Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I usually meet "due to" usage in a document or conversation, but in different ways. I did some research and found out that "due to" is adjectival.

Thus, the correct sentence should be:

The cancellation was due to rain

Instead of:

It was cancelled due to rain

But when I looked it up in Longman Dictionary, I found:

She has been absent from work due to illness

Can anybody tell me why the above sentence is correct?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

Chambers Dictionary has the following explanation:

due to
It is sometimes argued that, because due is an adjective, due to should have a noun or pronoun that it refers back to (an antecedent), as in• • Absence from work due to sickness has certainly not been falling (where 'absence' is the antecedent)• . This argument would disallow sentences like:

?• A special train service was cancelled due to operating difficulties (where due to is effectively a preposition).

This point of view is based on the word's behaviour in its other meanings; in this meaning it has taken on a new grammatical role that is now well established. Due to often refers back to a whole clause even when there is a notional antecedent, as with 'starvation' in the sentence• • Out in the countryside, two million people are at risk of starvation, due to the failure of the harvest.

RECOMMENDATION: it is correct to use due to in both the ways shown

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.