Yesterday I re-stumbled upon an old grammar worksheet from David Foster Wallace in which he had his students try to correct sentences that largely didn’t need correcting. I’d first been introduced to it way back in 2009, at which point I complained about its infelicitous “correction” of a split infinitive. That bit of baloney was so egregious that it made me overlook another silly claim, one nearly as common as the split infinitive rule, and nearly as mistaken as well.
Are these two boxers trying to hit one another?
The claim: that each other is to be used exclusively with two objects, and one another exclusively with three or more. This is a pretty widespread claim. Perhaps it speaks to some unconscious desire by English speakers to exhibit a form of the dual/plural distinction, since some people also insist that between and among are to be used for two and more things, respectively. But just as the between and among distinction is a bunch of made-up hooey, so too is the each other and one another distinction.
The claim has a pretty long history; the MWDEU (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage) tracks it back to George N. Ussher in 1785. He stuck with that idea, including it in a grammar booklet in 1803 as well. Some subsequent commentators accepted this rule, others rejected it. Still others proposed alternate criteria for differentiating the phrases, such as Thomas Marsh’s 1862 idea of “the former [each other] applying to a limited, the latter [one another], to an unlimited number”. Only Ussher’s proclamation has stuck around.
Of course, none of these proposed separations are valid, neither in current English nor in that of any other time. Examples of famous and well-regarded writers using one phrase where supposedly only the other could go, even in formal writing, are plentiful. The MWDEU lists Samuel Johnson, Noah Webster, and Bishop Lowth among others; the OED offers Shakespeare and Caxton as well. To hammer home the point, I’ve found some examples of both phrases being used in the same sentence to refer to the same set of things:
“The Genoese and Piedmontese, therefore, although both Italians, and living within a few miles of one another, detest each other as cordially as the Spaniards and the French.” [1821]
“[…] the two aged actors upon this great theatre of philosophy and frivolity embraced each other by hugging one another in their arms, and kissing each other’s cheeks; and then the tumult subsided.” [1865]
“[…] the parts of the coils nearest each other tend to neutralize one another […]” [1887]
These aren’t rare instances, either; more examples from any time period you’re interested in can be found by searching for “each other * one another” in Google Books. We can even do one better by finding a sentence in which the two phrases can directly alternate. Thanks to the many competing English translations of the Bible, we can find different ways of saying the same thing. Here’s Ephesians 4:32 in two translations:
(1a) Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. [NIV]
(1b) Instead, be kind to each other, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God through Christ has forgiven you. [NLT]
I’ll confess I got a bit giddy when I found that. They’re both equally well-formed usages to me, they show that the two phrases are interchangeable, and it’s another chance to say “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” in the linguistic arena.*
There are likely some minor differences in usage between each other and one another, of course. The only one I can say confidently is that each other is more common; Google N-grams has it appearing around twice as often, and COHA has it almost four times as often. Perhaps influenced by its relative rarity, I find one another to be stiffer than each other, but I don’t know if this is a generally-held position.
There’s one thing I’d like to know, but not enough to actually perform the analysis, and that is whether each other is indeed preferentially deployed in situations with only two objects (and vice versa with one another). I’ve no data pointing either way, nor an impression from other people’s usage if this is actually the case. But at this point, it’s nothing to worry about; at strongest, we’re talking about a preference, not a rule. If you want to maintain this distinction in your own English, I’m not going to say you can’t. But don’t get confused and think others ought to obey your whims.
Summary: Despite claims to the contrary, each other and one another are both acceptable whether you’re talking about two or more than two objects. English usage never observed the supposed rule, and great writers broke it often. In fact, the two forms can alternate with one another.
—
*: Just to be clear, I do not actually believe that examples pulled from religious texts should hold any special place in informing our linguistic judgments.
Motivated Grammar 
19 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 1, 2011 at 3:50 pm
curious
Okay, but this sentence just sounds wrong:
“Of course, none of these proposed separations are valid, neither in current English nor in that of any other time.”
It sounds like it should be either/or, not neither/nor..
Can you explain your choice of words here? Thanks…
June 2, 2011 at 6:33 am
Padraig
Another interesting article, up to your normal high standards!
I agree with the general thrust, but would like to mention some factors which should also be considered.
1/ English – British/American.
