Due to and Because of

[Fargard]

Hello,

(didn't really know how to search for this because due, to, because and of are too common for the search function :( )

So, I wonder when to use due to and because of. After doing some research with google my idea about this is:

due to + noun
because of + other

So, it would be
- Due to jet lag, I ...
- Because of falling down the stairs, my leg hurt

But, I also saw constructions like
- Because of the fact
- Due to the reason
which would destroy my great theory :(

So, is there a rule about when to use which of these two? Is it maybe also a matter of formal/informal/the audiance speaking to or other?


Thanks in advance

[sarat_106]

Hello,

(didn't really know how to search for this because due, to, because and of are too common for the search function :( )

So, I wonder when to use due to and because of. After doing some research with google my idea about this is:

due to + noun
because of + other

So, it would be
- Due to jet lag, I ...
- Because of falling down the stairs, my leg hurt

But, I also saw constructions like
- Because of the fact
- Due to the reason
which would destroy my great theory :(

So, is there a rule about when to use which of these two? Is it maybe also a matter of formal/informal/the audiance speaking to or other?


Thanks in advance

The simple rule (prescribed) is that the two phrases are not interchangeable. With their accompanying words, “due to” and “because of” operate as adjectival and adverbial prepositional phrases.
So ‘due to’ modifies nouns and is generally used after some form of the verb to be (is, are, was, were, etc.) as in this example:
The heavy snowfall was due to El Nino.(the phrase after the connecting verb “was” is working as an adjective modifying the noun “snowfall”)

On the other hand the phrase “because of” modifies verbs as in this example:
The snowfall came because of the effects of El Nino.( the phrase modifies the verb “came.)

[Fargard]

Thanks!

Well, people often say online that you should use 'due to' (only) if it could be replaced by 'caused by'. But this hint doesn't help, does it?
Example:

I'm tired ... jet lag

can't one use because of jet lag, but also due to, following this 'rule'?
Well, and if I got your explanation right, it should be due to. Right?

[Raymott]

Hello,

(didn't really know how to search for this because due, to, because and of are too common for the search function :( )

So, I wonder when to use "due to" and "because of". After doing some research with google my idea about this is:

due to + noun
because of + other

So, it would be
- Due to jet lag, I ...
- Because of falling down the stairs, my leg hurt
"Falling" is a gerund, and therefore a noun. So all four of your examples use 'phrase + noun'.

But, I also saw constructions like
- Because of the fact
- Due to the reason
which would destroy my great theory :(

So, is there a rule about when to use which of these two? Is it maybe also a matter of formal/informal/the audiance speaking to or other?


Thanks in advance

I disagree a little with sarat.
"Due to" doesn't require a form of "to be".
Due to his illness, he left work early.
Because of his illness, he left work early.

"Due to" is very commonly used in the sense of "because of".
I'm not sure what the grammar books say about this, and I'm happy to be corrected. Do any other native speakers want to take a position on this?

[sarat_106]

I disagree a little with sarat.
"Due to" doesn't require a form of "to be".
Due to his illness, he left work early.
Because of his illness, he left work early.

"Due to" is very commonly used in the sense of "because of".
I'm not sure what the grammar books say about this, and I'm happy to be corrected. Do any other native speakers want to take a position on this?

Thank you for the clarification. We also use in that sence, but I prefer the second sentence

[Fargard]

"Due to" is very commonly used in the sense of "because of".

Well, and most internet ressources claim they're not interchangeable, which confuses me even more now :(

[Raymott]

Well, and most internet ressources claim they're not interchangeable, which confuses me even more now :(

They are not interchangeable.
For them to be interchangeable, "because of" would also need to be usable in the sense of "due to". I didn't make this claim.

Here are some sentences where "because of" doesn't work:
The plane is due to take off soon.
Ten dollars is due to the milkman.

Logic lesson:
1.
"X can be used for Y" does not imply "Y can be used for X".
"A book can be used as a doorstop, and often is" does not imply "A doorstop can be used as a book, and often is".
I can make the first claim without implying that books and doorstops are interchangeable.

2.
"A is often used in the sense of B" doesn't imply that "A can always
be used in place of B".
</logic>