Do SoEdit
Do so is a compact English construction that uses an auxiliary verb combined with a pro-form to stand in for a previously mentioned action or situation. In everyday writing and formal prose alike, it serves as a linguistic tool to avoid repetition while keeping a sentence fluid and clear. The structure typically resembles do + so, where do functions as an auxiliary and so acts as the referential element pointing back to an earlier verb phrase. In examples, the phrase can be seen in sentences like “If you finish the report, do so by noon,” or “The committee promised to review the recommendations, and they did so last week.” In linguistic terms, do so is a pro-form that helps maintain cohesion without re-stating the full verb phrase.
This article treats do so as a practical feature of the English language, with attention to how it is used in different registers, how it relates to grammar and usage, and why debates about its use persist in style guides and public discourse. It reflects a tradition-minded view that values clarity, economy, and continuity in communication, while also acknowledging the legitimate debates about when a reader might benefit from a more explicit reference.
History and usage
The use of do as an auxiliary beyond its primary sense of marking tense in English has a long history. Do as a general-purpose auxiliary began expanding in Early Modern English and continued to evolve through the modern period, aided by writers who sought to avoid awkward repetition in long sentences. The development of a fused pro-form like do so reflects a broader pattern in English grammar of using placeholders to keep discourse efficient. For readers and editors who prize straightforward prose, do so is a natural tool that avoids redundancy without sacrificing meaning.
From a historical perspective, the preference for do so has often correlated with formality and rhetorical intent. In more official or legal styles, do so can help ensure that a statement remains precise even when the antecedent verb phrase is long or complex. In less formal writing, some writers prefer repeating the verb phrase (e.g., “finish the report by noon” followed by “finish it by noon”) when the surrounding context makes the relation explicit. Style guides tend to diverge on this point, reflecting broader questions of readability and concision that run through style guide discussions like those found in the Chicago Manual of Style or the AP Stylebook.
Viewed through a tradition-minded lens, the insistence on using do so in certain contexts aligns with a broader aim: to preserve clear reference across sentences and paragraphs without forcing the reader to backtrack to identify the action being referred to. This is especially true in longer passages where the repetition of a verb phrase would create a distracting cadence. In shorter or straightforward sentences, however, a plain repetition can often read as more natural and direct, which is a sentiment echoed in some contemporary usage guidance.
Grammar and semantics
Do so operates at the intersection of auxiliary verbs and pro-forms. The base verb do serves as an auxiliary that can carry tense, aspect, or mood, while so acts as a referential stand-in for a verb phrase previously introduced. The combination creates a compact expression that preserves the action without reprinting the entire clause.
Key points about its behavior include: - Antecedent reference: The action replaced by do so must be recoverable from the preceding material. If the antecedent is ambiguous, using do so can create confusion rather than clarity. - Tense and agreement: The do in do so carries the tense of the main clause, so the timing of the referenced action remains coherent with the surrounding sentence. - Formal versus informal register: Do so is often labeled as more formal or stylistically restrained in some registers, though in many professional and academic contexts it reads as perfectly standard.
In terms of reference mechanics, do so is contrasted with do it and do that. Do it refers to a specific action named in the immediate context, while do so stands in for a previously stated action that may be phrased more elaborately. Do that is closer to a demonstrative substitute, often signaling a direct continuation of a prior clause. For readers studying linguistics or semantics, these distinctions illustrate how pronoun-like forms help track entities and events across discourse.
Examples illustrate the subtle choices: - Do so: “The client asked for a detailed analysis. Please do so by Friday.” Here, the action is the analysis described earlier. - Do it: “The client asked for a detailed analysis. Please do it by Friday.” The direct verb phrase is repeated in a shortened form. - Do that: “The client asked for a detailed analysis. Please do that by Friday.” The reference is to the entire suggested action, sometimes emphasizing a broader strategy rather than a single verb phrase.
In some varieties of English, speakers may replace do so with do it or even omit the auxiliary in casual speech, depending on the level of formality and the clarity of the antecedent. The acceptability of each option varies by jurisdiction and audience, and readers often rely on contextual cues to determine the best choice. For more on how pronouns and pro-forms function in discourse, see pronoun and ellipsis.
