33

So why do human beings spend so much time playing? One reason is that we have time for leisure; animals have very little time to play as most of their life is spent sleeping and (2)________ food.

Source: Cambridge English, FIRST 1 (2014): Test 1, Reading and Use of English paper

The following options are given:

A. searching ; B. looking; C. seeking; D. gaining

The answer given in the book is C, which is fine by me, in fact in the EL&U archives I found this question: "Seek" vs."search"; the accepted answer with twelve upvotes says:

[…] However, they are really quite different. One fundamental difference is that the object of seek is the item you are trying to locate, whereas the object of search is the place you are looking in. […] Also, seek implies that the seeker knows that the item they are looking for does exist. Search has no such implication.

Which confirms the "correct" answer is seeking. The other reason for it being the only answer possible is that we normally use the preposition ‘for’ with the verb search.

  1. ‘search food’ (NO)
  2. ‘search for food’ (YES).

Which brings me back to the EL&U question. If ‘food’ is the object of seek, as stated in the accepted answer, and a fundamental difference between seek and search; why do native speakers tend to say search for food?

enter image description here

The above Google Ngram seems to strongly suggest that searching for food is perfectly grammatical.

  • If native speakers say seek food, and search for food; what is the fundamental difference between the two?
Community
  • 1
Mari-Lou A
  • 91,183
  • 3
    Seek has an element of need and single-mindedness while search for is more objective and task-oriented. Contrast heat-seeking missile and its possible alternative heat-searching missile. – Lawrence Nov 06 '15 at 10:22
  • 4
    To begin with I would suggest that searching for is a far more intense activity than seeking. My wife has gone shopping, she is seeking (looking for) a new pair of shoes (having only 99 existing pairs). I cannot find my passport, and I have spent the day searching the house for it. Clearly the second is a rather more urgent activity than the former. There is then the basic difference that seek takes as its direct object the thing that is being sought, whilst the direct object of search is a place, necessitating the addition of for to accommodate the item as indirect. – WS2 Nov 06 '15 at 10:25
  • @WS2 I like your examples, but it doesn't really explain the difference between search for food and seek food, or does it? What about the phrases: searching for the truth as opposed to seeking the truth? To me they are almost identical. – Mari-Lou A Nov 06 '15 at 11:23
  • 3
    @Mari-LouA To me searching suggests a more desperate uninterrupted activity, whereas seeking is more akin to keeping an eye out for. That is the extreme difference, but clearly there is overlap. But they are not direct synonyms. – WS2 Nov 06 '15 at 11:31
  • 1
    Fundamentally, "seek" sounds classier. (There is also the difference in what is the direct object, as WS2 suggests.) – Hot Licks Nov 06 '15 at 12:33
  • 4
    It's interesting how the most upvoted answer (Chenmunka's) is at odds with the OED and the other answers... – Dan Nov 06 '15 at 14:48
  • Try using 'search' like one of those text adventure games. "Search knapsack" might result in finding food. "Seek knowledge" literally means that you are looking for knowledge, whereas the object of 'search' is the object being looked inside. – Casey Kuball Nov 06 '15 at 21:12
  • I personally think 'searching for' and 'seeking' are largely interchangeable, and the difference has to do with the objects. The reason 'seeking' would be preferred in your example is that it is ungrammatical to say leave out the 'for' in 'searching for' here. This, and not some fundamental difference between the words, is what I believe suggests the correct answer. – Two-Bit Alchemist Nov 06 '15 at 21:13
  • 4
    I don't think there is a difference, apart from etymology and non-synonymous meanings. (Water seeks the lowest level, it does not search for the lowest level. You seek a college education, you don't search for one. You can search a forest for your lost watch, you cannot seek a forest for your lost watch.) Both mean "to try to find". You can either seek Camelot/the Holy Grail, or you can search for Camelot/the Holy Grail. Other than that, you are talking about customary or preferred usages. – NES Nov 06 '15 at 21:17
  • Search does have the implication we know the item exists. We were searching for a missing plane recently. – michael_timofeev Nov 07 '15 at 02:47
  • Native speakers tend to say search for food because no native speaker ever really says seek food in 2015. "I'm famished. I seek food!" wut? ~ Answer E: foraging for [food]. Cultivation is the basis of modern human society and the leading reason we have so much leisure time (yea, I used to fail a lot of tests this way). According to Ngrams, "SearchING for food" and "foraging for food" are on their way up. "Seek [anything]" is on its way down. – Mazura Nov 07 '15 at 08:37
  • @Mazura although you have to admit "sleeping and seeking food" has a nice sound to it. My question is in response to the older EL&U question and its accepted answer, which is flawed, or if you prefer, doesn't tell the whole story. – Mari-Lou A Nov 07 '15 at 08:41
  • @WS2 you have access to the OED, is it true that there are 104 examples for the expression seek for. What dates are we talking here? – Mari-Lou A Nov 07 '15 at 09:19
  • @Mari-LouA The on-line edition shows nine examples of seek for... dating from 1250 to 1871. I haven't been following your discussion here, but doesn't seek for mean exactly the same thing as seek? – WS2 Nov 07 '15 at 11:45
  • @WS2 Yes, but I wasn't aware that seek for was grammatical, I had always considered it a forgiveable slip-up, a mix-up with "search for". – Mari-Lou A Nov 07 '15 at 13:35
  • @Mari-LouA No I think it is perfectly idiomatic to say seek for. I can think of cases where it might be helpful to add the for for emphasis purposes He seems to be seeking something. I wish I knew what exactly he was seeking for?. But for the most part I believe the for is superfluous. I can't think of a case where the for becomes essential. Others may know of something. – WS2 Nov 07 '15 at 13:43
  • Is it not possible, that the item you are seeking, which you expect does exist (same as with most uses of search): 1) Actually never existed, 2) Actually no longer exists, 3) Is never found, so its existence cannot be determined. I think that the necessity that "seek" refers to an item that you "know" exists is unfounded in many cases. – Kevin Fegan Nov 07 '15 at 20:21
  • Lawrence "Seek has an element of need and single-mindedness", @WS2 "searching for is a far more intense activity than seeking". I feel that in the context of the question, an animal trying to find food, "seeking", and "searching for" are both correct, and both infer the same level of "single-mindedness" and "intensity". – Kevin Fegan Nov 07 '15 at 20:32
  • In the question, the correct option for "... and _____ food." is "seeking", But not because there is (or may be) a difference between "seeking food" and "searching for food". The reason, is that the word "for" is not present in "and _____ food", or in the option "searching". If the question was: the correct option for "... and _____ for food", the correct answer would (could) be "searching", but NOT "seeking". – Kevin Fegan Nov 07 '15 at 20:44
  • @KevinFegan The idea that the item you are 'seeking' has to be something which exists definitely is unfounded. Martha is always seeking a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. – WS2 Nov 07 '15 at 20:51
  • It's interesting to note that while the object of "search" is a place, the phrase "in search of" works like "search for". – Centaurus Nov 10 '15 at 22:44
  • @Centaurus so it does, and no one has mentioned it. What is it, a phrasal verb? Is there a semantic difference between "The animals went in search of food" and "....went searching for food"? – Mari-Lou A Nov 10 '15 at 22:59
  • "in search of food" sounds to me like an adventure in a place where food is nonexistent. – Centaurus Nov 10 '15 at 23:03
  • 1
    @Centaurus Yes, you're right. There's an element of desperation, of it being a huge task and endeavour. – Mari-Lou A Nov 10 '15 at 23:06
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Yoichi Oishi Nov 17 '15 at 23:58

