954. "Irregardless" isn’t going away anytime soon. Take a deep breath while we dig into this hated word’s history. And then, do you love a good plot twist? In honor of National Novel Writing Month, we look at the psychology of surprises in fiction.
954. Uh-oh, "irregardless" isn’t going away anytime soon. Take a deep breath while we dig into this hated word’s history, from its first appearance in 1795 to today. And then, do you love a good plot twist? In honor of National Novel Writing Month, we look at the psychology of surprises in fiction.
The "irregardless" segment was written by Susan Herman, a retired U.S. government multidisciplined language analyst, analytic editor, and instructor.
The "plot twist" segment was written by Vera Tobin, an associate professor of Cognitive Science at Case Western Reserve University. It originally appeared on The Conversation and appears here through a Creative Commons license.
| Transcript: https://grammar-girl.simplecast.com/episodes/irregardless/transcript
| Subscribe to the newsletter for regular updates.
| Watch my LinkedIn Learning writing courses.
| HOST: Mignon Fogarty
| VOICEMAIL: 833-214-GIRL (833-214-4475) or https://sayhi.chat/grammargirl
| Grammar Girl is part of the Quick and Dirty Tips podcast network.
| Theme music by Catherine Rannus.
| Grammar Girl Social Media Links: YouTube. TikTok. Facebook. Instagram. LinkedIn. Mastodon.
by Susan Herman
Back in February 2019, in episode 660 of the podcast, I discussed the controversial word "irregardless" and whether it was, in fact, a word. Since pre-pandemic life is just a blur for a lot of us, we thought we'd revisit the topic and dig into how people use it a little more. So regardless — or irregardless — of whether you love it or hate it (like most people), take a deep breath and hear me out.
Grammar Girl here. I’m Mignon Fogarty, your friendly guide to the English language. Stick around because after we talk about "irregardless," I have a great segment about the interplay between spoilers and plot twists for all the people participating in National Novel Writing Month — and all the readers who just want a view into the way writers construct stories.
Back in episode 660, we noted that "irregardless" is, in fact a word, but a non-standard word (more on that in a bit). And I still think what I said back then is true: it's not going to become standard usage anytime soon. Editors aren't going to start letting it slip by, and people aren't going to stop complaining about it. The word "snuck" as the past tense of “sneak” has largely made this transition, much to some people's dismay, but it doesn't look like "irregardless" is going to follow in its footsteps.
As I said then, "regardless" means "regard less," "without regard," or "despite something." In the case of "irregardless," the prefix "ir-" (I-R) seems to function as an intensifier, according to some lexicographers (people who compile dictionaries). Merriam-Webster's Usage Guide article "Is 'Irregardless' a Word?" mentions similar words starting with "ir-" in English, like "irresistless" (meaning "resistless"), which is listed as "archaic," and "irremediless" (meaning "remediless").
But 'ir-" is a negative prefix, so if you add it to a word that's already negative, like "regardless," you're technically making a double-negative that means "without without regard." When you look at it that way, it seems like a crime to use it, right? But you may be surprised to find out that its usage is far from new — very far, in fact.
In James Doubek's article for NPR "Regardless of What You Think, 'Irregardless' Is a Word," he notes that the usage of "irregardless" dates back to 1795, when it appeared in the Charleston City, Georgia Gazette in the following passage: "'But death, irregardless of tenderest ties, Resolv'd the good Betty, at length, to bereave.'" And The Baltimore Sun published in 1859 that a man "had endeavored to discharge his duty fearlessly in this case, irregardless of those who may consider this discourse discourteous to the Plugs." (The "Plug Uglies" was a criminal street gang in Baltimore during that era.)
But when did "irregardless" first appear in dictionaries, and why? Well, Merriam-Webster first included it in its unabridged version in 1934. Although the American Heritage Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Dictionary.com, and the Oxford English Dictionary all list the word "irregardless," they also all call it "nonstandard." Merriam-Webster's Usage Guide explains that it " … certainly is a word … in use for well over 200 years, employed by a large number of people across a wide geographic range, and with a consistent meaning." That is why most dictionaries include the word.
