When to use 'is' and 'are' has caused an argument in the office

Thank you so much for the back up, Elizabeth, I even made the point to my boss (bless him) that you would never say 'Turkey are joining the EU', but he wouldn't have it. I have a feeling that the ego had landed, and no ground would be given. I sometimes reword the sentence so as to avoid future arguments, and he doesn't apparently notice. Shh! :D

Essay on The Collective Noun by Sophie Johnson

Traditionally, the noun that names a collective is considered to be singular. Being singular, the verbial that denotes its act is also singular:
(1) The family prays every evening.
(2) Australia is playing against Portugal in the final round.
(3) The government is going to propose tough legislation in this matter.
Yet we regularly hear and read 'the government are', 'the family are', and in sports commentaries, even 'Australia are'. What, one might well ask, is going on? Is contemporary English denying the existence of the collective noun? This state of things is particularly bemusing for learners of English. That is little wonder, for the equivalent in their native tongues of 'my government are' is impossibly ungrammatical. The English, they tend to conclude, are disturbingly sloppy with their grammar.

But are we? Or is it that we are left free to use our language as we think reasonable, while everyone else is constrained to toe a pedant line? Unlike most other language areas, ours is not presided over by guardians who legislate upon its use. And that's just as well, in our estimate. For what, to take the case to hand, would be the good in our being ordered to respect the singular-noun status of the collective noun? Would respecting it add even a scrap to the lucidity of the meanings we make? Besides, when we talk about a 'family' that is doing something, or about a 'government' that is doing something, we envisage several people engaged in an activity. So why a singular verbial to pretend that only one person is doing it?

Such a line of argument is handy. But it won't explain all. There is still this sort of thing: We treat 'nation' as a collective noun:
(4) A nation is valiant when it defends itself.
But we treat 'people' as a plural noun:
(5)A people are valiant when they defend themselves.
We do this even though the two expressions are equi-meaning. We just do, that's all!

Nevertheless, what is 'a', the indefinite article that normally goes with singular nouns ('a dog', 'a shovel'.) doing before the plural noun 'people'? At this stage we might explain kindly to anyone who wants to know that the English article is something we use as we do because we know how to use it. Everyone else, sadly, does not.

Other oddities assail us even as we wriggle out of the sticky mire that 'a people are' landed us in. In this business, no news is good news. Now, hold it right there! 'News', apparently a plural noun, 'is'? Oh dear. There's no making light of this one. 'News', despite its plural form, takes the singular copula 'is', not the plural 'are'!

As if this were not vexation enough, there is the prissy business of 'the media are'. Why not 'the media is'? The fact that the Latin word 'media' is the plural form of 'medium' should surely not deter us from using the singular copula with it. The plural form of 'news' did not. But then, 'news' does not have a singular form: We always hear the latest bit of news, never the latest bit of new. 'Media' has a singular form: 'medium'. But that is a spiritual person, not newspapers and radio and television.

Are we getting somewhere, willy-nilly, having so far decided upon a policy of concluding nothing much? We probably are – into another mire: 'Constabulary' is a group noun, has a singular form and its act is denoted as a singular verbial:
(6) The constabulary needs to be free of political control.
A true collective noun!’ one might celebrate it. But not for long. Its synonym, `the police', is a plural noun:
(7) The police need to be free of political control.
So why is one name a collective noun and its synonym a plural noun? All is lost!
What? What's this? 'All is? 'All are', surely? 'All' is a plural noun! But wait:
(8) All is lost if the cause is lost.
(9) All are lost if particular things or people are lost.
'All' both is and is not a collective noun, and it is and is not a plural noun. Where are we now in the collective noun/singular verbial showdown?