14 Answers14

22

Fundamentally, it comes down to knowing what is out there.

You search for something that you know (or at least are highly confident) exists. You just don't know where it is.
You seek something that you hope exists.

This also explains the use of for with search. You are searching for something known - for a specific item, person or solution that you will recognise as soon as you see it. Thus, search for food, search for a pair of shoes, search for your car keys.

You seek an unknown. You don't know exactly what it is. Thus you seek a cure for cancer, seek world peace, seek happiness.

A couple of examples:
He searches for the truth.
He seeks the truth.

The former may be used when trying to differentiate the truth from falsehood. There is a true solution to some problem and it is being searched for.
The latter is more philosophical or metaphorical. The truth is out there and one day we may know what it is.

Similarly:
He searches for food.
He seeks food.

Here the former implies that a hungry person is hunting for something to eat. This could even be on the level of choosing a restaurant.

The latter implies a quest for sustenance, be it physical food or food for the mind.

Chenmunka
  • 13,046
  • Could you please provide a few examples showing this difference. I'm mainly concerned with “seek/search for food”; but also “search for/seek the truth”. – Mari-Lou A Nov 06 '15 at 11:28
  • Would you say, substituting seeking food with searching for food in the cited example would change the meaning? – Mari-Lou A Nov 06 '15 at 11:33
  • 7
    Your answer contradicts the accepted answer on EL&U which states: "Also, seek implies that the *seeker knows that the item they are looking for does exist. Instead, you're saying this is true for the person who searches* for something. – Mari-Lou A Nov 06 '15 at 11:54
  • 2
    My impression is that it has to do with breadth. Search does a broad scan of the environment, whereas a seek is a methodical depth-first search, i.e. following a trail. – Andreas Nov 06 '15 at 12:28
  • This is consistent with my "search party" observation elsewhere in this thread. – Hot Licks Nov 06 '15 at 17:28
  • 1
    "I searched Professor Plum's final meal seeking evidence that he was poisoned in the kitchen." How does that sentence fit within your framework? Overall I agree with @Andreas. I always thought of searching as casting a wide net, and seeking as being targeted/focused. – Erik Nov 06 '15 at 20:05
  • 3
    All of these examples seem so contrived to me. You 'seek' a cure for cancer but do not search for it? I'm not convinced. "The search for a cure" is a very common phrase indeed. Likewise, all these examples about 'seeking' things that might not exist neglect the extremely common topic of searching the Internet or some website. The target may not exist, but no one prefers 'seek' here. – Two-Bit Alchemist Nov 06 '15 at 21:08
  • I would say, that the difference between "seeking something" or "searching for something" is at best, undetectable. In either case, you are looking for something that you expect does exist, but, that item may actually never have existed, or may have existed but no longer exists, or is never found, so its present existence cannot be determined. – Kevin Fegan Nov 07 '15 at 20:52
  • @Two-BitAlchemist Actually, I think that the cure for cancer example may defend his point. In the wording I would choose to use, you "seek" a cure for cancer. However, when trying to convince people that its a worthy cause to donate towards, you "search for a cure," to give the indication that the cure indeed just exists, and you just need more money to get there. However, I do have to admit, the game "hide and go seek" would be a lot more boring if you simply hoped the other players were still playing! – Cort Ammon Nov 08 '15 at 06:21
  • 1
    Either this answer is incorrect or it depends heavily on context. When a hard disk moves into position to read a particular sector, it's called a seek. Certainly, the hark disk is not unsure whether the location exists or not. – jpmc26 Nov 08 '15 at 07:54
  • 1
    Here's another counterexample: we are not sure if extraterrestrial life exists, yet it is almost always the "search for extraterrestrial life." Seek does not fit. – jabrew Nov 08 '15 at 18:36
  • 1
    What? No! Backwards. You search for something you hope exists and you seek something you know exists. You don't even have to be searching for anything in particular, but with seeking you do. – James Nov 08 '15 at 21:36
  • If you think this answer is definitely wrong, it is appropriate to downvote it. – curiousdannii Nov 09 '15 at 03:11
  • @CortAmmon No, because you wouldn't be understood differently if you told someone that the worthy cause you are seeking donations for is 'seeking a cure' vs 'searching for a cure'. They're interchangeable. And every single example on this page that says "seek means this and search for means that" sound exactly the same as you switch them, which apparently no one is doing in their heads. – Two-Bit Alchemist Nov 09 '15 at 16:20
