Is the phrase "for free" correct?

Question

A friend claims that the phrase for free is incorrect. Should we only say at no cost instead?

Answer 1

This service is free.
The food is provided free of charge.
I got this item for free.

All the sentences are correct.

Answer 2

Reasonable paraphrasings of the word free in this context are for nothing/for no payment. Clearly the word "for" can't be omitted from those paraphrasings. Thus many people will say that for free equates to for for free, so they feel it's ungrammatical.

• How much does this cost?
• It's free.
• It's [available] for nothing.
• It's [available] at no cost.
• It's for free. (this usage sounds 'wrong' to many)

Many people use the expression (at least informally), so it seems futile to take issue with it - though more "careful" advertising copywriters do still tend to avoid it.

I don't know if it was David Crosby or Joni Mitchell who wrote the lyrics to He Played Real Good for Free that she sings so well, but I can't imagine dropping the word "for" there.

Answer 3

For free is an informal phrase used to mean "without cost or payment."

These professionals were giving their time for free.

The phrase is correct; you should not use it where you are supposed to only use a formal sentence, but that doesn't make a phrase not correct.

Answer 4

Bryan Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage, second edition (2003) has a typically (for him) sensible view of the subject:

free; for free. Because free by itself can function as an adverb in the sense "at no cost," some critics reject the phrase for free. A phrase such as for nothing, at no cost, or a similar substitute will often work better.

Yet while it's true that for free is a casualism and a severely overworked ad cliche, the expression is far too common to be called an error. Sometimes the syntax all but demands it—e.g.: "Soft-dollar arrangements ... include various services like research and information that big institutional clients receive for free from brokers." Anita Raghavan, "Pension Fund Plans to Scrap Certain Deals," Wall St[reet] J[ournal], 26 Jan. 1995, at A5. That same writer, however, omitted the for when it wasn't needed: "That research is sent free to the client." Ibid.

"For free" as a way of saying "at no cost" has been circulating in speech and in the popular press for more than half a century. I first took conscious note of it in 1970, when Joni Mitchell included a song titled "For Free" on her album of that year, Ladies of the Canyon. One instance from the song:

I was standing on a noisy corner/Waiting for the walking green/Across the street he stood/And he played real good/On his clarinet for free

It seems not at all inconsistent to include "for free" in a song that elsewhere uses such homely phrasing as "playing real good." Mitchell was born in Alberta and grew up in Saskatchewan, but she had been living in the U.S. for three years (and California for two) by 1970, so I have no idea where she picked up the expression "for free."

To gauge the use of "for free" in copyedited publications, I ran Google Books search results for word strings in which "for free" would be likely to appear only as an end phrase in a sentence or independent clause. Here is the resulting Ngram chart, for the years 1900–2005, for the strings "for free the" (blue line) "for free a" (red line), "for free can" (green line), "for free could" (yellow line), "for free would" (real line), and "for free do" (purple line):

False positives in the line graphs give the erroneous impression that attested instances in the Google Books database go to the first decade of the twentieth century (if not farther). In fact, the earliest confirmed instance of "for free" in the sense of "at no cost" that I could find was this one from Starr De Belle, "Ballyhoo Bros.' Circulating Expo," in The Billboard magazine (1947):

Thinking that he was an old wanderer from his gray beard, they dined him and as Lem didn't tip his duke they gave him a buck and two years subscription for the Hog Cholera Monthly for free. Before our hero could locate a hotel he was surrounded by a group of natives, who greeted him royally, offering him free room and board (pitch-'til-you-win style). Suddenly a group of local business men kidnaped him from the crowd and rushed him to the best hotel in town where he was given for free a suite of rooms. After being wined and dined Lem was rushed to the burg's best club where he learned what it was all about.

Presumably, since Starr De Belle presents this item as being an epistolary effort by one "Major Privilege" of Goat's Whiskers, Kentucky, the use of "for free" reflects the author's notions of colorful but substandard hick U.S. English from what would later become known as "flyover country."

In any event, the next two Google Books matches for "for free" in the relevant sense are from 1960. From a company's anti-unionizing message cited in Decisions and Orders of the National Labor Relations Board, volume 126 (1960):

It has been tough enough trying to provide steady work without having to deal with a bunch of outside organizers like operate most unions.

YOU can vote NO and save your money because you know that you can tell management about the things you want and they will do their best to give these things free. ... If times get a little better in the future additional benefits will be added—again for free. ...

Note that, as in Garner's example from the Wall Street Journal, the author of this message chose not to use "for free" at another point in the same piece.

And from Kansas Government Journal (1960):

In these days of high overhead of running a private business a "free" engineering service probably would be worth just about that much to the city. The old saying, "Nothing comes for free" could never be so readily applied.

