what followed

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "what followed" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to refer to events or actions that occurred after a specific point in time or after a particular statement. Example: "After the announcement, what followed was a series of unexpected reactions from the audience."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Sports

General

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

58 human-written examples

What followed?

The New York Times

What followed was confusing.

The Economist

What followed remains hazy.

The New York Times - Arts

What followed confirmed it.

Independent

What followed is uncertain.

The Economist

What followed was far worse.

The New York Times - Sports

What followed was a disintegration.

The New York Times - Sports

What followed, though, was exceptional.

Independent

What followed was pure mastery.

The New York Times - Sports

What followed was even weirder.

Independent

What followed is well-known.

The New Yorker

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "what followed" to create a narrative flow, smoothly transitioning from one event or action to its immediate consequences. It helps maintain clarity and coherence in your writing.

Common error

Avoid using "what followed" without clearly establishing the initial event or situation. Ensure the reader understands what you're referring to; otherwise, the phrase loses its meaning and creates confusion.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "what followed" functions as a relative clause acting as a noun phrase. It refers to events or actions that occurred after a previously mentioned event. As confirmed by Ludwig, it is a valid and usable phrase.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

66%

Sports

16%

Wiki

3%

Less common in

Formal & Business

3%

Science

6%

Encyclopedias

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "what followed" is a grammatically sound and very common phrase used to introduce subsequent events or consequences. According to Ludwig, this phrase is correct and frequently used in English writing. It's prevalent in news, sports, and general narratives, offering a neutral tone suitable for various contexts. Alternatives like "what ensued" or "the aftermath" can be used to add nuance, but it's crucial to ensure a clear antecedent for "what followed" to avoid ambiguity.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

what ensued

Implies that events unfolded as a natural consequence; it's a more formal and literary alternative.

the subsequent events

Emphasizes the chronological order of events that came after a specific point, more formal than "what followed".

the resulting situation

Highlights the state of affairs that emerged as a direct outcome, focusing on the effects rather than the sequence.

the aftermath

Focuses on the consequences and results, often implying negative or significant effects, while "what followed" is neutral.

the consequence

Points directly to the outcome or result, often implying a logical or causal connection, more direct and concise.

what transpired

Refers to events that occurred, often with a sense of mystery or intrigue, slightly more formal.

the upshot

Indicates the final result or conclusion, often used in informal contexts.

the next stage

Implies a progression or phase in a process, focusing on sequential development, suitable when describing processes.

as a result

Functions as a transitional phrase to introduce the effects or outcomes, rather than describing the events themselves.

the sequel

Suggests a continuation or extension, often used in the context of stories or series, less versatile than "what followed".

FAQs

How can I use "what followed" in a sentence?

Use "what followed" to introduce events or consequences that occurred after a specific action or point in time. For example: "The announcement was made; what followed was a period of intense speculation."

What can I say instead of "what followed"?

You can use alternatives like "what ensued", "the aftermath", or "the subsequent events" depending on the context.

Is "what followed" formal or informal?

"What followed" is generally considered neutral and can be used in both formal and informal writing. The formality often depends more on the surrounding context and vocabulary.

What's the difference between "what followed" and "what came next"?

"What followed" implies a direct consequence or a logical sequence of events, whereas "what came next" simply refers to the next event in a chronological order without necessarily implying a strong causal relationship.