  • @Two-BitAlchemist I'd be surprised if any language really had interchangable words like that. There's almost always a subtle meaning involved – Cort Ammon Nov 09 '15 at 16:30
  • @CortAmmon English has a ton of words that are interchangeable. They may have different etymologies, different origins, or subtly different meanings (which some authors or formal writers may be aware of and use), but in common speech you're just not changing the sentence by using one over the other. If you want to prove my point, just look at how many contradictory distinctions are given for 'seek'/'search' on this page. Near universal agreement that they are distinct, but no one has yet come up with a satisfactory way to prefer one over the other! – Two-Bit Alchemist Nov 09 '15 at 16:34
  • 1
    @Two-BitAlchemist Now that's an interesting distinction. Do we care that they are distinct, or do we care that we can come up with a phrasing to unequivocally define their differences? Perhaps the answer might be "they are different, but English speakers cannot explain the rule which divides them." – Cort Ammon Nov 09 '15 at 17:22
21

Since the object of search would be a location (not the thing searched for), "food" cannot be used on its own as the object, as you have noted.

Instead, when we say "search for food", the "for food" is a modifying clause to clarify what we are searching for. It needs "for" precisely because "the object of seek is the item you are trying to locate, whereas the object of search is the place you are looking in."

Notice that even with "for", the clarifying clause is not serving as the object of "search". This becomes more clear if we include an actual object. For example:

search the room for food

"the room" is a location and is the object of the search. "for food" is still only a modifying clause that clarifies what the search is for. It doesn't thereby become the object of "search". Therefore, "search" and "seek" are indeed still different in the way you originally noted.

Thomas
  • 226
  • 1
    This is the real answer. If one was searching food, you'd be looking for something within food. There is an implied "searching food [to find what?]" versus seeking food. As in, it's the answer to the referenced question. It's not the answer to the OP's question: Why is search for different from seek? – SrJoven Nov 06 '15 at 16:00
  • 1
    "search for" mischaracterizes the grammer. "for" is not part of "search", it is part of the modifying clause "for food". It is true that "search for food" is grammatical, but only because "for food" together is a grammatical modifying clause. – Thomas Nov 06 '15 at 16:45
  • 4
    Yes, the question is confusing "Search" with "Search for", as noted these are not the same. "Search for X" and "Seek X" can be used essetially interchangeably. "Search X" is not the same as "Search for X". – Robert Nov 06 '15 at 17:03
  • To give an example illustrating this answer, you search the desert for water, or search for water in the desert, but you seek water in the desert or seek in the desert for water. – Peter Shor Nov 07 '15 at 14:23
10

Here are some examples of established phrases involving tangible targets in which seek and search are used in ways that are not really interchangeable.

  • Search and Rescue organization

  • execute a search pattern (looking for a known object in a large but usually bounded space by conducting a disciplined and thorough pass through the space)

  • search algorithm (programming terminology for a method of locating a known object in a collection);

  • walk through a search area;

  • heat-seeking missile (missile that locks onto a heat source and pursues it);

  • seek and destroy (get in, locate, eliminate, get out immediately); and

  • seek time of hard drives (time taken to locate a known location on a hard drive).

The common thread among the search examples is that the precise location is unknown, whereas among the seek examples, the precise location may be known. These search examples also seem to biased towards being thorough, while the seek examples seem to be biased towards speed.

Regarding your question of why native speakers tend to say "search for food" instead of "seek food", it may be because the presumed context is that someone knows or hopes it's out there but doesn't know exactly where it is. For example, one might be required to search for food in the jungle.

On the other hand, in "seek food", the word "food" is used in a more conceptual manner, like "seek happiness" or "seek shelter". Perhaps the distinction (and it is a fine line) is that "seek food" highlights the intent while "search for food" highlights the action.

