Just search BBC learning English.

[kadioguy]

[From the BBC Learning English's YouTube channel]

"And don't forget to follow us on social media. Just search BBC Learning English. Bye for now! Bye!"

(Source at 7:54)
---
I think that it should be "Just search for BBC Learning English" because the speaker means to look for BBC Learning English on social media, so "Just search social media for BBC Learning English", thus "Just search for BBC Learning English".

"Just search BBC Learning English" would mean "search something on the BBC Learning English website".

What do you think?

 

[kadioguy]

FYI (the color is mine):

ChatGPT: Your reasoning is sound. In standard English, when referring to looking for something on a platform (like social media), the correct phrasing typically includes "for," as in "Just search for BBC Learning English." This makes the meaning clear: you're instructing someone to look for BBC Learning English as the target of the search.

Without "for"—as in "Just search BBC Learning English"—it could be interpreted differently, such as searching within BBC Learning English or using BBC Learning English as the tool for the search. However, context often helps clarify the intended meaning, and in casual speech, people sometimes omit "for" without causing confusion, especially if the phrase is commonly understood.

In more formal or precise usage, "search for" would indeed be preferable here to avoid ambiguity.

 

[kadioguy]

FYI:

Clande: I understand your reasoning, but "search [term]" without "for" is actually a common and acceptable usage in modern English, especially in the context of online searches and social media. Both versions are correct:

1. "Search BBC Learning English"
2. "Search for BBC Learning English"

The first version has become increasingly common with the rise of search engines and social media, where "search [term]" is treated as a complete action. It's similar to how we might say "Google BBC Learning English" or "YouTube BBC Learning English."

That said, adding "for" is certainly not wrong and might sound more formal or traditional. Both versions effectively communicate the same meaning in this context.

Me: So, "Google BBC Learning English" and "Google for BBC Learning English" can mean the same thing?

Clande: Yes, exactly! Both "Google BBC Learning English" and "Google for BBC Learning English" mean the same thing - using Google to find content related to BBC Learning English.

The word "Google" has evolved into a verb where both constructions are acceptable. This is also true for other search-related verbs in modern usage:

• "Bing the answer" / "Bing for the answer"
• "YouTube that song" / "YouTube for that song"
• "Instagram the restaurant" / "Instagram for the restaurant"

This pattern follows what happened with older verbs like "seek" - you can both "seek truth" and "seek for truth." The meaning remains the same in both cases.

The version without "for" tends to be more common in casual, modern usage, especially in imperative sentences like "Just Google it!" or "YouTube the tutorial."

 

[tedmc]

I think it has become a common practice and universally accepted to drop "for", for brevity, just as "google" has become a verb.

 

[jutfrank]

What do you think?

I think you're wrong. (You did ask! )

In this case, the verb search doesn't mean 'look for' as you seem to think, but instead denotes the action of typing characters into a search box and then pressing the 'enter' button. Think of it as similar to the verb 'write'.

Here's how you should have transcribed it in post #1:

Just search "BBC Learning English"

You can see that the string inside the speech marks is the thing to be written in the search box.

 

[Rover_KE]

You can search a website like a customs officer can search a suitcase for contraband.

 

[jutfrank]

You can search a website like a customs officer can search a suitcase for contraband.

Quite true but that's not the meaning/use in the context we're discussing here. The recommendation is not to search the website but simply to navigate to it.