Brexit: Christmas or The Fourth of July?
« previous post | next post »
Or, we could ask, is Brexit like Passchendaele or like The Somme?
I mean, of course, whether the noun Brexit should normally be used with a definite article ("Are you for or against the Brexit?") or without ("Are you for or against Brexit?").
We need to ignore all the constructions in which Brexit is a modifier of another noun: the Brexit vote, the Brexit campaigners, the Brexit turmoil, etc. But when Brexit is the head of a noun phrase, I've been assuming that it's a strong proper name that should be anarthrous, like Christmas or Passchendaele or Language Log.
Recently I've learned that not everyone agrees with me. Some examples:
Ben Casselman, "How To Make Sense Of The Brexit Turmoil", FiveThirtyEight 6/24/2016: The “Brexit,” as the British exit from the EU is widely known, is unprecedented — no country has ever left the union. […] But the shock of the Brexit and the uncertainty over what happens next could make investors more cautious, hurting stock prices and making banks more reluctant to lend.
David Nelson, "Why the Brexit is really British Independence Day", Yahoo Finance 6/26/2016: Already, nationalist parties throughout the continent have petitioned to hold exit referendum’s similar to the Brexit.
"Scotland is so pissed about the Brexit it might break up with the UK", Vice News 6/25/2016: Irish Foreign Minister Charlie Flanagan said in response to the Brexit that, ultimately, the future unification of Ireland would be in the best interest of its citizens, but that holding a referendum while the Brits were negotiating their exit from the EU would only create further chaos and division.
I've been even more surprised by the use of Brexit with an indefinite article, apparently because the actual event hasn't entirely happened yet, so that the future is full of many different virtual Brexits:
Heather Saul, "Ricky Gervais explains why a Brexit won't actually make a difference", The Independent 6/25/2016: The narrow vote for a Brexit by 52 per cent means some millennials, who could now see two recessions before turning 30, believe they have been denied the financial stability, secure pensions and job opportunities enjoyed by the baby boomers who voted to leave.
Georgi Kantchev et al., "Fund Managers Tally the Cost of a ‘Brexit’", WSJ 6/24/2016: Ahead of the end result, San Diego-based Sunrise Capital Partners LLC shut down most of its short term-trading systems, wary that they would be ill-equipped to deal with the volatility that a Brexit would generate in currency markets.
Leonidas Stergiou, "What a Brexit could mean for Greece", ekathimerini 6/24/2016: A Brexit would have significant economic, social and political consequences for Greece, both short- and long-term.
But just to show that I'm not alone:
"Nigel Farage says Britain heading for recession 'regardless of Brexit'", The Guardian 6/26/2016: “There’s nothing new here,” he told the Sunday Telegraph. “I think we are going into a mild recession anyway, completely regardless of Brexit."
Jeffrey Sachs, "The Meaning of Brexit", Project Syndicate 6/25/2016: Moreover, leaving the EU will wound the British economy, and could well push Scotland to leave the United Kingdom – to say nothing of Brexit’s ramifications for the future of European integration. Brexit is thus a watershed event that signals the need for a new kind of globalization, one that could be far superior to the status quo that was rejected at the British polls.
Gautam Mukunda, "What Brexit Means for the Openness of the World Economy", Harvard Business Review 6/24/2016: So what does Brexit mean for this important relationship? Brexit, assuming that the Parliament does not exercise its right to overrule the voters, seems likely to be one of the most consequential events for America and the world since the end of the Cold War.
John from Cincinnati said,
June 26, 2016 @ 8:50 am
No no no. We love the Language Log. "Just ask the Language Log" we always say. And we're especially arthrous of The Liberman.
Nathalie said,
June 26, 2016 @ 10:35 am
I'm not a Brit, not even a native speaker, but to me it sounds more natural with an article. I think this is because I still read it as a shortening of "British exit". This might also explain the use with an indefinite article. Of course, people who have been subjected to a lengthy campaign about it may have a different intuition…
Jerry Friedman said,
June 26, 2016 @ 11:40 am
I've been even more surprised by the use of Brexit with an indefinite article, apparently because the actual event hasn't entirely happened yet, so that the future is full of many different virtual Brexits:
And maybe because there could a Bre-entry, a Bre-exit, etc.
Incidentally, your bringing the subject up appears to have destroyed any intuition I had on it.
And "referendum's similar to the Brexit"? I'm willing to call that apostrophe a misspelling.
Andrew M said,
June 26, 2016 @ 12:53 pm
I think that when it was just a concept it was Brexit, but now it is an actual event it may be the Brexit. (Compare 'this might lead to civil war' and 'the Civil War ended in 1865').
Bloix said,
June 26, 2016 @ 1:03 pm
Yesterdat I returned from a week in London (business travel unrelated to the vote). The only topic of conversation and the only subject discussed on TV news was the referendum. Universally it was "Brexit," not "the Brexit."
Robert Ayers said,
June 26, 2016 @ 1:33 pm
I agree with Andrew M. "The Brexit" occurred on 23 June 2016, but "Brexit" is a concept. (And I can use the latter even now, post the Brexit.)
