When The New York Times ran with the front-page headline “Trump Urges Unity versus Racism,” many readers questioned the accuracy of this assertion, but none pointed to its glaring grammatical error—its misuse of versus. The fact that this mistake went unremarked may testify to its increasing prevalence.
More and more often, it seems, versus appears where against belongs. While one definition of versus is indeed “against,” the two words cannot always be used interchangeably. The headline should (from a purely grammatical standpoint) have read “Trump Urges Unity against Racism.” Why? Because when an action verb like “urges” directly precedes a pair of nouns set in opposition to each other, the nouns cannot be joined by versus.
In some cases, the misuse is obvious to the point of absurdity. It is unlikely, for instance, that anyone would write the following:
I leaned my back versus the wall.
In most cases, however, the misuse is less extreme but no less wrong. For instance:
The 2019 Women’s World Cup final pitted the United States versus the Netherlands.
In both cases, the pair of nouns (“my back” / “the wall” and “the United States” / “the Netherlands”) are preceded by a verb of action and should be joined by against.
This rule can also be explained using more strictly grammatical terms. If you are wondering whether to join two nouns, A and B, with against or versus, you can ask yourself if noun A is a direct object of the verb—that is, if it takes the action of the verb. If the answer is yes, then use against to join them. In the Times example, for instance, noun A, “Unity,” receives the action of the verb, “Urges.” Hence, against should be used here, not versus.
Here is an example of versus used correctly:
The novel explored the theme of nature versus nurture.
As you can see, the first noun in the pair joined by versus, “nature,” is not the direct object of the verb, “explored.” Rather, the word that receives the action of “explored” is “theme.” Hence, versus works fine.
Greve, Joan E. “New York Times Changes Front-Page Trump Headline after Backlash.” The Guardian, 6 Aug. 2019, www.theguardian.com/media/2019/aug/06/new-york-times-front-page-headline-changed.
Jeff Linzey 25 October 2019 AT 04:10 PM
I think there is more required in the discussion about whether a direct object can or cannot be involved in a correct use of "versus".
From the example:
"The novel explored the theme of nature versus nurture.", I suggest it would be equally correct to omit "the theme of" and simply say, "The novel explored nature versus nurture."
In such an instance, "nature versus nurture" are constructed as a theme, even though "the theme of" is not said explicitly.
I think the role of "versus" is to identify two equal, but competing elements. In the headline, one was pitted against another--advocated, preferred, or otherwise "not equal footing". Urging A vs B is pushing for the contest between the two. Urging A against B is to advocate for A to win.
C. Barney Latimer 28 October 2019 AT 11:10 AM
Thank you for providing that excellent example of a sentence in which the phrase "A versus B" as a whole can be treated as a direct object.
A more strictly accurate rule of thumb might therefore be, "If you are wondering whether to join two nouns, A and B, with against or versus, you can ask yourself if noun A alone is a direct object of the verb."
Also, the distinction you draw between "Urging A versus B" and "Urging A against B" is persuasive and illuminating.
Herbert F Tucker 11 March 2021 AT 03:03 PM
Hmm. Is it generally true that a verb claims its object more bindingly than a preposition does? If not, then I wonder whether "The novel explored the theme of nature versus nurture" is as secure as you say. You see air-quotes around "nature versus nurture," or air-hyphens connecting its terms, that aren't fully visible to me. I think that's why I'm happier with omitting the preposition thus: "The novel explored the theme nature versus nurture." Let's try a few more prepositions. "The trouble with nature versus nurture, anthropologists say, is that it hinges on a bogus distinction." "As an anthropologist, I'm against nature versus nurture." These are OK with you, I take it? But "I hate nature versus nurture" is not? Curious. Verbs just have more magnetism, period?
C. Barney Latimer 15 April 2021 AT 03:04 PM
Thanks for your feedback on the post. I can see your point that “The novel explored the theme of nature versus nurture” may be somewhat ambiguous—that it could be misread as “The novel explored the theme of nature versus the theme of nurture.” And removing of eliminates this ambiguity. The other examples you give all look fine to me. When it comes to the magnetism of verbs versus that of prepositions, I defer to you; this is not a comparison I'd ever considered!
Join the Conversation
We invite you to comment on this post and exchange ideas with other site visitors. Comments are moderated and subject to terms of service.
If you have a question for the MLA's editors, submit it to Ask the MLA!