In recent decades, however, use of "for free" to mean "at no cost" has skyrocketed. Search results for the period 2001–2008 alone yield hundreds of matches in all sorts of edited publications, including books from university presses. There is no denying that, seventy years ago, "for free" was not in widespread use in edited publications—and that it conveyed an informal and perhaps even unsavory tone. Such pasts are not irrelevant when you are trying to pitch your language at a certain level—and in some parts of the English-speaking world, "for free" may still strike many listeners or readers as outlandish. But in the United States the days when using "for free" marked you as a probable resident of Goat's Whiskers, Kentucky, are long gone.

---

Update (March 8, 2023): Earlier instances of 'for free' in U.S. publications

Although the earliest match for "for free" in my original answer was from the August 16, 1947 issue of The Billboard magazine, I have subsequently run more-extensive searches in Google Books and Hathi Trust and turned up multiple matches from as early as February 1943. Here is a rundown of the matches I found from 1943 and 1944.

From "Supplee Gets Milked," in The Billboard (February 6, 1943):

Only as recently as New Year's Eve, it is said, the band booked itself to play for the annual party of the Northeast Shrine Club, an engagement that always went to local musicians. What burned up the union is that the club charged $10 per couple for the affair, and the coast guard supplied the music for free.

From "'The Adcomber' Looks at Hygeia Ads" in Hygeia (April 1943):

Milk for calcium plus molasses for iron equals Brer Rabbit Milk Shake—which is another name of Youngsters' Delight! Then, too, there's good news and good nourishment in Brer Rabbit molasses cookies. . . . Yours FOR FREE—116 recipes, offered, page 288.

From "An Open Letter to Congress" (an advertisement for Billy Rose's Diamond Horseshoe club in New York City), reproduced in Life magazine (July 26, 1943):

Now that you've gone in for double talk, standing on your heads and making funny noises, high-diving into the pork barrel, and sawing the Statue of Liberty in half, we must, as rival showmen, protest. We can't stand off the three-ring circus being given for free on Capitol Hill.

You boys are taking the caviar right out of our mouths.

From a statement by Bert Lytell, president of Actors Equity Association, New York City, in House Ways and Means Committee, "Revenue Revision of 1943" (October 16, 1943):

I am on the board of the U. S. O. camp shows and, without giving any exact figures, we have entered every zone of operations [in World War II], men and women actors, entertainers well up into the hundreds. We send them by bomber to Alaska, Hawaii, Australia; we have had them in Salamaua, Guadalcanal, and the Caribbean; and our biggest group is at the moment in London, going to the European theater of operations. Every hick show has pledged its services to the U. S. O. camp shows, to go as far away as a night's journey in any direction. Especially are we anxious to go to the ports of embarkation, where those boys go in and do not come out until they get on the transport. They are given the best that the theater has to offer, and they get it "for free."

From "Tow Target" in The Rip Chord (December 25, 1943):

Sgt. Ben (Spendthrift) Eisenberg is fi[n]ding things tough on furlough in Tacoma. They don't throw in meals for free at the YMCA. Rumors have it that Benny was seen mooching at the Mess Hall.

From Georgia Craig, Substitute Angel (1944):

"I've got another job."

"For free, again?"

"No, this time I'm going to be paid—but good! With room and board included," answered Arden, and described the new job.

From "Treasury Defines 'Cabaret'; Juke Spots Escape; Acts Hit," in The Billboard (February 19, 1944):

"A performance shall be regarded as being furnished for profit for the purpose of this section even tho the charge of admission, refreshments or merchandise is not increased by reason of furnishing of such performance."

This points out clearly that operators cannot disqualify themselves from the tax bite by claiming they are throwing in the show for free, and that the patron doesn't have to be taxed for it.

From "Labor Highlights," in American Federationist (July 1944):

An advertising agency in Cambridge, Mass., throwing caution to the winds, comes right out and invites businessmen to send for a pamphlet which explains in detail how much money a company can spend for advertising without increasing its tax bill. Employers' advertising is today being subsidized by the taxpayers, quite a few of whom are, of course, working people. In some of this advertising, propaganda is made for "free enterprise" as narrowly and unacceptably defined by the National Association of Manufacturers. Fairly frequently these subsidized advertisements blast labor. It would be bad enough if industry were spending its own money to try to put spurious ideas in the public mind, but when industry is permitted to do it "for free,” someone in a high place ought to stand up and holler.

Interestingly, an otherwise verbatim reprint of this item in The Catering Industry Employees a month later (August 12, 1944) changes the key wording from "but when industry is permitted to do it 'for free'..." to "but when industry is permitted to do it for 'free enterprise'..." which of course completely changes the sense of the sentence and the point that the original author was trying to make.