Lawrence
  • 38,640
  • I like this. To me, "seek" implies some kind of focused deduction is involved. – Andreas Nov 06 '15 at 12:32
  • Again, many of these examples seem contrived and based more on common usage than any kind of definition. You wouldn't say a 'seek and rescue' mission because that is not common parlance, any more than you would say 'search and save', even though I doubt you are arguing 'rescue' and 'save' are not interchangeable here. Are you claiming that if I asked, "What is the search party seeking?", that this would be a misuse of the word or I would be misunderstood? – Two-Bit Alchemist Nov 06 '15 at 21:11
  • However Search and destroy and seek and destroy are used interchangeably. – barbecue Nov 06 '15 at 22:31
  • @Two-BitAlchemist The point is that these are well-established uses of those words. As for "What is the search party seeking?", this fits my hypothesis of seek highlighting intent and search highlighting activity. – Lawrence Nov 07 '15 at 00:29
  • @barbecue Good point. Yes, both exist as established terms, though seek and destroy sounds more bloodthirsty, perhaps because seek naturally couples with whom and search naturally couples with where. The destroy part certainly makes this a very fine line. – Lawrence Nov 07 '15 at 04:04
  • "The child was seeking acceptance" is a strong counter-example to your statement about a clear distinction. The child doesn't know that acceptance exists somewhere, or whether it can be found, but seeks it nonetheless. I think it would also valid to also say that "the child was searching for acceptance" but this would sound a little awkward as it seems to have connotations that the acceptance was a single physical thing rather than an abstract concept or a mass noun. – ErikE Nov 07 '15 at 20:39
  • In your answer, you mostly cite the individual words "seek" and "search", which is not relevant to the OPs question, which asks if there is any difference between "searching for food" and "seeking food", and whether they are interchangeable (they are). As @Two-BitAlchemist said, some of your examples are a bit contrived. "Seek" used in relation to a hard-drive is a well established use of "seek", but it is a bit of a misuse (or perhaps an alternate definition than in "seeking food"), since it really involves "moving to a specific place", rather than "looking for/trying to obtain a thing". – Kevin Fegan Nov 07 '15 at 21:21
  • @ErikE Seek does tend to match better with abstract nouns and search with concrete nouns - this is consistent with my answer's closing paragraph. As the OP's noun food is concrete, listing examples with concrete nouns (as I pointed out with the words "tangible targets) is more relevant than listing examples with abstract nouns. In the case of acceptance*, as with other abstract nouns, if the target sought is abstract, either the 'place' searched would also be abstract, or the sentence would be intended to be non-literal. These cases don't match the OP's usage. – Lawrence Nov 08 '15 at 00:05
  • I doubt the OP picked "food" specifically to showcase the concrete usage. Asking the question at all implies a lack of familiarity with these words and likely the language, so assigning too much import to what was likely a trivial and arbitrary choice (picking food over an abstract) seems a somewhat large-ish mistake in the thrust of your answer. Instead, give the meanings of the words no matter what they're used with. My counter-example can't be so easily dodged just by saying "the OP's example was concrete, though." – ErikE Nov 08 '15 at 00:13
  • @KevinFegan These are examples - any list of such could be considered contrived in this context, though Two-Bit Alchemist's comment supports my conclusion, as I noted in my reply to him / her. In the case of hard drives, the word seek is properly used (not misused) to mean moving to the place containing the required information. This usage is consistent with other uses of seek, where movement to the target is a necessary part of arriving at the target. Note that the phrase seek time doesn't name what is sought (it's not time) but rather the time taken to get to it. – Lawrence Nov 08 '15 at 00:18
  • @ErikE The OP's bio lists UK as her place of birth; her other replies on this site demonstrate more than a passing familiarity with English, and more than likely, with the words seek, search and food. Aside from the title, just about every conceptual unit (collection of tightly-related paragraphs) in the question text contains the word food (note especially "If 'food' is the object of seek ... why .. say search for food?"). Answering such a question by referring to food or its properties is certainly valid. You might even say that to do otherwise would be dodging the question. – Lawrence Nov 08 '15 at 00:31
  • Ok. I still disagree with the distinction you've made in meaning. I don't agree that it is a clear divider between those words. – ErikE Nov 08 '15 at 00:33
  • @ErikE Are you disagreeing with my answer's conclusion that seek food highlights the intent and that search for food highlights the action? (Note that I recognise the significant semantic overlap between the two words, almost to the point of splitting hairs. My answer just indicates where I think the split should occur, if one needed to do so.) – Lawrence Nov 08 '15 at 09:18
  • Of course, I understand that "seek time" describes the time it takes for the hard drive to perform the seek operation. I'm saying that while it is a well established use of the word "seek", using the word "seek" at all here is improper usage. In the context of a hard drive, it is "seeking to" (note, an "action") a particular "track" on the read-write surface. "seek" involves moving from an exact, specific known place, to another exact, specific known place. For example, "seeking" from the 3rd track to the 7th track, you move the read/write heads exactly 4 steps and you are there. ... – Kevin Fegan Nov 08 '15 at 16:37
  • 1
    ... No actual "seeking" or "searching" is involved. As defined, if you are "seeking" (or "searching for") someone/something, you don't know where it/they will be found, you look perhaps many places until you find it. If I wanted to get my mail from my mailbox, I wouldn't say I'm "seeking it" or "searching for it", I would be just "getting" it from the place that I know it will be. – Kevin Fegan Nov 08 '15 at 16:47
  • 1
    In any case, your answer doesn't really address OPs question. OP didn't ask if "search" and "seek" are interchangeable, or if there are cases where they're not interchangeable, or for examples of either (or actually anything at all about the individual words "seek" and "search"). The OP asked, if there are differences between an animal "seeking food" or "searching for food" (are they synonymous), and why one is preferred over the other. Your answer addresses neither of these, and really just (over) states the obvious, since no one has or would say that "search/seek" are always interchangeable. – Kevin Fegan Nov 08 '15 at 17:13
  • Your answer says nothing about intent vs. action, just "precise location" or not. Kevin also makes sense. – ErikE Nov 08 '15 at 18:06
  • @ErikE It's the part in bold that concludes the answer. – Lawrence Nov 08 '15 at 22:38
  • Fair enough. I guess I can agree with that part. – ErikE Nov 08 '15 at 22:45
  • @KevinFegan There may be some semantic drift in seek time due to focusing on different (programming) levels of abstraction, but the reason for wanting to get to the desired track is to access (get / seek) the information stored there. See for example this link from a google search: https://www.techopedia.com/definition/3558/seek-time . – Lawrence Nov 08 '15 at 22:54
  • @KevinFegan In relation to answering the OP's question, the OP wasn't asking whether seek/search are synonyms or (to be precise) why one might be preferred, but rather, "If native speakers say seek food, and search for food; what is the fundamental difference between the two?" I took the key word in the question to be fundamental. To explore that fundamental difference, it seems valid to looking at established usage where the other word doesn't really fit. – Lawrence Nov 08 '15 at 23:10
8

