appointed to

USAGE SUMMARY

'appointed to' is correct and usable in written English.
It is often used as part of a passive verb phrase to indicate the person or position that has been given responsibility for a task. For example: She was appointed to the position of Chief Marketing Officer.

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Encyclopedias

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Foreign preachers have been appointed to mosques.

The Economist

Heller was appointed to replace Ensign.

The New York Times

Appointed to Labour frontbench by Ed Miliband.

Independent

He doesn't say appointed to what.

The New York Times - Arts

In 1851, he was appointed to Brooklyn Naval Hospital.

Encyclopedia Britannica

Andrew Johnson was appointed to the Senate.

The New York Times

She was appointed to the seat.

The New York Times

Who got appointed to state university boards?

The Guardian

Brennan was appointed to the court in 1956.

The New Yorker

A public representative was subsequently appointed to represent him.

Independent

He was appointed to this post by Pres.

The New Yorker

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "appointed to", ensure clarity regarding the specific role or position being assigned. For example, specify "appointed to the board" rather than simply "appointed."

Common error

Avoid assuming the reader understands the full scope of responsibilities associated with the position someone is "appointed to". Briefly clarify key duties or areas of influence for context.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "appointed to" functions as part of a passive verb phrase, indicating that someone has been officially assigned or designated to a particular role, position, or responsibility. Ludwig provides numerous examples of its correct usage in diverse contexts.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

64%

Wiki

19%

Encyclopedias

10%

Less common in

Science

7%

Formal & Business

0%

Social Media

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "appointed to" is a grammatically sound and commonly used expression to indicate the formal assignment of an individual to a specific role or position. As Ludwig AI confirms, it is widely accepted and utilized across various reputable sources, primarily in news and media, encyclopedias, and wiki articles. When using this phrase, be specific about the role and context to avoid ambiguity and ensure clarity. While "appointed to" is generally neutral in register, its frequency in formal contexts suggests it is most appropriate for professional communications.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

Assigned to

Highlights the assignment of a task or responsibility.

Designated for

Focuses on the act of designating someone for a specific purpose or role.

Selected for

Emphasizes the choice made from a pool of candidates.

Chosen for

Implies a decision based on preference or suitability.

Selected to

Similar to 'chosen for', but slightly more formal.

Nominated for

Suggests a formal proposal or endorsement for a position.

Designated to serve as

Explicitly states the purpose of the designation.

Elected to

Indicates a selection through a voting process.

Commissioned to

Emphasizes an official authorization or assignment.

Handpicked for

Highlights a deliberate and careful selection process.

FAQs

How do I use "appointed to" in a sentence?

"Appointed to" is generally used in the passive voice to indicate someone has been officially assigned a role or position. For example: "She was "appointed to" the committee".

What's the difference between "appointed to" and "elected to"?

"Appointed to" implies being assigned or designated to a role, often by an authority. "Elected to", however, means gaining a position through a voting process. For example, a senator is "elected to" office, while a judge is "appointed to" the bench.

What can I say instead of "appointed to"?

Depending on the context, you can use phrases like "assigned to", "designated for", or "selected for" to convey a similar meaning.

Is it ever incorrect to use "appointed to"?

It is generally correct, but make sure the context implies an official assignment or designation. If someone simply took on a role unofficially, another phrase might be more suitable. Also, avoid using "appointed to" if the person's responsibilities do not match to the position well.