From "Remotes for $$ Coming Up as Free Lines Nixed," in The Billboard (August 19, 1944):

Time was when radio stations fought for the rights of broadcasting quarter to half-hour late-evening shots of bands from niteries, ballrooms and hotels. ...

But that may be changed in time. Stations are short of help and their time is pretty filled up anyway. They are reluctant to put on any show for free, let alone a band. The time may come when all operators, maybe even bands, will have to pay their own freight.

From "D.C.'s Latest Gimmick, Inc., Is Pepper Bill on Broadcasting," in The Billboard (August 26, 1944):

As the Pepper Bill is set up, it contains a proviso that permits the cutting of e. t.'s. If the bill goes thru, it is said, permission might be granted to have [elected official's] remarks extended into disks and mailed back home for free airings.One radio man said that it might also provide a way for locals with poor programing to get public service for free. On the other hand, he said, it might also prove a plague to stations tight on time who don't want to handle Congressional effusions.

From "Show Time," in All Hands (December 1944):

Big-time performers, or the movie studios to which they are under contract, donate their services. Those who can't afford to work for free are paid small salaries by USO-Camp Shows, Inc., which also meets personal expenses of the entertainers, from a share of the National War Fund collected annually by voluntary home-front subscriptions to support various wartime relief and welfare activities. Transportation, quarters and rations for the touring troupes are provided by the Army and Navy.

---

Updated conclusions

These matches cast a rather different light on the probable locus of early use of the expression. Although the 1947 instance of the expression cited in my original answer appears in The Billboard, I interpreted it as an attempt at faux hick talk by the reporter. But The Billboard is also the source of four of the eleven matches from 1943–1944, including the earliest one, and none of those instances show any sign of working in an unfamiliar dialect. In addition the four Billboard occurrences, three others come from the world of entertainment, one from advertising, one from military camp talk, one from organized labor, and one from a novel.

The circumstantial evidence for early use of "for free" in the entertainment industry—and specifically in New York—is fairly strong, although not overwhelming. On the other hand, the possibility that it originated in a backwoods place like Goat's Whiskers, Kentucky, seems far less likely to me now than it did seven years ago.

Answer 5

I believe the puzzle comes from the common but mistaken belief that prepositions must have noun-phrase object complements. Since for is a preposition and free is an adjective, the reasoning goes, there must be something wrong. The fact is that even the most conservative of dictionaries, grammars, and usage books allow for constructions like although citizens disapprove of the Brigade's tactics, they yet view them as necessary or it came out from under the bed. That is, they tacitly accept prepositions with non-object complements while claiming that all prepositions must be transitive.

A more coherent view is that prepositions, like nouns, adjectives, and verbs take a variety of complements. In the case of for, one of them is free.

Answer 6

The first response to this question (above, at the top) made me chuckle. It states, "How about it being correct because many people use it, and that's how languages evolve. – Jonathan. Aug 16

Well, Jonathan, how about it NOT being correct simply because many people use it? Yes, languages evolve, but they shouldn't de-volve.

Another comment, above, mentioned that this phrase is acceptable in advertising circles. True, it is, and all the more shame heaped upon it's usage. Advertisers now use this syntactical abomination freely, as they carelessly appeal to our lower natures, and matching intellects.

Sean, above, wrote, "free is just a placeholder for $0." I disagree, and this is the point.

The term 'for' must be used with a commodity.

The use of a commodity, such as 'five dollars', can be correctly phrased, "for five dollars". It's an amount. But the term 'free' denotes the ABSENCE of a commodity.

'Free' denotes amountlessness.

The only phrase that comes close, and is in fact correct, is: for nothing.

Would you ever use the phrase, "for expensive"? No. You wouldn't.

All uses of the word 'for' in front of the word 'free' are just plain wrong.

Additionally, it sounds ridiculous and makes you seem uneducated, unless you're talking to another uneducated person, in which case, they talk that way too, so they won't notice or couldn't care that your English is compromised.

I could go on, so I won't.

Answer 7

"Free" in an economic context, is short for "free of charge." As such, it is correct.

Of course it means different things (like "liberated") in other contexts.

Answer 8

The phrase is generally inaccurate. If you have to buy one to get the next one for free, it wasn't actually free. Same with items you receive for filling out a survey.

"At no cost" is usually more accurate in that it indicates you will not have to pay money for the item.

However the use of free is widely accepted to mean at no monetary cost. Its use is acceptable in advertising or speech and its use is understood to mean no monetary cost. I would only change the use in a situation where clarity and accuracy were truly important, like in a contract.