In searching for an answer to the difference between "seek" and "search" I sought the help of several sources. I looked in the German dictionary, Shakespeare, and the King James Bible.

My feeling after examining these different sources is that the current "difference" between these words is idiomatic and that trying to pin down the exact meaning difference between these words is futile. Or trying to give a usage rule will meet with many exceptions.

Seek comes from middle English (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=seek&searchmode=none) and is also used in German (suche.) German (to the best of my knowledge) only has one word for this idea of "looking for / examining, etc.) "Search" and "Seek" both mean "suche" in German and expressions that in English have distinct usages don't generally have that in German. "I'm seeking / searching for an answer." is fine in English but "I seek the ocean for the plane wreckage" is odd. In German, however, "suche" can be comfortably used for both.

Search comes into English from old French via Latin and means to thoroughly examine. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=search There is an example "Search warrant." Why don't we say "seek warrant"? In German the word "durchsuchungsbefehl" is used which means literally "through seek order." Warrant also comes from old French http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=warrant. So I think if English hadn't had the French influence, police might now be saying "seek / ing order." As in German. I can't prove this, of course. I do think search warrant is a good place to begin when thinking about the meaning of search.

Why the German connection? Because I think that before "search" came into English through French (and possibly also heavy usage in legal things) "seek" might have been the word used in common speech (and in ways we probably would not feel "comfortable" with.) Perhaps someone with a background in older English usage can shed some light on this

In looking through the King James Bible, I found that search seems to be used more for land or physical things (search Israel or search your heart), and seek for specific things, such as Jesus, answers, or abstracts ("seek and ye shall find.") However, I'm not sure if this line of reasoning is valid because the Bible was translated and the original source documents might have had two words, or just one word. I am not a Bible scholar so I cannot say. The Bible also contains the new testament which was written in Greek. I found examples of search and seek in the new testament. Does Greek have one word (like German) or are there two words as in modern English?

In looking through Shakespeare I found many examples of search and seek but the meaning differences were not always apparent. I'm not sure Shakespeare is a good place to look because we are talking about poetry and iambic pentameter, so although search and seek are both one syllable, each word might have had a "feeling" for Shakspeare that doesn't really help us to understand the difference through his writing. The most humorous example I could find was from All's Well That Ends Well: "That seeks not to find that her search implies." If anyone can find a meaning difference there, I think Kenneth Brannaugh is searching for you. (Maybe he's seeking out your advice?). I looked in Shakespeare because I felt there might be a preponderance of one word over another that could shed some light on the meaning. This wasn't apparent to me, however another user might see something I overlooked.

So to sum up, my feeling is that current uses of "search" and "seek" are largely idiomatic and to say that the correct answer for "animals ______ food" is "seek" is dubious. In fact given that historical usage supports "search" (in the sense of exploring land or thoroughly examining a space) I feel "search" is the better option. I think historically many native speakers grew up with the King James Bible as a source of "proper" language and could see the meanings of the words in context, so would have extended those meanings in speech, and have done so since the KJV was released. In looking at the various answers given, I see some great ideas but I think they are ideas about the idiomatic usage and they can't really help to know the difference or boil things down to a strict definition. It would be like trying to find a definition for "spank" by looking at the expression "brand spanking new." If we give a definition for one word someone can say "Yeah but what about this usage in Hamlet / the Bible / The Constitution / Chaucer etc." If I were forced to give definitions based on what I found, I would say that search is used for physical spaces or ideas which have a sense of physical space, as in "search your mind.", and seek is more abstract. We seek knowledge, wisdom, truth, answers, justice. Of course, we play "Hide and seek." and I'm seeking the other person not an abstract. It wouldn't be English without "exceptions."

