The third example has the preposition ‘with’ or ‘to’, depending on what order you put the nouns in, but the rule is that the noun that comes second uses a dependent preposition, and if the recipient is the indirect object, then this element is optional.
‘Provide’ has a few dependent prepositions:
- Provide (someone) with (something) (from #3 above)
- Provide (something) to (someone) (also from #3 above)
- Provide for (something or someone)
- Provide against (something)
What I’ve been seeing recently is examples where the author clearly meant to use the ditransitive version, but didn’t add the preposition:
They provided her food.
The preposition is now missing. This changes the type of sentence it is, from being a ditransitive example to a transitive example, and changes the relationship between the nouns, therefore changing the meaning of the sentence.
The original sentence, ‘They provided her with food’ means that someone has given a woman some food.
If we take the preposition out, ‘her’ is acting possessively to modify ‘food’. It was her food, not his. Or: ‘The food that is her was provided by them.’ The focus can vary, but what’s important here is that the food is hers.
Here’s another example:
The restaurant also ensures that students provide customers service that reflects the excellent reputation the owners have built up over many years.
This sounds like it was supposed to say either ‘customer service’ or it’s a possessive that is missing its apostrophe. Was it meant to be ‘customers’ service’? If we put the preposition in, it’s clearer:
The restaurant also ensures that students provide customers with service that reflects the excellent reputation the owners have built up over many years.
The reason I’m uncomfortable with the form that omits the preposition is a question of geography. It’s not acceptable in British or Australian English, but it is acceptable, apparently, in American English. Forms such as ‘provide me food’ are found in the US, which to my Australian ears just sounds like someone being lazy in saying ‘my’.
Here are some ngrams for the phrase ‘provide me (with) food’ according to English, American English and British English. It’s clear that the phrase using the preposition is much more common than without. But interestingly, the two forms are closer together in British English than in American English. Ngrams are only looking at published works, most of which will have been through some kind of editorial process and therefore will conform more closely to standard.
I had thought that a straight internet search would show up more occurrences of the version without the prepositions, but “provide me food” returns 11,400 results, and “provide me with food” returns 84,000 results, which is approximately 7 times the results returned without the preposition.
It will be interesting to see how this changes in the coming years, but for now I’m staying with the ‘with’ team.