The English language is not uniform in its use, even within Great Britain, of course. The higher “social classes” have always expressed themselves differently, and still do. Within the public school system, throughout their history, public schools would have differentiated between “each other” and “one another”. The latter is still used in the sense of “one (person) to another” (e.g. “speak to one another” meaning “speak one to another”, while the former applies to groups – “amongst each other”.
“One another” is also a slightly more formal way of saying “each other”. The use of certain words is still regarded as being a differentiator of class in GB. For example, the upper classes use sofa instead of settee, napkin v serviette, pudding v sweet (or dessert) and lavatory v toilet. The use of the “wrong word” or expression would be a giveaway as to one’s background and education. Hence, “one another” would not be perfectly interchangeable with “each other”.
2/ Historical uses and references.
When referring to 18th century origins, it should be well-noted that Dr Johnson’s dictionary was published in 1755 and would not have been read extensively for a significant period. Education at that time was limited virtually to private tutoring,
therefore uniformity in spelling, grammar and the meaning of words was not fully developed at that time.
As the Industrial Revolution gathered pace in GB, and with a burgeoning population, wealth expanded to a larger number of people who then needed quality education (privately, but in “public chools”). This required formalisation and standardisation in the use of the English language (“prescriptivism” commenced).
Those wealthier classes were distinguished partly by their academic education (classical, etc), but also by their manners acquired in those public schools. Many would progress through the Civil Service, at home and abroad, so their usage of English, both written and spoken, had to meet the public school standards – hence the development of RP, the Received Pronunciation.
3/ Common usage/prevalence.
The prevalence of something clearly does not guarantee its accuracy – you are not claiming that it did, of course (the Google reference). The incorrect use of many things could even be in the majority in many cases – e.g. “ain’t” might have dominated in the US in the 19th century West.
In addition, in terms of well-known sayings, so many are misquoted :
– “all that glisters is not gold”, etc (Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare).
– “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned / Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.” (“The Mourning Bride” (1697) by William Congreve).
Also, popularity does not always correlate strongly with accuracy and quality. The author, Harold Robbins, was often challenged about the quality of his novels (the “pulpest” of pulp fiction), but he insisted (tongue in cheek) that he was clearly the best writer in the world because his books were the
biggest sellers.
The two terms are nearly, but not exactly, interchangeable, but as with many things in the English language, it is useful to be aware of the subtleties.
June 2, 2011 at 6:35 am
Padraig
Apologies for the odd typo or three!!
June 2, 2011 at 8:40 am
mike
@Padraig, I hesitate to get into this (again), but the point of Gabe’s type of analysis is that a certain amount of what’s taught in schools (including the storied public-but-really-we-mean-private schools in the UK) is based not on actual linguistics but on convention, superstition, desire for social differentiation, and other meta-linguistic factors. (They also teach you a posh accent, which they likewise teach their students to use to look down on the lower orders.) There are certainly various contexts in which failing to distinguish “between” and “among” — and failing also to distinguish “shall” and “will”, splitting infinitives, ending sentences with prepositions, addressing the pastor at church as “dude”, etc. — are “wrong” in the same sense that wearing the wrong colors at a wedding is “wrong,” i.e., a violation of social principles. But the point is that you go back to the actual language as actual native speakers actually use it, claims of this sort tend not to hold up. The test is not whether some pinky-extending prig will raise his eyebrows if you mix up “between” and “among”, but whether an ordinary speaker understands you to be speaking normal English.
As John McIntyre has said repeatedly (most recently this week, in fact [http://bsun.md/jUtm6f]), if people find some usage or other offensive to their sensibilities, they are more than welcome not to use it. However, they are not within their rights to ban others from doing do so with the claim that it’s “wrong” unless they can muster the linguistics to show that no native speaker would ordinarily produce or understand the utterance in question. If people want to form a I Hate Split Infinitives club, they can do that, and they can make a condition of membership that they will snicker at you if you do that, but they cannot claim that native speakers of English don’t split infinitives; the only claim they can make is that their members never do. Thus also with highfalutin dialects and many other things that are taught as the secret handshake of the higher (why is this in quotation marks?) “social classes”.