The word "seek" is still very much in use. A quick search on Google for "seek" + "USA Today" will show many uses of the word seek. "Seek"+ "Daily Mail" also indicates the word is being used. Just this week, there were three instances of it.

michael_timofeev
  • 7,162
  • +1 for attempting to explain why we have the two terms. – Mari-Lou A Nov 07 '15 at 07:41
  • +1 for, "The current 'difference' between these words is idiomatic and that trying to pin down the exact meaning difference between these words is futile. Or trying to give a usage rule will meet with many exceptions." – jpmc26 Nov 08 '15 at 08:02
6

I suspect the reason that the semantic difference between seek and search varies among different native speakers posting in this thread is that most native speakers don't use "seek" very much at all.

The object of "seek" (or the much more common "look for") is the thing that's missing. The object of "search" is the place that you hope to find it. But "search" doesn't require a direct object at all. As a result, "search" tends to emphasize the process whereas "look for" tends to emphasize the thing that's missing, but both emphases are rather mild.

hunter
  • 1,395
  • You might want to do a google search for the word "seek" before saying that native speakers don't use it much. Seek+USA Today – michael_timofeev Nov 09 '15 at 01:26
  • @michael_timofeev it is still used a lot in the written language, but not in the spoken language, as I should have clarified. – hunter Nov 09 '15 at 07:47
4

In the original question, the correct answer is "seeking", only because "for" is not included in the optional answers. If the answers were

A. searching for ; B. looking; C. seeking; D. gaining

then (A) would be on an equal footing with (C) as a response. Ditto "looking for". As a reference, I am going to use the online version of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

While there are some situations where search, seek, and look differ in usage (especially look), there is also considerable overlap where they are essentially identical in use. This would be, for search and look, where they are used with for. Examine the first definitions of search and seek:

search: to carefully look for someone or something

seek: to search for (someone or something)

Compare these to this entry under look:

— look for 1 : to await with hope or anticipation 2 : to search for : seek

They are each used to define the other. In this usage, they are completely interchangeable. In the original question, the sentence used is identical in meaning with any one of: searching for, looking for, seeking.

Except that "seek" is very nearly archaic in common usage (in the US). I do believe it is very rarely used for common verbal communication. It does get usage in formal communications: novels, written communication, speeches. In the US, common usage would most likely be "looking for". "Searching for" would come second, I think. Since there is sufficiently little difference in the formal, dictionary, definitions of each word formation, then common usage becomes a significant defining factor. Given the close similarity between the three phrasings ('searching for', 'looking for', 'seeking'), I would argue that the connotational difference between them, in this usage, is null.

Technically, there are usages where each word varies from the other in definition. I will also say that a test author might very well expect the person taking the test to know such connotational nuances as have been described. However, in this case, I do think that one can stick with the interchangeable definition. Taking one usage over the other would only communicate any connotation to such a small audience, that one would effectively not be communicating the connotation at all.

Which leads me back to my premise. The only reason that seeking was the correct choice is because for was not included in either the sentence or the possible answers. And, the other original question: why is "search for" more common? I can only answer because it is common usage. Most people keep their communications simple to maximize the ease of communication, and to maximize the numbers of the audience who will "get it". Generally, that means limiting your word choice to the more commonly known words.

Community
  • 1
Mark G B
  • 942
  • I see...seek is archaic? Go do a google search "seek"+ "USA today". The word was used several times in the last few weeks. – michael_timofeev Nov 09 '15 at 01:09
  • Might read what I said again - specifically re: written communications. Other than someone uttering the old saw "seek and ye shall find" - when was the last time you heard "seek" in verbal communication? I could be wrong, but at this moment, I'll stand by my thoughts on the use of seek. – Mark G B Nov 09 '15 at 23:39
  • BTW - someone else got a Google Ngram comparing seek and search for. [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=search%20for%20food%2Cseek%20food%2C&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csearch%20for%20food%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cseek%20food%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Csearch%20for%20food%3B%2Cc1%3B.t1%3B%2Cseek%20food%3B%2Cc1] I believe the results of that, given that is for written communications, validate the view that "seek" is becoming rarely used, and is approaching archaic or obsolete status. At the very least it is rare, particularly in spoken English. – Mark G B Nov 09 '15 at 23:47
  • Go look up seek on Google for USA today, the newspaper. If it were possible to check spoken news programs, you'd see that it is indeed still used. Obsolete? – michael_timofeev Nov 09 '15 at 23:57
3

The definitions from the OED (below) do not make a clear and categoric distinction but suggest that whereas seek may be used when you know what you are looking for, search is used when the object and its location are not known.

I (UK) rarely use seek (preferring usually look for), but when I do I am 'seeking' something particular in a place where I expect it to be. I use search for when the thing I am wanting and its whereabouts are less clearly known to me. So,...

I look for (seek) something tasty to eat; (i.e. I sort of know what I want and where I should be able to find it)

I search for something to eat. (i.e. I'm not sure where to look or even if there is anything)

Hence, to adapt these nuances to your question, hunter gatherer's would both seek and search for food. They sought particular foods they knew could be found in particular locations, and they searched for food far and wide in the hope that they would find something.

From OED ...