Patrick B said,
June 26, 2016 @ 1:33 pm
really hungry for some brisket now
艾力·黑膠（Eric） said,
June 26, 2016 @ 3:21 pm
In line with what Bloix said, it seemed to me, watching e.g. MSNBC, the BBC, itv, that, broadly speaking, American speakers tended to include the definite article whereas UK commentators did not.
GeorgeW said,
June 26, 2016 @ 4:00 pm
To me, it is in category of Passchendaele, syntactically and potentially otherwise (Southern AmE speaker).
Keith M Ellis said,
June 26, 2016 @ 4:39 pm
"…American speakers tended to include the definite article whereas UK commentators did not."
Yeah, I think this is just a function of familiarity. If you can't help but translate Brexit to "British exit" when you read it, you're going to naturally include an article. Otherwise, probably not.
Michael Rank said,
June 26, 2016 @ 4:53 pm
I’m a Brit, and believe me, it’s Brexit, no article, ever.
Peter Taylor said,
June 26, 2016 @ 5:07 pm
It seems that the disagreements cover not only the use or not of an article but even the meaning of the word. Robert Ayers says above that
but it seems to me that one of the big topics currently being debated is whether Brexit will (future tense) actually happen or not. I understood the term to refer to the end process of the Article 50 negotiations, and I haven't previously consciously noticed the metonymous use to refer to the referendum result in the simple sense of the vote count.
pj said,
June 26, 2016 @ 8:29 pm
Woah, no, no, no, it didn't. No Brexit has yet occurred. The referendum on Brexit occurred on 23 June 2016. Brexit – that is, a Brexit, details yet to be negotiated – will occur within two years of our government officially invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, as it is now (dismayingly) democratically mandated (though not legally obliged) to do.
All of the quoted examples with the indefinite article are ok for me (also a Brit, pace Michael Rank), as are the article-free ones. The ones with 'the' don't sound right at all.
C said,
June 27, 2016 @ 2:05 am
What's the nationality of those using an article?
I'm a UK citizen (while such a thing lasts), and all the news I've been reading and listening to here uses Brexit without an article.
Matt said,
June 27, 2016 @ 7:02 am
Yes, what happened on June 23 would be more accurately termed "Brexibit", or perhaps "Brexeat".
Keith said,
June 27, 2016 @ 7:08 am
John from Cincinnati got in before me, but I was going to say, and believe me, I really believe this, and I'm a smart guy, everybody tells me I'm a smart guy, that the linguists will settle this question once and for all, that whether it's just Brexit or the Brexit, I'm telling you, the Linguists, and I love them, by he way, the Linguists are gonna settle this question once and for all and then they're gonna build a wall around it and make Brussels pay for it.
EndlessWaves said,
June 27, 2016 @ 2:26 pm
Looking at other events in British history those of 930 years ago spring to mind. are they Domesday or the Domesday book?
Vulcan With a Mullet said,
June 27, 2016 @ 5:10 pm
Southern AmE here – and I have used both I think. I'm not sure what I would prefer. If I am talking to someone who isn't familiar with it yet, I tend to use "the Brexit" but otherwise just "Brexit".
John Walden said,
June 28, 2016 @ 1:49 am
A solution is "Leave", as in 'I voted (for) Remain'.
Bathrobe said,
June 28, 2016 @ 7:40 am
And "referendum's similar to the Brexit"? I'm willing to call that apostrophe a misspelling
Yeah, it should be referenda.
I've been struck by the use of referendums as the plural of referendum in recent news. In Australia of the 1960s and 70s, my feeling is that referenda was the preferred plural — and "referendum" was a reasonably familiar term to Australians of the time, not an esoteric concept.
Wikipedia notes, however, that the Oxford English Dictionary deprecates the use of referenda as follows:
"'Referendums' is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues."
Victor Mair said,
June 28, 2016 @ 9:21 am
And "referendum's similar to the Brexit"? I'm willing to call that apostrophe a misspelling
Yeah, it should be referenda.
=====
The problem Jerry Friedman pointed out is with the apostrophe, not the spelling.
Brett said,
June 28, 2016 @ 9:56 am
@Bathrobe: I don't think that's what the OED is saying at all. It states that there are some claims that there is a problem with "referenda," but it certainly does not endorse that claim:
This form is sometimes deprecated in usage guides, etc., on the grounds that a Latin plural gerundive referenda, meaning ‘things to be referred’, would necessarily connote a plurality of issues, but this view is unlikely to affect actual usage.
In fact, that's about as snarky as the OED gets.
Rodger C said,
June 28, 2016 @ 11:50 am
as a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural
Since when? Besides, I was taught to call that a gerundive.
Mark S said,
June 29, 2016 @ 9:23 pm
I thought the Brexit campaigners missed a trick by not using the slogan "B'leave!"
艾力·黑膠（Eric） said,
July 8, 2016 @ 5:22 pm
@ Michael Rank, C:
Yes, I should clarify; use of the does appear to be exclusively (North) American (or at least not-British) (i.e. Americans often use it, Brits never do). And, since the referendum, with the issue receiving increased attention on this side of the pond, anecdotally, it seems like American is coming more in line with UK usage, with the term decreasingly prefaced by a definite article (as a proportion of overall mentions).