It’s Not ‘Advocate For’. It’s ‘Advocate’

Just because an error is common, doesn’t stop it being wrong. This is true of common mispronunciations such as ate (rhymes with met not mate, unless you’re American), privacy (doesn’t start like private but privet, again, unless you’re American), comparable (it’s not com-parable, it’s ‘comprable’), adversary (doesn’t sound like adversity) and so on. This is probably obvious to most readers.

What I want to complain about here is the increasing (it seems to me) use of ‘advocate for’ when what is meant is ‘advocate’.

I’ve tried to ignore it but the misuse seems to be growing.

I even found it in the Telegraph this morning, in an article by a member of the House of Lords, no less.

It’s easy to see how it’s happened. To advocate something means to recommend it publicly. Similar concepts are ‘speak for’ and ‘push for’ so we can see how the ‘for’ might have crept in.

Some people also sometimes say ‘advocate against’, which is an oxymoron, but if you think it’s valid you may think you need to be clear when one is in favour.

A person, such as a lawyer, can be an advocate for someone, meaning he represents him. So this is another possible origin of the error.

But it remains an error.

‘Advocate’ as a verb should never be followed by ‘for’. It’d be like a health officer saying “I recommend for brushing your teeth twice a day”. It’s plain wrong.

The Collins dictionary gives examples of correct usage for the verb:

Mr. Williams is a conservative who advocates fewer Government controls on business

…the tax policy advocated by the Opposition.

For the noun, an advocate is always an advocate of a cause, not an advocate for it. Collins again:

He was a strong advocate of free market policies and a multi-party system.

As noted above, it is valid to say that someone who represents a person a group is an advocate for them, in the sense of acting on their behalf. But that’s the only time ‘for’ should appear with ‘advocate’.

I’d like to be able to tie this to some general decline in standards attributable to wokery or such like. And maybe there is some connection to a decline in proper education and journalistic standards. But it may also just be one of those things, an error that has become so common even writers and editors who should know better start to forget it’s an error.

So this is my little protest, which I trust everyone will now read and, having done so, resolve never to do it again.