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.

The following sentence seems grammatically incorrect to me as a native English speaker (should be ensure, not enforce):

People then create laws to enforce that these regulations are being followed.

That said, I can’t quite figure out what is wrong with it. Ensure and enforce are both verbs, and are often grammatically interchangeable with one another.

  1. Is there something grammatically wrong with the given sentence, or is it just a strange wording?

  2. What exactly is wrong with it?

share|improve this question
add comment

6 Answers

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Ensure and enforce are indeed similar in that they are both transitive (i.e. they take a direct object), but not all transitive verbs are equal. Enforce only takes a noun or noun phrase (such as the rules) as its direct object, while ensure is more versatile (from a grammatical standpoint): while it can take a noun or noun phrase, it can also take a content clause (also called complement clause or that-clause; such as that the rules are followed) as its object. This has been established by usage and convention, and it is rare to see enforce paired with that. In this case, convention dictates the grammatical constraints, and therefore it is grammatically incorrect to use a that-clause as the object of certain verbs (such as enforce). Ngrams shows relative usages:

As you mention, you could replace enforce with ensure:

People then create laws to ensure that these regulations are being followed.

Or, if you want to keep the strength of enforce, you would need to change the direct object from a content clause to a noun phrase:

People then create laws to enforce these regulations.

share|improve this answer
    
So this answers my first question (it's definitely wrong, or at least, extremely unconventional). But why is it wrong? What grammatical constraints are violated? Or is convention alone considered sufficient? –  John Doucette Mar 23 '12 at 16:08
2  
@JohnDoucette If it were conventional to use enforce that, it would be correct, and would sound fine to you. But it isn't conventional, and that is what defines the language. Convention is eminently acceptable as a reason for choosing one usage over another. It's like asking why prevent that crimes are being committed is incorrect. Grammar per se isn't violated, but since the usage has never been preferred, it has become questionable to the point of sounding wrong. –  Daniel Mar 23 '12 at 16:10
3  
The reason why it's wrong is that enforce does not govern a tensed object complement clause. That means its direct object has to be a real noun or noun phrase like the law or the deportation order from the judge, but it can't be a that-clause like that they're being followed. This is a fact about the verb enforce; every verb has its own pattern of prohibitions, affordances, and requirements like these. It's part of what the verb means. –  John Lawler Mar 23 '12 at 17:06
3  
@John Lawler, would that you made your comment an answer of its own, and it would be the finest answer here. –  nohat Mar 23 '12 at 18:27
    
Creating laws can neither enforce, nor ensure that something does or does not happen for the simple reason that laws can be broken. –  Brad Apr 26 '12 at 18:16
show 1 more comment

Apart from the fine answers already given here that focus on grammaticality, it bears noting that laws cannot enforce anything- they can merely prescribe and proscribe, but not enforce.
In fact they themselves require enforcement- thus the existence of "law enforcement officers".

share|improve this answer
add comment

Did you see this sentence in print somewhere? I would guess that someone did a cut and paste editing job.

If you use the word "ensure" the sentence is fine:

People then create laws to ensure that these regulations are being followed.

If you want to use the word enforce, the sentence would be better as:

People then create laws to enforce the regulations.

share|improve this answer
    
I'm grading student essays. The writer is not a native English speaker, so I'm not surprised to see unconventional wordings, but I'm wondering what to tell them in this case. That is, I want to help them learn, but am finding it hard to specify exactly why this is wrong (other than convention). –  John Doucette Mar 23 '12 at 16:07
1  
I agree with @TimLymington's answer. "Ensure that" is an acceptable construction, "enforce that" is not. Also, I would say that "enforce" has the meaning of "compel obedience to," so adding something like "that these regulations are being followed" (even if grammatical) would be redundant. –  JLG Mar 23 '12 at 16:20
    
@John Doucette, I think the most useful lesson for students to learn is that in many cases there is no specifying exactly what is wrong. All you can do is to say: This is just not how English works (as John Lawler eloquently points out in another comment). Then make sure they have the knowledge and tools to determine for themselves if any given phrase they have constructed follows the conventions of standard English usage. –  Shoe Mar 23 '12 at 20:31
add comment

I think both sentences are GRAMMATICALLY correct, at least in the sense that all the parts of speech are used in their proper places. The problem is that "enforce that ..." doesn't make sense in context.

Just because two words are both verbs doesn't mean that you can take any sentence that uses one, replace it with the other, and the sentence will still be coherent. Like, "People then create laws to ensure that these regulations are being followed." "ensure" is a transitive verb. "eat" is a transitive verb. But if I replace "ensure" with "eat" the sentence is jibberish.

share|improve this answer
    
I would say that 'enforce' takes only a direct object, so 'enforce that' is in fact ungrammatical. But YMMV. –  TimLymington Mar 24 '12 at 19:14
    
@Tim Good point, I can't think of a sentence where "enforce that" would be valid, not off the top of my head anyway. There's probably a grammar rule operating here whose name I am unaware of. –  Jay Mar 26 '12 at 14:00
add comment

What exactly does your third sentence mean? Enforce and ensure are certainly both verbs, but so is prevent. They are not synonyms, so they are not interchangeable in that sense. Enforce that has no logical derivation and does not appear in the dictionaries; but it is comprehensible, so whether it is 'wrong' depends on your definition.

share|improve this answer
    
I think what I want to know is why it has no logical derivation. As to appearing in dictionaries, do combinations of words typically appear there, and would the failure of a combination to appear really indicate that said combination cannot be used? –  John Doucette Mar 23 '12 at 16:11
    
@John: 'cannot be used in idiomatic English', because a dictionary is a list of the ways that words are in fact used. –  TimLymington Mar 26 '12 at 14:15
    
To clarify: I meant that a dictionary is not an exhaustive list of all valid English 2-grams, instead containing only all valid English words. Consequently, if a pair of words did not appear together in a dictionary, I would not consider this proof that combining them was invalid English. –  John Doucette Mar 26 '12 at 16:06
    
@John: One (or both) of us is confused. A good dictionary will give a list of prepositions with which a verb can be properly used. English is not a mathematical theorem, nor even a game of wff'n'proof. –  TimLymington Mar 26 '12 at 21:45
    
Thanks for the clarification. Possibly I have never seen a good dictionary (or at least, never looked for associated lists of prepositions). As to the math, since my students are mathematics majors, not withstanding the nature of English, I like to have logical sounding answers for them. :) –  John Doucette Mar 27 '12 at 1:20
add comment

Law enforcement is the province of the police. Just because a law is enacted (by politicians), doesn't mean it is enforced, or even enforceable (by the police).

Ensure sounds more correct, but, strictly speaking, it isn't. Simply enacting a law doesn't ensure (with 100% certainty) that the law will never be broken.

I would plump for:

'People then legislate to decree that these regulations must be followed.'

share|improve this answer
    
And how is decree any better than ensure, as far as making certain a law will never be broken? –  jwpat7 Apr 27 '12 at 18:12
    
Decree means to state that it must be so -- an official order from a legal authority. This is not the same as ensuring it will indeed be so. –  Brad Apr 28 '12 at 9:06
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.