An editor once asked me the following question:
Is it still correct to use “allow” and “allow for” differently? In material I am editing, I often see “allow for” when I think adding the “for” is wrong (or at least unnecessary) for the meaning.
My dictionary indicates that, as I expected, “allow” means “admit (an event or activity) as legal or acceptable” or permit (in several senses, including to permit someone to have or do something). Definitions of “allow for” include “make provision for,” “take into consideration,” and “provide or set aside.” I can see some room for interpretation so that either “allow” or “allow for” could be correct in a sentence, depending on nuances of meaning. But it seems to me that “allow for” is used far too often.
Here are some examples of questionable sentences I have seen:
- Data-sharing agreements will allow for scientists at other universities to use the data collected in this experiment.
- The menus met nutrient requirements but allowed for some variation based on taste preferences.
- Cultures were maintained for 48 hours, to allow for accumulation of the protein to detectable levels.
I think this is an example of the correct use of “allow for”:
The dose of some drugs is usually increased to allow for incomplete absorption.
Do you think that nowadays many authors are confusing the meanings of “allow” and “allow for,” or using “allow for” to cover all meanings of both expressions? Is it possible that only people can “allow” something, so that a document or other inanimate object has to “allow for” something?
Yes, allow for is still a legitimate phrasal verb. According to the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, it occurs mostly in academia. Disappointingly, few other resources talk about it, apart from the mention in the Oxford dictionaries.
As the editor instinctively knew, not all situations are appropriate for allow for. Of the four examples, to me the first sounds stilted (I’d delete for) and the third sounds wordy (I’d make it more active: to allow proteins to accumulate to detectable levels). The second and fourth examples sound fine to me, though.
A version of this article originally published in 2013 in Copyediting newsletter.
Generally I agree. I think “allow for” is probably better any time there is a factor in the causes that you don’t want to mention (or re-mention) in the effect on which you are concentrating. “To allow time for the reaction to complete”, “To allow money for unexpected needs”, “To allow space for future student activities,” etc — if you want to focus on the effect (or you’ve already mentioned the factor) you just drop time, money, or space and go with “allow for”