Style, clarity, and prescriptivism
From a stance that emphasizes tradition and efficiency in public life, do so can be valued for its economy and its ability to maintain a formal cadence without repetitive burden. In bureaucratic or policy-writing contexts, the use of do so can yield sentences that read as measured and precise, which many readers associate with trustworthiness and competence. This aligns with a broader belief that language should be accessible without unnecessary repetition, particularly in documents meant to inform a broad audience.
Nonetheless, prescriptive guides are careful to note that do so is not universally preferable. Critics argue that overuse of do so can create a stilted or opaque tone, especially when the antecedent action is obvious or when the surrounding prose is already concise. In such cases, repeating the action verb or using a simple pronoun can improve readability. For example, a sentence like “Complete the form and do so now” might be less clear than “Complete the form and do it now,” if the referent is plainly the action of filling out the form. Style manuals such as Chicago Manual of Style and Garner's Modern English Usage address these choices, offering guidance that depends on context, audience, and purpose.
A practical approach favored by many editors is to prefer do so when the antecedent is distant or long, or when the sentence is part of a formal sequence. In more narrative or conversational writing, repeating the verb phrase or using a straightforward pronoun can sound more natural. This pragmatic stance mirrors a broader tension in language policy debates: should writers adhere to traditional cadence and precision, or should they adopt more flexible practices that reflect everyday speech? See also the discussions around descriptivism versus prescriptivism in linguistics.
Proponents of a cautious, outcomes-oriented language policy argue that do so supports reader comprehension in dense material. In legal writing, for instance, where precision matters and the risk of misinterpretation is high, do so can help anchor a reference to a long-running concept or stated obligation. Critics, however, may view rigid adherence to do so as a barrier to readability, especially for readers who are not well-versed in formal prose. The debate touches on broader questions about how language serves readers with different backgrounds and levels of literacy, a topic that often appears in discussions about plain language and readability.
Controversies and debates
Language policy has become a battleground in broader cultural conversations about inclusivity, accessibility, and tradition. Advocates for plain and direct language stress that clear writing serves all readers, including those who are non-native speakers or those not steeped in bureaucratic conventions. In this view, do so is a tool for reducing clunky repetition and preserving straightforward meaning. Critics, however, sometimes frame prescriptive usage as an obstacle to evolution, arguing that language should adapt to changing norms, including changes in formality, tone, and audience expectations. This tension is part of the larger discussion around language change and style.
Within this debate, a subset of commentary challenges what some call linguistic overreach: attempts to police everyday speech or to impose one “correct” way to reference past actions. Supporters of traditional grammar counter that language has a public-facing function—laws, contracts, public policy statements, and educational materials—where precision and predictability matter. They may argue that do so, when used thoughtfully, helps maintain consistent referents across sentences and reduces ambiguity for readers who rely on written text for instruction, compliance, or guidance.
In contemporary discourse, some critics associate strict usage rules with political overreach or with attempts to police speech. Proponents of a more restrained approach argue that a balance is possible: preserve forms like do so when they improve clarity and maintain formality in appropriate contexts, while allowing more direct phrasing in everyday writing. They contend that a thoughtful writer should tailor choices to audience and purpose rather than adhere to a one-size-fits-all rule. See also prescriptivism and descriptivism in linguistic theory for deeper exploration of these tensions.
On the question of “woke” criticism of language policing, many conservatives would argue that linguistic nitpicking can become a distraction from substantive policy concerns. They may claim that focusing on micro-level language choices, including the use of do so, risks sidelining practical results and economic considerations that affect everyday life. Proponents of traditional grammar would add that preserving clear, conventional usage helps maintain a shared cultural and educational standard, which they view as a foundation for social cohesion and accountability. Critics of this stance often label it as resistant to necessary reform, while supporters may insist that reform should be purposeful, transparent, and oriented toward improved understanding rather than ideological signaling.