This sort of perambulation leaves us in no doubt that the collective noun/singular verb usage is in disarray in English. Can it be rationalised or is it now too late? In any case, how would we rationalise? What would happen, for instance, if a rule such as: 'Any noun that names a group as an abstraction is a collective noun and must take a singular verb' were forced upon English usage? Under such a regime we could say that:
(10) A government is good only as a democratic construct.
(11) This Government are doing a good job.
are grammatically proper. But then, we can do this anyway, if we want. And if not, not. Legislation, on the other hand, would deny us the latter alternative. We, being English speakers, do not take kindly to legislation on usage. Nor should we. For once it begins, where does it stop?

Sensible after-thought on a stand in support of the contemporary open-season on the collective noun is this: Tradition always has respectability. It also has clout, because traditionalists tend to out-number rebels and because traditional behavior always has connotations of refinement. To hazard an analogy: One can make meaning creditably without respecting the collective noun/singular verbial, just as one can eschew knife and fork yet dine well on steak. But doing either, what does one lose in polish? Writers should consider respecting collective nouns for reason alone that failure to do so is not appreciated universally. Indeed, many see that failure an ignorance.

Collecive Noun by S. Johnson

Hi Isabelbee,
All I can say after all this is that you must have some interesting arguments in your office!

I've enjoyed reading everyone's thought-provoking contributions to this discussion.

I think you, yourself, have expressed your concerns about the language very eloquently and I for one am in total agreement with you. I must admit that I think of some changes to the language as 'good' or 'bad', when they obscure meaning or just plain seem lazy or ugly, and then I feel a little guilty for being so judgemental. Perhaps every generation comes to feel this way, in time?
Best wishes,
Clive

But. . . both you and your boss are correct. Consider,

(A) My family (my dad, mom, and bother) are here with me. (non-collective noun)
(B) My family (the group) is here with me. (collective noun)

(C) British Coal, they who own and run the company, are. . .
(D) British Coal, the company, is. . .

With regards to which of the two is more common in Business English, well, it would be the latter, D , but that's not to say D is the correct choice, or should be taken as such.

Choice C is worthy of defence, not because it's what tradition in such and such an area prescribes, but for what it contributes to Business. The non-collective us(ag)e 'British Coal are' expresses a human referent; i.e., they who own, run, and work for the company, whereas the collective us(ag)e 'British Coal is' does away with the human connection; i.e., British Coal is an "it", a thing.

We are our language.

In today's world, we complain about being treated as "it", as a number, and yet, ironically enough it's OK to defend the source of that problem by using majority rules as a defence. We're told we should say, "British Coal is" because a company is a thing, and we're told we shouldn't say, "British Coal are" because a company, being a thing, is not human. Or is it?

The way in which we use language, as you know, expresses our perception of the world around us. Change the word order in the world of language and look how it filters through to the order of importance in the human world. We are our language, and for that reason C is more than worthy of defence, specifically for the sake of the semantics it houses.

We could learn a thing or two from your boss' perception because 'he' seems to have a panoramic view: What's so odd about viewing a company that's run by people as people who run a company? The latter is not only more direct, it places what's most important first, and the very instant the most important thing is moved to the back, and added to 'by'--see ya--is the very instant we, its referent, become secondary, and no longer of primary importance--aside from a primary number.

Asking whether 'British Coal' or any other company name, for that matter, should be viewed as a singular noun or as a plural noun serves only to perpetuate the erroneous assumption that there's actually a correct answer when it comes to semantic interpretation. Argue if you will, but there's really no need to hash it out. The solution is always in the question: You and your boss are correct. It's your perceptions that differ.

Keep the human connection. Vote C. "British Coal are. . . "

P.S. In Japan, what citizens see as 'green'--or is it 'blue'?--we here in North America see as 'blue'--or is it 'green'?. On more than one occasion, you might hear people talking about the traffic lights:

Max from the USA: It's blue, isn't it?
Pat from Canada: Well, it's kind of an aqua-green.
Yuki from Japan: It's green.

Not to mention, ask any school-aged child in Japan what colour the sun is, and they'll tell you it's red. Perceptions will differ.