As a Brit, I'm used to the phrase named after being used to say how something got its name. For example, in Wikipedia's List of eponymous roads in London, we read that Addison Road is named after the English essayist, poet, playwright and politician Joseph Addision(1672–1719). But sometimes I hear or read named for, where it's clear from the context that the intent is the same. It seems to me that this latter usage is exclusively American. Is this so? And in what sense is for being used here?

  • 1
    It is true that named for (US) = named after (UK). I've always felt that "named for" means exactly what it says, "named as something we do for", an honour towards the eponymous source.
    – Andrew Leach
    Aug 2, 2014 at 20:02
  • 4
    @AndrewLeach I don’t find that named after sounds especially British. To me it sounds completely normal in any kind of English. It might be though that “Eagle Mountain was named for the eagles that nest there” contrasts with “The Lyndon Baynes Johnson Achievement Award was named after the president” for some people. I’m not sure.
    – tchrist
    Aug 2, 2014 at 20:21
  • 2
    @tchrist BrE doesn't use named for (in this sense) at all.
    – Andrew Leach
    Aug 2, 2014 at 20:29
  • 1
    @AndrewLeach But Americans wouldn't say 'George was named for his father', would they? Surely they would say 'He was named after his father', as we do.
    – WS2
    Aug 2, 2014 at 21:50
  • 3
    I'd choose 'The Skunk Loach is named for the black stripe running down its back' rather than the 'after' version, where there is a reason other than commemoration. And I'm a Brit. Aug 2, 2014 at 22:06

4 Answers 4


I've seen both 'named for' and 'named after' being used in many different cases:

  • Chicago was named for Chickagou/Cheekwaag, a Native American.
  • Chicago was named after Chickagou/Cheekwaag, a Native American.

Both are correct and interchangeable.

But let's look at some more examples:

  • She was named after her mother.
  • She was named for her mother

The first rightly means 'in honor of' while the second one, I suppose, is close to 'derives from' or 'on behalf of' and sounds odd.

  • The Red River Park was named for its rivers that are red.
  • The Red River Park was named after its rivers that are red.

The first sentence here means 'because of'. The second still has the meaning 'in honor of'.

My guess would be that 'named for' has more to do with things and combination of things while "named after' has more to do with living creatures and people. Yet, I have to admit that in most cases both are correct and possible.

There's a slightly different meaning when we use prepositions in these examples:

  • Would you name the restaurant for me?
  • Would you name the restaurant after me?

Consider the first to be a request - I ask another person to find the right name for the restaurant because I don't know what name to use. The second clearly states that I want the restaurant to have my name on it.

  • Hi @SovereignSun, welcome to ELU. While your opinions are interesting, this answer is lacking any links to external sources to back it up. This site prefers facts to opinions, and the highest voted are usually well-researched with links and quotes from elsewhere.
    – AndyT
    Oct 28, 2016 at 15:23

From Oxford Dictionary of English

■ (name someone/thing after or (N. Amer.) also for) call someone or something by the same name as: Nathaniel was named after his maternal grandfather.

Oxford certainly seems to think that named for is American in usage.

Which I guess is in the following sense:

  1. representing (the thing mentioned):

Clearly "named after" means something along the lines of "These drawings are by Smith after those of Jones" where the "after" meaning "following as a consequence", so understood to mean "in honour of". The American "named for" is clearly in the sense that I do something "for" you, ie as a gift, so if I named something after someone, it would be as a gift "for" them, so it was named "for" them, ie the act of naming was "for" them. They are apparently now eqivalent, but symantically, they would presumably have been different.


I would venture the following explanation. (Whether it is true or not I have no idea.)

  • Named for refers to something other than a person. A French person named Fete Nat is named for the Fete Nationale (14th of July - what English speakers call Bastille Day). A person called Mississippi John Hurt was named for the State of Mississippi (no, Mississippi was not really part of his official name, as far as I know).

    In all such cases, I think it is also appropriate to say named after (or named after the...).

  • Named after can refer to a non-person or to a person. Martin Luther King was named after Martin Luther. George Washington Carver was named after George Washington. They were not named for those people.

Those examples speak to how people are named. As for how things are named, I'm not sure but I think the same descriptions apply. The Brooklyn Bridge is named for Brooklyn and named after Brooklyn. The State of Washington is named after George Washington (not named for him).

(Again, this is my personal impression, as one American. It is not a reference.)

  • 1
    Can you account for the Wikipedia article I included in a comment on the question?
    – Andrew Leach
    Aug 3, 2014 at 9:09
  • 1
    @AndrewLeach That usage sounds weird to me. It may just be that the person who created that page doesn't appreciate the difference. Language usage is not set in stone or practiced perfectly by everyone.
    – Barmar
    Aug 3, 2014 at 10:11
  • @AndrewLeach: No, clearly I cannot "account" for particular usages you might point to. I don't pretend that the rules I came up with apply universally and always. I just laid out a usage pattern that seems to fit what I've experienced - nothing more. Just one person's experience on only a few parts of a few continents over a few decades. I never thought about this before seeing the question. We can hope that someone else will come up with something that elucidates more and is authoritative (which my answer explicitly says it is not).
    – Drew
    Aug 3, 2014 at 16:48
  • FWIW - All of the examples offered on this page, so far, fit the rules I came up with. There is no example of named for that involves naming of someone or something "for" a person.
    – Drew
    Aug 4, 2014 at 2:04
  • An experiment with Ngrams, admittedly with small sample size, gives no evidence whatsoever for this distinction; named for is actually preferred with the person here. Mar 26, 2015 at 18:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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