Seek - To go in search or quest of; to try to find, look for (either a particular object—person, thing, or place—whose whereabouts are unknown, or an indefinite object suitable for a particular purpose). In most parts of England the vb. in this sense is no longer colloquially current, being superseded by look for. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/174794?rskey=PZrOHP&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid

Search - To go about (a country or place) in order to find, or to ascertain the presence or absence of, some person or thing; to explore in quest of some object. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/174308?rskey=FacptD&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid

Dan
  • 17,948
  • Unfortunately, I don't have a subscription or a library card number in order to access the OED, but both definitions, in your answer, seem to say that both the person (or animal) who searches/seeks is trying to find an object. – Mari-Lou A Nov 06 '15 at 12:03
  • Not quite... seek involves looking for either "a particular object—person, thing, or place—whose whereabouts are unknown, or an indefinite object suitable for a particular purpose". Search does not. – Dan Nov 06 '15 at 12:06
  • Also, as @Lawrence suggests, searching tends to be extensive and time consuming whereas seeking tends to be targeted and against the clock. – Dan Nov 06 '15 at 12:20
  • Animals seeking food is not extensive or time consuming? – Mari-Lou A Nov 06 '15 at 12:32
  • I would say that animals search for food - because, in nature, nothing is guaranteed. So, animals seek things they expect to find in particular places (and, on a good day, find them, quickly), and range over large areas for long periods of time, searching for foods (sometimes without success). – Dan Nov 06 '15 at 12:49
  • A lot of this answer makes sense, but when the object is "the truth" a lot of it seems to be turned on its head. "I seek the truth" is very abstract, whereas "I'm searching for the truth" means I'm actively doing something (e.g. going through the paperwork which you know, somewhere in there, will contain the truth). – AndyT Nov 06 '15 at 15:41
  • Seek has both connotations - (1) that of search for and (2) the one that is more indefinite (= @Dan's second sense). In the second sense, it is not too far from simply yearning or aiming for something, without actively seeking [sic] it out, i.e., searching for it. – Drew Nov 06 '15 at 16:36
  • 1
    Yet when there's a person (whose identity is known) lost in the wilderness the authorities organize a "search party", not a "seek party", even if the search area is well-defined and reasonably constrained. – Hot Licks Nov 06 '15 at 17:27
  • @AndyT, if I present myself at a monastery door or at the feet of a wise person I am seeking the truth from them because I believe they have the answers I want. What I might say to them (by way of introducing myself!) is that I've been searching for a long time and believe at last my search is over. – Dan Nov 08 '15 at 21:05
  • @HotLicks - I search for someone in the wilderness precisely because I'm not sure where to look, if I will find them, or even whether they are still alive (knowing their name is neither here nor there in this context). A seek party would not be an emergency because it would be assured of success - hide-and-seek! – Dan 28 mins ago – Dan Nov 08 '15 at 21:07
  • Seeking the truth is guaranteed of success?? – Hot Licks Nov 08 '15 at 21:38
  • Noooo, at least not for everyone! I guess my silly example is trying to 'colour in' how I feel the two words are different: A person confident of finding truth will seek it out; a person despairing of ever finding truth will feel condemned to an endless, fruitless search – Dan 2 hours ago – Dan Nov 09 '15 at 00:39
3

In order to seek food, you may search your fridge. Unless you have forgotten where your fridge is; in that case you have to search your house, seeking the fridge.

Hagen von Eitzen
  • 183
2

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

Etymology of search:

c. 1300, from Old French cerchier "to search", from Latin circare "go about, wander, traverse," in Late Latin "to wander hither and thither,"

Etymology of seek:

Old English secan "inquire, search for; pursue; long for, wish for, desire; look for, expect from," influenced by Old Norse soekja, both from Proto-Germanic *sokjan, from PIE *sag-yo-, from root *sag- "to track down, seek out". The natural modern form of the Anglo-Saxon word as uninfluenced by Norse is in beseech. Related: Sought; seeking.

To revise my earlier answer, I think these etymologies support the idea that search emphasizes the physical location of a desired thing, whereas seek emphasizes a desired outcome.

The two words are often interchangeable, but sometimes they are not...

search for is better than seek in the following cases because they unambiguously entail a physical search:

  • extraterrestrial life
  • lost keys
  • survivors
  • Sugar Man / Bobby Fischer

seek is better than search for in the following cases because they plainly need not entail a physical search, i.e., you can seek any of these from someone whose location is known:

  • advice
  • justice
  • forgiveness
  • asylum
jabrew
  • 1,159
1

I think the question is probably (at least partially) designed to see how you handle having an option that's part of a more natural speech pattern ("search", as part of "searching for food") but would have a different meaning as presented ("searching food"; i.e., looking through food for something). "Searching for food" would probably be a better choice here, as ngrams (and the state of uncertainty about food) indicate, but since it's not technically an option, "seeking food" is the correct answer.

Doing the ngrams search again for the options as presented shows practically nothing for "search food".

Milo P
  • 1,335
1

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms (1984) offers a fairly lengthy discussion of search versus seek in its entry for a group of eight related terms:

seek, search, scour, hunt, comb, ferret out, ransack, rummage are comparable when they mean to look for or go in quest of in the hope of finding. Seek has become widely extended in application and may take as its object either a person or a concrete thing or something intangible or abstract and may imply either a quest that involves great effort or one that makes slight demands; the term is more often used in written than the spoken language [examples omitted] Search implies both effort and thoroughness. It differs from seek especially in taking as its object the place in which or the person on whom something is sought; it therefore connotes an investigating, an exploring, a penetrating scrutinizing, or a careful examining [examples omitted]

This dictionary's emphasis on thoroughness and on directed looking in a specific area in search, versus a more open-ended questing in seek seems to me to be a valid general distinction.

