Irregardless

The origin of irregardless is unknown, but speculation among dictionary references suggests it is a blend, or portmanteau word, of the standard English words irrespective and regardless.{{Cite Merriam-Webster|irregardless}}{{Cite OED|irregardless}}{{Cite dictionary |url=http://www.lexico.com/definition/irregardless |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191222132205/https://www.lexico.com/definition/irregardless |url-status=dead |archive-date=December 22, 2019 |title=irregardless |dictionary=Lexico UK English Dictionary |publisher=Oxford University Press}}{{Cite Dictionary.com|irregardless}}{{Cite OEtymD|irregardless}} The blend creates a word with a meaning not predictable from the meanings of its constituent morphemes. Since the prefix ir- means "not" (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means "without", the word contains a double negative. The word irregardless could therefore be expected to have the meaning "in regard to", thus being the opposite of regardless. In reality, irregardless is used as a synonym of regardless.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), irregardless was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana,Murray, James, et al., eds. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd Ed. Vol. VIII. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. though the word was in use in South Carolina before Indiana became a territory. The usage dispute over irregardless was such that in 1923 Literary Digest published an article titled "Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?" The OED goes on to explain the word is primarily a North American colloquialism.

The progress of and sentiments toward irregardless can be studied through its description in references throughout the twentieth century. Webster's New International Dictionary (2nd. ed. unabridged, 1934) described the word as an erroneous or humorous form of regardless, attributing it to the United States. Although irregardless had spread to the American lexicon, it was not universally recognized and was missing completely from Fowler's Modern English Usage,Fowler, H[enry] W[atson], and Sir Ernest Gowers, eds. Fowler's Modern English Usage. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. published in 1965, neither was irregardless mentioned under the entry for regardless. In the last twenty-five years, irregardless has become a common entry in dictionaries and usage reference books, although commonly marked as substandard or dialect. It appears in a wide range of dictionaries including Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1961, repr. 2002),Gove, Phillip B., ed. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, 1981. The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology (1988), The American Heritage Dictionary (Second College Edition, 1991),Berube, Margery S., ed. The American Heritage Dictionary. 2nd College Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991. Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary (2001), and Webster's New World College Dictionary (Fourth Edition, 2004).Agnes, Michael, ed. Webster's New World College Dictionary. 4th Ed. Cleveland, Ohio: Wiley Publishing, 2004. The definition in most dictionaries is simply listed as regardless (along with the note nonstandard, or similar). Merriam–Webster even states, "Use regardless instead." The Chicago Manual of Style calls irregardless "[a]n error" and instructs writers to "[u]se regardless (or possibly irrespective)."{{cite web|title=The Chicago Manual of Style Online 5.220: Good usage versus common usage|url=http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch05/ch05_sec220.html|website=The Chicago Manual of Style Online|publisher=University of Chicago Press|access-date=10 April 2015}}

Australian linguist Pam Peters (The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, 2004) suggests that irregardless has become fetishized because natural examples of this word in corpora of written and spoken English are greatly outnumbered by examples where it is in fact only cited as an incorrect term.

The approach taken by lexicographers when documenting a word's uses and limitations can be prescriptive or descriptive. The method used with irregardless is overwhelmingly prescriptive. Much of the criticism comes from the double negative pairing of the prefix (ir-) and suffix (-less), which stands in contrast to the negative polarity exhibited by most standard varieties of English. Critics also use the argument that irregardless is not – or should not be – a word at all, because it lacks the antecedents of a "bona fide nonstandard word." A counterexample is provided in ain't, which has an "ancient genealogy" at which scholars have not leveled such criticisms.Soukhanov, Anne H., ed. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 3rd Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992.

English professor Anne Curzan, writing for The Wall Street Journal, in an article discussing the word, said that objection to irregardless "taps into some deep-seated feelings about language".{{cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/aint-is-a-perfectly-good-word-irregardless-of-what-you-think-7f262094 |title='Ain't' Is a Perfectly Good Word, Irregardless of What You Think|first1=Anne|last1=Curzan|work=The Wall Street Journal|date=March 16, 2024}}

{{reflist}}

Category:English words

Category:Nonstandard English grammar

Category:English usage controversies