June 2, 2011 at 8:56 am
mike
Incidentally, one of the key points here is “taught to” — in other words, people who spend years acquiring a specific dialect are not, in fact, native speakers of that dialect. (Else why do they need to be taught?) If there are no actual native speakers of that dialect — which is probably true for the ultra-poshest dialects — it’s safe to say that the dialect is an artificial construct, and any claims about what its rules are vis-a-vis vernacular English are to be understood as using the royal wedding as a guide to how to dress for work.
June 2, 2011 at 1:37 pm
WeakestLink
The old grammar worksheet link in the first paragraph is malformed.
June 3, 2011 at 5:54 am
This Week’s Language Blog Roundup | Wordnik ~ all the words
[…] Grammar pronounced the “one another” versus “each other” distinction “a bunch of made-up hooey,” and proposed that grammar mistakes may often be due to […]
June 3, 2011 at 1:08 pm
David Craig
I suspect, if you dig deeply enough into this question, interviewing many people, you will find that many people agree that there is a difference between the two phrases, there will be little agreement as to what that difference is.
Just as an aside, one of my favorite uses of the phrase “each other” is from an old cowboy song I learned from Ramblin’ Jack Elliot. It relates the tale of a cowboy and his first experience with indoor plumbing. He sings of “the durnedest thing for washin’ your feet in. And it had a lever you could pull to get fresh water for the other foot. It had two lids, one right on top of each other.”
June 8, 2011 at 5:24 am
Padraig
@mike:
Well, we couldn’t mistake this as other than a full-on response, could we?
First, I am not a prescriptivist. However, if there is such a thing as a continuum of open slather through to prescriptivism, I would be to the right of centre, admittedly. Why is that? It’s because I believe there needs to a structure to the language, involving standards, protocols, benchmarks, etc.
That doesn’t mean the elimination of flexibility in the use of English – far from it. The language can be used as formally as you wish, but can still be beautifully expressive, as any reference to leading writers, poets, novelists, etc – be it American or British – can clearly show.
Second, I would argue that “what’s taught in schools….is based…on social differentiation, and other meta-linguistic factors” is incorrect. I think that Gabe is a stickler for evidence being necessary to prove a point and those you make have no basis as far as I am aware. Superstition? Are you serious? I would be astonished if a significant number of teachers, on either side of the pond, would agree with your assertions.
I would, however, agree that convention is indeed a central factor. Convention appears in every part of human existence, and it has always been so. Gabe, with his mathematics experience, would confirm that “conventions” apply in mathematics, just as they do in all sciences.
However, conventions were introduced into the English language through schooling – just as they always had them in classical languages, like Greek and Latin, so that consistency in education could be achieved. These standards don’t appear to have caused a severe disadvantage/handicap to the development of literature and learning, or am I wrong in that?
Other conventions contributed to social cohesion and sound community throughout their use and development, or is “anything goes” a preferred option?
Then we have the use of “whether some pinky-extending prig…”. Do you seriously think this phrase adds to/supports your points. That sounds like something which would appear in a Leftie tabloid like the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper.
Third, I would disagree profoundly with your assertion that public schools “…also teach you a posh accent, which they likewise teach their students to use to look down on the lower orders.” Where on earth did you find that? Such schools don’t teach any of their pupils how to speak in terms of accent/dialect – “posh”. The pupils would learn their speech patterns and accent from their family and community – never at a public school.
I am a 1960s, Grammar School-educated person (non-fee paying, non-boarding),
while my partner attended a good, private-school for girls, yet you would not
pick that from her speech. My school and life’s experience gives no evidence to support what you have claimed.
You would know that Received Pronunciation (RP) was the norm for certain careers and jobs in the UK over a considerable period – it was what was often referred to BBC English. That is/was quite different to certain “posh accents”, like that used by “Sloane Rangers”. RP was an aspiration, rather than a necessity for most people, many of whom had clearly uneducated speech.
Finally, much is often written here about the nasty prescriptivists, yet there is only a minuscule number of them, and infinitesimally small by percentage of population. Methinks that it would be a better strategy simply to ignore them.
Nevertheless, I don’t see a difficulty in having past/current conventions taught to students – they receive precious little these days in the UK government schools. Whether they end up adhering to them rigidly later in life is then up to them. In all trades and sciences, the incumbents follow strict conventions, so it wouldn’t seem to be too onerous for some grammar conventions to be the norm.
June 8, 2011 at 2:27 pm
ambermartingale
An interesting blog as usual! Thanks. I think your blog is helping me with my writing.