S.I. Hayakawa, Choose the Right Word: A Modern Guide to Synonyms (1968) includes search and seek in a group with hunt, comb, ransack, scour, sleuth, and track. Here is this book's discussion of search and seek:

Search and seek are considerably more general than the previous pair [track and sleuth]. Search may indicate the act of looking for a lost object or for an object presumed to exist: navigators searching for a western route to the Est Indies. The word may also apply to mere activity without clearly stated goals: young people searching for a cause that would give meaning to their lives. ... Seek can give a more archaic flavor than search, except in set phrases: seek and find, seek and destroy; seeking out directions, a place, or a person. The word can also indicate vague desires or high-minded aspirations: negotiators seeking the good of all mankind; peacemakers who have always sought for an end to war.

I'm not sure whether Hayakawa's observation about the potentially more archaic flavor of seek has much validity any more. Perhaps any such flavor that the word might have added fifty years ago has been greatly diminished as a result of the broadening application of seek that Merriam-Webster's mentions in its discussion.

With regard to the question of how "search for food" differs from "seek food," I would say first that there is considerable overlap in real-world usage and that many people may use one or the other term to mean the same thing. However, I read "search for food" as having the implication of checking (in the first instance) various likely locations or sources of food (the pantry, the refrigerator, or dumpster behind the grocery store, for example), while "seek food" may suggest a less location-specific approach (asking other people for advice on likely nearby sources, for example) as well as visiting specific promising locales.

Sven Yargs
  • 163,267
  • Interesting how some answers contradict each other and the older EL&U which claimed: “...seek implies that the seeker knows that the item they are looking for does exist. Search has no such implication” I frankly do not see any distinction, if you're "searching for/seeking a missing person" or "seeking/searching for a particular person" i.e. "I'm looking for a Mr. Jones", presumably the person exists. – Mari-Lou A Nov 07 '15 at 21:43
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA: I'm not sold on the argument that a fundamental difference exists between the two words in many settings, and I doubt that most people have a clear idea of even a subtle difference between the two. One interesting change since about 1940 involves the frequency of all uses of seek versus all uses of search. As this Ngram shows, seek has gotten a bit more frequent, while search has risen sharply. – Sven Yargs Nov 08 '15 at 03:29
1

Etymology aside, here is a general usage answer from a native: I'd never use "seek" in spoken language unless I wanted to sound like I'm pretending to be someone from medieval/Renaissance England who is searching for (to use the colloquial) something epically, spritually significant. When spoken, "I am seeking X" usually sounds like you're joking about the item of your search being very important. Most likely you're actually looking for something boring like a pencil, or looking for someone who knows how to fix the office printer that broke again. In your example provided about humans seeking food, "seek" is also perfectly OK to use in educational writing when it's used about a third person entity because it sounds formal by eliminating the wordiness of having a preposition ("search for"). However you still would not use it written in relation to yourself unless you wanted to suddenly sound like a knight, or worse, blissfully unaware that you're taking yourself and your goals too seriously.

Jenny G
  • 11
0

This is not meant to be an answer, but at the same time it's far too long for a comment. After reading everybody's answers I wanted to add my following impressions, but it would have been inappropriate to do in the question. Users of course can agree or disagree, so I'll take any down-votes on this post to mean I am totally off the mark, which is fine. I promise, I won't retaliate.

Here is the preface to the translation of The Institution of the Christian Religion originally written in Latin in 1536 and translated into French five years later by its author John Calvin. The English translation was by Thomas Norton in 1763. The expression ‘seek for’ is used to describe the pursuit of spiritual atonement.

The Translator to the Reader

Good Reader, here is now offered unto you the fifth time, printed in English, Mr Calvin's book of the Institution of the Christian Religion; abook of great labour to the author, and of great profit to the church of God.

The English equivalent, seek for, is found throughout the volume. The following is an excerpt from page 243

If we seek for satisfaction, it is in his sacrifice: if we seek for cleansing, it is in his blood: if we seek for reconciliation, in his going down to hell: if we seek for mortification of the flesh, it is in his burial: if we seek for newness of life, it is in his resurrection: if we seek for immortality, it is in the same: if we seek for the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, it is in the entrance into heaven: [etc.]

enter image description here

A modern-day translator might very well delete the preposition for, and the remaining text would remain grammatical. For example;

  1. If we seek for satisfaction ---> If we seek satisfaction, it is in his sacrifice.
  2. if we seek for cleansing ---> If we seek cleansing, it is in his blood.

But would If we search for satisfaction be ungrammatical in this case? Where do we search for ‘satisfaction’? The author tells us it is found in his (God's) sacrifice.

Personally, I'd prefer seek, but I'm not sure why I do, perhaps it is only dictated by euphony.

Besides, why not use ‘search for’ in connection with abstract ideas: happiness, truth, love, companionship? All things which are notoriously difficult to find (or seek) in real life.

Mari-Lou A
  • 91,183
-3

The term SEARCH is used for an object or thing..! for example searching phone or shoes.. n SEEK is not used for an object or something, its used for something which we can't touch or see.. like something abstract.. for example seeking advice, seeking hope !

user144097
  • 1