Quick and Dirty Tips Podcasts

Episode Transcript

Email This Page

Irregardless Versus Regardless
Episode 94: February 08, 2008

View Comments (17) | Add Comment |

Subscribe to Comment

Grammar Girl here.

Today's topic is irregardless.

Hi, Grammar Girl. I'm an English teacher in Boston, Massachusetts, and I am freaking out. One of my students tells me that irregardless is now a word, and apparently it's been added to some dictionaries. Can you clear this up for me. This is serious panic time.

In the immortal words of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Don't panic. Irregardless is a word, but it's not a proper word, and your student's assertion that it's in some dictionaries is a great opportunity to talk about the different kind of dictionaries and the different kind of entries in dictionaries.

Irregardless versus Regardless

First, let's talk about irregardless. Some people mistakenly use irregardless when they mean “regardless.” Regardless means “regard less,” “without regard,” or despite something. For example, Squiggly will eat chocolate regardless of the consequences.

The prefix ir- (i-r) is a negative prefix, so if you add the prefix ir to a word that's already negative like regardless, you're making a double-negative word that literally means “without without regard.”

Language experts speculate that irregardless comes from a combination of the words regardless and irrespective and that another reason people might say "irregardless" is that they are following the pattern of words like irregular and irreplaceable. But regardless already has the -less suffix on the end, so it's not like those other words.

Standard versus Nonstandard English

Now, on to dictionaries. Although it's true that the American Heritage Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, and the Oxford English Dictionary all list the word irregardless, they also note that it's considered nonstandard. Listing a word as nonstandard is a way that dictionaries concede that a word is in common use, but isn't really a proper word. Standard language is defined as the language spoken by educated native speakers (1), but comprehensive dictionaries also include nonstandard words, dialect, colloquialisms, and jargon--words like ain't, conversate, and irregardless. It seems pretty common for people to look up a word in a dictionary, and if it's there, they think it's fine to use that word every circumstance. It's the "Look, it's a word!" phenomenon. But you have to look a little further to see what kind of word it is, and if it's nonstandard in some way, then use it with caution. You'll sound uneducated if you go around saying things like I ain't gonna conversate with him irregardless of the consequences.

Sometimes words make the transition from nonstandard to standard English. My dictionaries assure me that snuck is a word that falls into this category (although I know that will upset some of you). But since many educated people still rail against irregardless, and the word isn't commonly seen in edited writing, I don't believe irregardless is going to make the transition to standard language any time soon.

Prescriptive versus Descriptive Dictionaries

And one final thought about dictionaries—irregardless was listed in every dictionary I checked, but sometimes words will show up in one dictionary and not another. And it's important to realize that there are different kinds of dictionaries. For example, there are prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries. A prescriptive dictionary focuses on the way the language should be according to traditional rules, and a descriptive dictionary focuses on the language that is actually in use by the population. So a descriptive dictionary is likely to include words that a prescriptive dictionary would leave out. Many older dictionaries are prescriptive, but most modern dictionaries are descriptive. Some people think the American Heritage Dictionary is the most prescriptive modern dictionary (2). It still includes nonstandard words like irregardless, but it seems to make stronger statements against them than other dictionaries.

Book Winners

I have three more book winners this week. Steve F., Mary N., and Greg V. win a copy of my audiobook: Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips to Clean Up Your Writing. They were entered into the giveaway by signing up for the free e-mail newsletter at QuickAndDirtyTips.com. If you sign up for the newsletter you'll be entered into the giveaway, and you'll also get a free grammar tip and links to all the new show topics. We send it out every couple of weeks.

This week the Mighty Mommy has a show I enjoyed about how to take a break when you're sick. I've had a bad cold, so it hit home. I'm not a mommy, but I still need help figuring out how to take a break when I'm sick.You can find that show, a transcript of this show, my contact information, and a bunch of other great stuff at QuickAndDirtyTips.com.

That's all. Thanks for listening.

References

1. nonstandard. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Springfield: Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonstandard (accessed February 7, 2008).

2. RBB. "Booklist review of the American Heritage Dictionary," Amazon.com http://tinyurl.com/yvwkup (accessed February 7, 2008).

