In English, the expressions due to and owing to are frequently used to indicate cause or reason. In contemporary usage, these two expressions are often treated as interchangeable. However, traditional prescriptive grammar has long maintained a clear distinction between them, particularly regarding their grammatical functions. Of special concern is the use of due to as an adverbial phrase, that is, a phrase modifying a verb or an entire clause. This article argues, from a traditional grammatical standpoint, that the adverbial use of due to is incorrect and that such usage should instead be expressed by owing to or similar adverbial expressions.

The original grammatical function of due to

According to traditional grammar, due is fundamentally an adjective, meaning ‘attributable’ or ‘caused by’. Consequently, the phrase due to functions properly as an adjectival complement, typically following a form of the verb to be and modifying a noun.

The delay was due to bad weather.

In this sentence, due to bad weather describes the noun delay and therefore conforms to the adjectival role of due. By contrast, the following sentence has been widely criticized in traditional grammar:

*The train was delayed due to bad weather.

Here, due to explains the reason for the verb was delayed, functioning as an adverbial phrase. From a traditional perspective, this construction is grammatically flawed because the verb delayed (or the event of delaying) cannot logically be described as due. This objection has been repeatedly emphasized in traditional commentary on usage.

Contrast with owing to

The distinction becomes clearer when due to is contrasted with owing to. Historically, owing to developed as a prepositional or adverbial expression and has been accepted as modifying verbs or entire clauses.

The train was delayed owing to bad weather.

In this sentence, owing to bad weather clearly and grammatically expresses the reason for the delay. Traditional grammarians such as H. W. Fowler argued that adverbial cause should be expressed by owing to, not by due to. Fowler criticized the extension of due to into adverbial territory, insisting that it should remain attached to a noun rather than to ‘a notion extracted from the sentence’ as a whole.11. Maeve Maddox, ‘“Owing to” vs “due to”’, Daily Writing Tips (retrieved on 10 March 2026).

The problem of semantic inconsistency

Another reason traditional grammarians reject the adverbial use of due to is semantic inconsistency. The adjective due conveys the idea of something being ‘attributable’ or ‘assignable’. This semantic property naturally applies to nouns such as delay, failure, or cancellation, but not to actions or events expressed by verbs.

Thus, in a sentence such as:

*The concert was cancelled due to the rain.

the phrase due to the rain is attached not to a noun but to the verbal idea was cancelled. Traditional critics argue that this creates a mismatch between form and meaning, weakening logical clarity and grammatical precision.

Modern usage and the value of the traditional view

It is undeniable that in modern English, due to is frequently used as a general-purpose preposition equivalent to because of or owing to, and many dictionaries now record this usage. Nevertheless, from a traditional prescriptive standpoint, widespread use does not automatically legitimize a construction.

In academic writing, formal reports, and careful prose, maintaining a distinction between adjectival and adverbial structures contributes to clarity and logical rigour. From this perspective, the following guideline remains valuable:

  • Use due to to modify nouns (adjectival use).
  • Use owing to or because of to modify verbs or clauses (adverbial use).

This distinction has been repeatedly defended in discussions of traditional grammar as a means of preserving structural and semantic precision in English.

Conclusion

In conclusion, according to traditional English grammar, the use of due to as an adverbial phrase is incorrect. The phrase due to is properly adjectival and should be used to modify nouns, typically following a linking verb such as be. When expressing the reason for an action or an entire clause, adverbial expressions such as owing to should be employed instead. While modern usage has blurred this distinction, the traditional rule remains a coherent and logically grounded principle, particularly relevant in formal and academic contexts.