3

I don’t like the phrase "in order to." I think it’s superfluous, and I almost always delete it whenever I see it pop up in something I’m editing.

I’m just wondering — is there a compelling reason to use it in certain circumstances? When might it be necessary? If it isn't necessary, are there times when it might be better to keep it than delete it?

4
  • I use 'in order to' rarely, to mean remote causation, an indirect connection. Like an exit on highway A that uses road B to get to main road C, a helpful sign is "Exit for B, to C." Otherwise, you exit and wonder why am I on B and where is C. "B to C" signals 'in order to,' showing a transition. There are such times I say "Do A to get to B, in order to get to C." May 11, 2017 at 16:48
  • 5
    Personally, I tend to add ‘in order’ before some ‘to’s when editing, because people often neglect to consider the flow of what they write. Cases like “It's important to try to travel abroad to study to broaden your horizon”, with a terrible build-up of infinitives, are one fairly frequently occurring type of case where I tend to want to do something in order (!) to break the flow of ‘to’s. May 11, 2017 at 18:50
  • 2
    Another reason I could think of is to put more emphasis on the purpose. "In order for him to have the very best education, we sold our car to send him to a better school." It's still not necessary, but in speech more than written perhaps, it can highlight the 'sacrifice' that was made.
    – John
    May 11, 2017 at 19:08
  • I use it quite often in online posts to distinguish clearly between action and goal - e.g. "you need to [do X] in order to [accomplish Y]". May 11, 2017 at 20:34

3 Answers 3

9

The sentence

To speak plainly, you need to remove the pebbles from your mouth.

is ambiguous. It may mean

[In order] to speak plainly, you need to remove the pebbles from your mouth.

or it may mean

[If I may be allowed] to speak plainly, you need to remove the pebbles from your mouth.

In such situations, you do your readers or hearers a service by including the words necessary to make your intentions clear, as with

In order to speak plainly, you need to remove the pebbles from your mouth.

But setting aside such unusual situations, I also think that "in order to" is justifiable in many instances as a matter of stylistic preference, whether it is necessary to avoid ambiguity or not. Consider this instance from Henry Neill, "Thoughts on Atonement, with Remarks on the Views of S. T. Coleridge" in The Biblical Repository and Classical Review (July 1849):

Yet as the seed must yield up its old form and die in order to live, so a human soul must [y]ield itself up to God, as God urges His way into it, and thus cause old things to pass away, in order that all things may become new. The soul must, in fact, die in order to live.

You could remove the three instances of "in order"—two before to and one before that—and have no serious difficulty understanding the sense of the passage. But including the extra words does nothing to diminish the tone of the remarks.

More typical (and recent) is this example, from Alasdair MacIntyre (1998), quoted as an epigraph in The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Philosophy of Education (2005):

It is one of the marks of a community of enquiry and learning that, while it cannot but begin from the standpoint of its own cultural and social traditions, what it is able to learn, in order to sustain itself, includes knowing how to identify its own incoherences and errors and how then to draw upon the resources of other alien and rival traditions in order to correct these.

Again the instances of "in order" are not strictly necessary for sense, but they are (in my opinion) thoroughly defensible as a matter of personal style.

That's not to deny that some writers make very bad choices in their use of "in order to." This excerpt from Per-Anders Tengland, Mental Health: A Philosophical Analysis (2001) is a kind of poster child for stupefying overuse of the phrase:

What I need to show is that these abilities are self-evidently needed in order to reach the goals in question (given the environment). Take the following example. In order to open a bottle of wine a person needs a certain agility in order to turn the corkscrew. She also needs some strength in her arms in order to pull up the cork. We might then say that it is necessary to have some agility and strength in order to reach the goal of opening a bottle of wine.

But this example merely shows that as stylists some writers have wooden ears. In my view, systematically eliminating "in order" from the set phrase "in order to" on grounds that it adds nothing useful to a piece of writing is unduly presumptuous and prescriptive—and I say this as a copy editor who has no love for literary lard. A writer may reasonably believe that using "in order to" improves the tone and flow of a sentence, even when the sense of the sentence is readily inferable from "to" alone.

5
  • 2
    It's worth noting that Tengland is a non-native speaker. His native language (Swedish) does not use a plain infinitive to express what ‘in order to’ means, but rather employs a construction that is very archaic in English: för att ‘for to’. There's a good chance his overuse of ‘in order to’ stems from first-language interference making him feel that a plain infinitive is undermarked. (That's not to say native authors don't commit the same stylistic faux-pas, of course, just to somewhat redeem this particular one.) May 11, 2017 at 18:46
  • 1
    @JanusBahsJacquet: Your comment is valid and (with regard to the Swedish correlative of "in order to") quite interesting—thanks. As you note, similar instances for "in order to" overuse are readily available from native English speakers, such as this one; but the "in order to" plague in the Tengland example was even more concentrated and, therefore, more convenient to use.
    – Sven Yargs
    May 11, 2017 at 19:37
  • 1
    I think part of the "style" decisions are related to prosody, as "in order" adds an additional stressed syllable to the introductory phrase. The Preamble to the Constitution wouldn't fit nearly as well into the Schoolhouse Rock song with just "to".
    – 1006a
    May 11, 2017 at 23:01
  • 1
    @1006a: I completely agree with you. Many people have little sense of the extent to which speech is music and writing is sheet music. There are times (unrelated to logical need) when "in order to" fills a line beautifully, and other times when it makes a clause sag under its own weight.
    – Sven Yargs
    May 11, 2017 at 23:38
  • 1
    speech is music and writing is sheet music I love that! I wish that we had an easy way to include sound in posts here, as the "sheet music" can't always fully convey what actually hearing the music could.
    – 1006a
    May 11, 2017 at 23:57
5

In order to is useful when there's any concern with interpreting an infinitive as a purpose adverb.

For example, stop takes a gerund complement clause

  • He stopped smoking yesterday.

but doesn't take an infinitive clause.
Therefore the sentence

  • He stopped to smoke yesterday

does not mean the same thing as the one with the gerund. But what does it mean?
The infinitive in the second sentence is interpreted as a purpose infinitive.

If you want to be clear about the matter, you can always
insert in order in front of the to of any purpose infinitive:

  • He stopped in order to smoke yesterday.

That sentence means the same as the second sentence.

2

It is necessary to mull over a question like this, in order to form an opinion, before being able to offer a potentially constructive answer.

2
  • 2
    Watch out! @debbiesym might edit you!
    – thomj1332
    May 11, 2017 at 17:03
  • 3
    @thomj1332, you need 2,000 reputation for editing power here. Mike is safe for the time being.
    – dangph
    May 11, 2017 at 23:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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