Comments (17) for Irregardless Versus Regardless | Subscribe to Comment

sah Says:
9/30/2008 12:35:25 PM

Here is an interesting article advocating the word 'irregardless': http://ufrapress.com/index.php/Culture/A-Lesson-on-Irregardless.html. Personally, I'm one of the many supporters. And here's an interesting follow-up story regarding the article's reaction: http://ufrapress.com/index.php/National/The-Irregardless-Riots.html

Jody George Says:
7/28/2008 8:22:43 PM

Opps!! My bad. In your Standard versus Nonstandard English section of Irregardless versus Regardless you have a sentence that reads, "It seems pretty common for people to look up a word in a dictionary, and if it's there, they think it's fine to use that word every circumstance." Would it be grammatically correct to include "in" BEFORE the words "every circumstance"?

Jody George Says:
7/28/2008 8:20:10 PM

In your Standard versus Nonstandard English section of Irregardless versus Regardless you have a sentence that reads, "It seems pretty common for people to look up a word in a dictionary, and if it's there, they think it's fine to use that word every circumstance." Would it be grammatically correct to include "in" between the words "every circumstance"?

Kristin Says:
3/21/2008 1:59:58 AM

Wouldn't it be fantastic if someone came up with a "Dictionary of words that are not words"? That way, when I'm debating with someone over whether "irregardless" is a word, they can look it up in the dictionary and say, "HA! See? I told you, it's a word!" Then *I* can look it up in the Dictionary of Words that are NOT Words, and prove that while it's listed, it's not really a word. People rely on dictionaries to prove them right much too often. I wonder if you could make that your next project, or if I could pitch the idea to urbandictionary.com.

Pinky Says:
3/9/2008 1:38:29 PM

I actually pointed out to (then candidate for Senate) Mitt Romney that his use of irregardless in a speech was improper. He got so mad at me, insisting it was a word, in the dictionary that he used the word in his discussions with everyone he met that day. Two weeks later at another meeting, he admitted that when he checked his dictionary it said the word was "non-standard." So I can say that I corrected the grammar of a former Massachusetts Governor, and former candidate for President. I'm sorry, but I hate double negatives!

Dan Says:
3/8/2008 1:39:21 AM

As I understand it, "ain't" has become unacceptable thanks to class. At one point it was standard, but the upper classes stopped using it to differentiate themselves from the working classes.

gimp Says:
2/21/2008 9:35:49 AM

I think it is odd that "noncollusion" is not in dictionaries I checked. The thesaurus doesn’t even list that or any other antonym for "collusion." Yet it is used in many contracts and applications around the country. It wins my Mysterious Word award.

Dan K Says:
2/21/2008 8:37:52 AM

Beyond what the dictionaries say, for journalists the Associated Press Style Book (our ultimate bible) is clear on the subject. "Irregardless: A double negative. Regardless is correct."

Libby Says:
2/17/2008 10:24:25 PM

This is actually mentioned in an episode of "Family Guy." Stewie imagines a world where he is able to send anyone who uses the phrases "irregardless," "a whole nother," or "all of the sudden" to a work camp.

Dan L. Says:
2/14/2008 5:33:10 PM

In your introduction, shouldn't you have used the plural "kinds" as in "different kinds of dictionaries" and "different kinds of entries"?

Calybos Says:
2/11/2008 3:50:19 PM

Excellent summarization of the "real word" question and dictionaries. Just because an entry exists doesn't mean you should use it yourself. That caveat works both ways, of course. "Epidermal contusion" uses perfectly acceptable words, but they don't get the point across as succinctly and effectively as "bruise."

John Says:
2/10/2008 4:05:09 PM

Michael Quinion (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-irr1.htm) notes something very interesting: "Few users query words such as debone and unravel because they are so familiar. In earlier times there were even more such words, many recorded from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: unboundless, undauntless, uneffectless, unfathomless and many others."

Miss J. Says:
2/10/2008 2:26:13 PM

Thank you(!) for settling another language dispute between my husband and I. This one has been an especially painful thorn in my side. I think it sounds doubly awful because in addition to it being a double-negative, the negative prefix of "regard" is "dis" and not "ir" in the first place. Though I did think "conversate" was a valid word. "Conversate me", meaning "engage me in conversation / talk to me". Hmmm. I'm disappointed to learn that.

aardvark Says:
2/9/2008 8:49:48 PM

Without without regard. Hmmmm..

SD Says:
2/8/2008 6:10:34 PM

According to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

John Says:
2/8/2008 2:07:55 PM

The American Heritage Dictionary used to be prescriptive, but I don't think it is any more. Now it has a usage panel that votes on usage issues, and the results are reported in the usage notes. This is descriptive - it's a description of how some people feel about certain words.

HPJ Says:
2/8/2008 8:31:33 AM

Very very nice