Megsie

Edit: Upon waking up this morning I realised that I had forgotten perhaps the most important point regarding “irregardless”: its failure to fit within the structure of the English language. I have inserted the necessary corrections in italics so they are easier to find.

A couple of people pointed out on my last blog that because “irregardless” is now used frequently (so frequently, in fact, that it even appears in the dictionary, albeit with the denotation “nonstandard”) it is a legitimate word. The argument for this (which at its base is inherently valid), is that language evolves, and our language has evolved to include “irregardless”.

I disagree with the conclusion that “irregardless” should be accepted as standard because it adds nothing to our communication. The purpose of language is communication with other speakers of that language, and also with oneself; it is a way to gather, parlay, and disseminate knowledge. Towards that goal of communication, language evolves within the confines of grammatical structure for two reasons: physiological imprecision and precision of meaning.

The first reason language evolves (physiological imprecision) is essentially laziness: the desire to maximise communication while minimising energy expended. Thus, among speakers of the same language, language use becomes shortened and minimised and dialects are developed. Why say “you are” when “you’re” communicates the same idea? Etc.

The second reason for linguistic evolution is precision of meaning. This is similar in concept to the previous point, in that the goal is to improve communication, but it differs from it in that instead of deleting phonemes, we actually add in more sounds, sometimes creating whole new words in order to more precisely communicate a concept.

“Irregardless” is a recently invented word, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. If you use it in conversation with another American English speaker, chances are they will understand you (just don’t be surprised if they start twitching uncontrollably). In that sense, “irregardless” fulfills the goal of language (that is, communication) so why is its colloquial usage and eventual acceptance into standard English such a big deal? Well, first off, it isn’t really. There are many other more important things to worry about, like nuclear fallout, global warming, and WHO ATE THE LAST COOKIE.

That said, this is why I am opposed to the adoption of “irregardless” into standard usage:

1. It does not enable us to precisely communicate a new concept, or allow us to better communicate an established concept.
2. There is another word that is used to communicate PRECISELY the same thing: “regardless” means “without regard”.
3. The prefix “ir-” negates whatever follows it, thus something that is “irretrievable” is something that cannot be retrieved (like the hours of my life spent trying to correct basic grammatical errors). “Irregardless” literally means “not without regard,” which is the opposite of the way it is used.
4. “Irregardless” is not a physiologically lazy change to language, it is cognitively lazy. It is therefore devolution, NOT evolution, of language.

Words are tools, and if one of those tools is imprecise or unnecessary, we should throw it out.

Any thoughts/criticisms are welcome.