"Cite to"

"He does not cite to authority" is grammatically correct, and is in line with modern usage. "Cite to authority" as used in your sentence is a verb + adverb phrase (you might know an adverb phrase as a prepositional phrase or object of the preposition). You are correct, however, in citing the preference for minimizing excess words in writing, so that does justify your position somewhat. Yet, it is not incorrect usage as you claim. This is merely a case of lawyers inventing "rules" out of preferences, but often forgetting to consult actual rules of grammar, construction, and usage before they proclaim what is correct (or incorrect). I always write "cite" instead of "cite to," but it is a matter of preference only, not a matter of correctness or not in deference to any "rule". We have plenty of real rules to keep us occupied as lawyers and writers. We should not be trying to fabricate more out of some sense of compositional elitism.

I appreciate the argument, but I disagree.

"A related problem is using cite as an intransitive rather than as a transitive verb--that is, saying that the writer is citing to a case rather than citing a case. This looseness results perhaps from the noun form, citation to as in: ‘Citations to both the U.S. Reports and the Supreme Court Reporter are included for ease of my research.’” A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 156 (2d ed. 1995).

So what I am suggesting is that it is properly a transitive verb. A transitive verb is one that is incomplete without an object. The phrase, "I cite" requires an object. The phrase "I included a citation" does not (in fact, intransitive verbs can't take them. Instead, you have to add a prepositional phrase: to the case.

Well, you both are coming from what linguists call prescriptive, and descriptive grammar.

Mackenzie, you are being prescriptive. Prescriptivists create what they believe the rules of a particular language should be and try to impose their rules on the speakers and writers of that language.

Fred, my friend, you are a descriptivist. Descriptivist, well, they describe the way language is actually used and derive rules from their observations of how native speakers use their language.

Each school of thought has its pros and cons. For example, prescriptivism often tends to be elitist and hegemonic. The school of thought often also either constructs some ideal notion of grammar divorced from reality. In fact, it often is swayed by prevailing fashions, such as Latin.

On the other hand, descriptivism allows a plurality of rules. Grammar becomes localized in language communities. The phenomenon makes codifying rules difficult and time consuming due to the various communities.

Your underlying view of grammar should be examined. Do you truly want to accept a set of rules and also impose your will upon another? Language is also a system of oppression. Is it so bad to have different grammars? Do we need to be unified under a single grammar that an elite group has decided to be correct?

Languages are dynamic, evolving systems. They change and adapt to new situations. If language did not, I believe our discourses and progress would stagnate.

P.S. My apologies on posting my comment twice.

(Duplicates taken care of, no problem.)

I don't think this debate (which, by the way, I'm glad to be having) can quite be boiled down to prescriptive vs. descriptive. I'll acknowledge that I may lean a bit more descriptive, but really my viewpoint is utilitarian. For example, as long as particular rules of grammar or usage serve the purpose of communication--which is why we have language--I feel comfortable suggesting everyone should be on the same page. On the other hand, where there are silly or outmoded "rules" that don't or perhaps never did apply, those rules should be ditched at the earliest opportunity. Anything that interferes with the purpose of language--communication--should be ditched. Sometimes that means adhering to mythical rules that would distract your audience from getting your message.

For example, I think the difference between "that" and "which" is still very useful, one restrictive and one non-restrictive, and would advocate that English users observe the distinction. If it served no useful purpose, then who cares which word someone uses?

I suppose I'm a prescriptionist to the extent that everyone should use and agreed-upon set of standards, but a descriptivist since I recognize that those rules will change and evolve over time.

I would just note that all the comments here, and all writing even by descriptivist linguists, tends to conform with the prevailing normative "rules" of the day. In contrast, some "movements" in various fields tend to work to change these normative practices. A perfect example is the "plain English" movement in legal writing, which attempts to change the norms.

Cory, good job with Google and paraphrasing Wikipedia's entry nicely. But what I am saying has nothing to do with those theories. I am not of the position that there is not such thing as correct usage and grammer. Quite the contrary, I believe there are established rules of grammar and usage. But I also believe that over time some of those rules change. I do not excuse incorrect usage, but I also refuse to elevate preferences (like Mac's "cite to" preference) to the status of rules such that they vitiate technically correct usage. I was trained as an English teacher, and very nearly completed a masters in the field before I decided law school was better suited to my goals. I have always been of the view that we have too many "language" police out there. My view of language is rooted in the notion that language, in some respects, changes and is not static. I also am resistant to manufactured rules and preferences (the split infinitive being the best example. It has no purpose as a rule if you consider the components of English, but only exists as a result of the language police trying to apply rules from other languages to English--the split infinitive is literally impossible to create in some other languages, so we just assumed it should not be utilized in English).

I agree that "cite" is better than "cite to" in the examples Mac uses, but I to proclaim one incorrect is well...incorrect.

DISCLAIMER: As I felt the need to respond immediately, I wrote this during a break, but I am not sparing the billable hours to proofread this. So, I disclaim responsibility for any errors in this post.