June 21, 2011 at 4:24 am
malkie
One difference I like to maintain, for reasons of logic and clarity, arises when the phrase is split – “each … other”, and “one … another”. David Craig’s post reminded me of it.
I would suggest that you can place objects “one on top of the other”, but not “each on top of the other”. Of course, I would say that “on top of each other” and “on top of one another” are as bad as each other/as bad as one another.
June 21, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Padraig
malkie,
The standard English form would be “one on top of the other’.
An interesting mistake I’ve seen in advertising is with the common saying, “he can’t tell one end of a horse from the other”. I’ve seen it shown as “he couldn’t tell one end of a horse from another”.
July 2, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Maik Gibson
Interesting, but don’t you mean reciprocal rather than reflexive? And by the way, I’ve heard Nigerians (and other Africans?) use the reflexive form for reciprocal uses here, as in “Let’s greet ourselves”
July 6, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Gabe
curious: It’s a matter of where you’re attaching the “neither” component. If it’s modifying the adjective valid, then it’s within the scope of none, and I’d agree with you that either/or is better. But I intended it to modify the entire clause, in which case it’s no longer within the scope of none. I feel like either form works there, but I like neither a bit better to re-assert the negative. Apparently I am a pessimist.
Padraig/mike: Of course there are certain aspects of English that have no inherent reasons to be preferred or dispreferred, but that may have a significant sociological component to them. I shy away from this for three reasons. The first is that that gets deep into sociolinguistics, and I am not enough of a sociolinguist to feel comfortable there. The second is that I don’t have access to enough data on such matters to feel confident in any claims I would make. And the last is that there are already more than enough voices telling you how to use English that is perceived as standard and educated, so there’s no reason for me to add a voice to that choir.
What I think is lacking is analysis of what it means when people call something “wrong”. Is it ungrammatical, unacceptable, uncommon, uncouth, uneducated, or just unfairly maligned? A full understanding of that requires the sociological/sociolinguistic analysis of what people are being taught and how that influences their usage, but I’m willing to settle for the basics for now. And that basic conclusion usually that there is no good reason to keep caring about the difference.
David Craig: I’m sure you’re right. I encountered this once before when I asked commenters about the difference between may and might.
Maik Gibson: Thanks. I did mean reciprocals. And that’s interesting; I wonder if the “Let’s greet ourselves” is due to a bleed-over from another language where reflexives and reciprocals are not distinguished (e.g., Spanish).
August 15, 2011 at 9:22 am
Commonly Confused Words | Wordnik ~ all the words
[…] Language Log and Grammar Girl. Also from Grammar Girl further versus farther and good versus well. Each other versus one another from Motivated Grammar. Errant versus arrant and ferment versus foment from Daily Writing Tips. […]
December 18, 2011 at 4:49 am
Rueter
Thank you for the interesting article. I am working on an English translation describing three different formulas for the reciprocal construction in the Northern Sami language. So, when I started thinking about how to deal with any nuances that might be in the examples, I googled “one another vs each other” and found this blog.
My intuition did not provide an immediate distinction between the two variants. I did, however, consider the idea of a distributive distinction, i.e. there seems to be a distinction between “each” and “every”, compare the sentence pair below:
(1a) Joe shook hands with each participant.
(1b) Joe shook hands with every participant.
In (1a) it would seem we are emphasizing the occurrence of individual instances of hand shaking. In (1b), however, it seems the emphasis falls on the completion of all hand shaking.
Could there be an analogical distinction available for that variants “each other” and “one another”.
January 25, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Omonuwa john
Each other and one another are exactly d same.
May 10, 2015 at 7:24 pm
grace miller
In God’s Holy Word, The 1611 Authorized King James Version of the Bible only uses ‘one another’ and never uses the phrase ‘each other’ throughout the entire Bible. You will never find that phrase. The word ‘each’ really tends to highlight the individual whereas the word ‘one’ truly shows the reciprocal nature of the phrase…’what one does to another will affect the whole (one).
January 13, 2016 at 1:59 pm
Penggunaan dan Contoh Kalimat Each Other dan One Another - KelasBahasaInggris.com
[…] dari Motivated Grammar, awalnya each other digunakan untuk hubungan timbal balik antara dua orang dan one another […]