_

English Language & Usage Stack Here's how it works:

Exchange is a question and answer site
for linguists, etymologists, and serious
English language enthusiasts. Join
them; it only takes a minute:
Anybody can ask Anybody can The best answers are voted
Sign up a question answer up and rise to the top

“In a while” vs. “for a while”

I recently got a message that says

Haven't heard anything from you in a while.

I always thought that the right way to say this would be to use for insdead of in. Are both versions correct? Would there be a
difference in meaning?

meaning word-choice prepositions in-for

edited Oct 28 '14 at 19:36

RegDwigнt ♦ asked May 12 '13 at 14:17
79.6k 29 273 362 msgmaxim
420 5 11 15

5 Answers

I'm trying to capture a vague idea floating in my head. Not sure I can explain adequately.

First off, both "in a while" and "for a while" are grammatical and idiomatic per se. However, to
me, "for a while" would mean that their hearing from you is an ongoing process, which you
interrupted for some time — or well, for a while —, but then resumed. Which is not what the
sentence is supposed to express.

What you want instead is "in a while", which also means "for some period of time" but without
implying that the contact has been re-established already, or indeed ever will be. Which is the
whole point of that sentence, after all. It's just a reminder that it should be.

So I would most definitely say, "Haven't heard anything from you in a while".

This might be just my dialect/idiolect, though. I haven't checked any corpora.

answered May 12 '13 at 14:36

RegDwigнt ♦
79.6k 29 273 362

2 For what it's worth, I have exactly the same vague idea floating in my head. – Marthaª May 12 '13 at 15:59

1 So, as I understand, if I wrote to someone after a long period of time, then I would most likely get "haven't heard
from you for a while" in reply. On the other hand, if it was the other person who initiated the correspondence, he
will probably write "haven't heard from you in a while", because he wonders why I haven't got in touch with him
for so long. In fact, that was the case with me. – msgmaxim May 12 '13 at 20:23

The “vague idea” is because for a while specifies a limited time period. If I haven't heard from you for a month,
then the period is over – but it's ambiguous whether it's the silence ending, or just the month. – Bradd Szonye
May 13 '13 at 4:01

FWIW, the Oxford Dictionaries don't do any kind of distinction. It's nice to see that others use them in the same
way I do. – Alfredo Hernández Sep 14 '14 at 8:24

The sentence you give should be:

"Haven't heard anything from you in a while."

or
"Haven't heard anything from you for a while."

No difference in meaning in this case, at least, not to my knowledge in American English, and
not in my idiolect. But there would in these cases:
 I'll give this to you in a while. [Not now, but maybe tonight or next week.]
I'll give this to you for a while. [You can have it for a week or maybe a month, but then I
want it back.]

edited May 12 '13 at 14:42 answered May 12 '13 at 14:36

user21497

The distinction between for Duration and in Duration depends on where the Reference
Time is. Reference time is an Instant in time, not a Duration ; but Duration is measured
from it.

In Duration refers to a time period Duration long that ends at the Reference Time
For Duration refers to a time period Duration long that begins at the Reference Time.

answered May 12 '13 at 17:21

John Lawler
79.6k 6 106 289

How does this apply to the example, and are you suggesting "for a while" cannot begin before "now" in the
example (surely not?)? – Cerberus May 12 '13 at 20:59

According to Google Books estimated results, "haven't seen him for years" is actually somewhat more common
than "haven't seen him in years" - but that's a different context, where they must mean the same thing anyway.
John concisely summarises the distinction for contexts such as "We'll stop in/for ten minutes" – FumbleFingers
May 12 '13 at 21:33

1 @ John: Just a wild guess, but might it be that in "haven't seen him for/in years", the "Reference Time" is actually
years ago, when he was last seen. And that this in/for distinction only applies when the Reference Time is now or
in the future, not in the past? – FumbleFingers May 12 '13 at 21:38

1 @FumbleFingers Is it just my perception but do we use in a while in Britain? It sounds distinctly American to me.
I would always say for a while. – WS2 Jun 11 '15 at 16:46

1 As soon as you add a negative to any example, there is a sea change, into something rich and strange. Adding
negation does not simplify syntax. – John Lawler Jun 12 '15 at 14:39

Correct Standard English dictates:

the use of for for duration — "for a length of time", "for seven days", etc.
the use of in (= "shortly") for pending future action only

We shall see each other for a long time/for seven days.

We shall see each other in two days' time/in a short while.

If the action or non-action belongs in the past and continues in the present, then it is more
fluent Standard English to use for:

I haven't seen you for a while/for a long time.

[= It has been a while/a long time since I saw you.]

If the action belongs in the future, then, and only then, is "in a while" correct.

Therefore:

I have not heard from you for a while.

— past

I shall not hear from you in a while.

— future

edited Aug 29 '13 at 22:22 answered Aug 29 '13 at 21:44

RegDwigнt ♦ user50799
79.6k 29 273 362 31 1

These phrases have similar meanings. They are not usually interchangeable, but there's one
exception.

for a while

This phrase indicates a limited, continuous time period. If you go on vacation for a week, you
will be gone continuously until a week has passed and then return.

not for a while

If you won't return from vacation for a week, you will be absent for a week and then return.
This usage implies a definite end to the period, although the exact timing may be vague (a
while).

haven't for a while

If you haven't seen him for a week, then he was absent for that duration. Because for indicates
a limited time, this often implies that the absence has ended (as RegDwighт suggests).
However, when talking about a fixed time leading up to the present, it may simply note that the
time period has ended, not the action.

in a while

This phrase indicates a time some distance away – usually, but not always, in the future. If you
go on vacation in a week, you will not leave until a week from now.

not in a while

If you won't return from vacation in a week, then you will still be gone a week from now, with
no indication of when you will actually return. This usage typically indicates a deviation from
plans or expectations: We can't get the job done in a month.

haven't in a while

If you haven't seen him in a week, then he disappeared a week before now. This usage indicates
a time some distance in the past. There is no implication that the period has ended.

TL;DR

For the example in the question, haven't for a while and haven't in a while are roughly
interchangeable. For carries a weak implication that the absence has ended; in does not.

answered May 13 '13 at 3:53

Bradd Szonye
13k 5 30 76

protected by tchrist ♦ Aug 13 '14 at 19:52

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation
on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?