But what is "nonstandard," and why are words in that category even included in the dictionary? Well, dictionaries like Merriam-Webster label words like "irregardless" and "ain't" as "nonstandard" rather than "slang." Its Usage Guide defines "nonstandard" as "not conforming in pronunciation, grammatical construction, idiom, or word choice to the usage … of educated native speakers of a language." The dictionary also has a paragraph warning readers that "irregardless" would likely not be well received, and that they should use "regardless," especially when writing. The AP Stylebook calls it a double negative. And in 2012, 90% of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel disapproved of the word. That's a lot of naysayers! They haven’t often been that united in their opinions.
Many regular ol' people also shun the word. After Merriam-Webster featured "irregardless" in a "Words of the Week" piece in July of 2020, some people thought it had been newly added to the dictionary and started a social media pile-on that spilled over into the mainstream media. It even prompted the fact-checking site Snopes to create a page partially debunking the myth that the word had only recently been added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, because that's apparently how we settle online disputes now.
So then why do all these dictionaries include a word that so many people think you shouldn't actually use? Well, if you're a longtime listener, then you've heard the answer from multiple people who work at dictionaries, the people who make the decisions about which words get included: It's because dictionaries aren't meant to be the gatekeepers of good English. They're meant to be a place you can look up a word you hear or read and find out what it means, how it’s actually used, and often where it came from and how to pronounce it.
While standard usage can be found in formal writing, such as newspapers, academic papers, scientific journals, and the like, nonstandard usage is frequently found in dialectal, informal conversation and writing. As Cambridge University's English Grammar Today notes, we all constantly make choices about different words and variants depending on context. Just because something is not standard English does not mean it is not widely used and understood. After all, the purpose of language is to communicate, right? The trick is to know when to adjust your style to your audience and the context you find yourself in.
Now, as I said before, don't expect "irregardless" to become accepted, standard usage anytime soon. Even though many people started using it in different U.S. dialects in the early 1900s, and it caught the attention of those who study language as early as 1927, Merriam-Webster's Usage Guide asserts, "its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance." They consider the usage "largely disparaged" and "still met with considerable objection." And many lexicographers agree.
In episode 945 of the podcast I had the privilege of interviewing Steve Kleinedler, technical editor, author, and former executive director of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel. We discussed how words morph from nonstandard to standard usage over time — sometimes decades — and we specifically talked about "irregardless." As Kleinedler sees it, it is one of those words that "just gets people worked up. It always has. And it doesn't seem like that prescription is going away anytime soon because it's one of those words people are very passionate about." He compared it to "alot" misspelled as one word, which is also commonly used and widely disparaged. Like "irregardless," Kleinedler describes it as one of those words that … "people rail against … so hard that it might be a long time before it becomes accepted." So, as I said in that interview, it seems to depend on how hard we are taught that a usage is "wrong." And "irregardless" has been beaten up pretty badly.
See? I told you not to worry.
That segment was written by Susan Herman, retired multidisciplined language analyst, analytic editor, and instructor for the federal government.
//
This next segment was written by Vera Tobin, an associate professor of Cognitive Science at Case Western Reserve University.
by Vera Tobin
A while ago, I did something that many people would consider unthinkable, or at least perverse. Before going to see “Avengers: Infinity War,” I deliberately read a review that revealed all of the major plot points, from start to finish.
Don’t worry; I’m not going to share any of those spoilers here. Though I do think the aversion to spoilers — what The New York Times’ A.O. Scott lamented as “a phobic, hypersensitive taboo against public discussion of anything that happens onscreen” — is a bit overblown.
As a cognitive scientist who studies the relationship between cognition and narratives, I know that movies — like all stories — exploit our natural tendency to anticipate what’s coming next.
These cognitive tendencies help explain why plot twists can be so satisfying. But somewhat counterintuitively, they also explain why knowing about a plot twist ahead of time — the dreaded “spoiler” — doesn’t really spoil the experience at all.
When you pick up a book for the first time, you usually want to have some sense of what you’re signing up for — cozy mysteries, for instance, aren’t supposed to feature graphic violence and sex. But you’re probably also hoping that what you read won’t be entirely predictable.
To some extent, the fear of spoilers is well-grounded. You only have one opportunity to learn something for the first time. Once you’ve learned it, that knowledge affects what you notice, what you anticipate — and even the limits of your imagination.
What we know trips us up in lots of ways, a general tendency known as the “curse of knowledge.”
For example, when we know the answer to a puzzle, that knowledge makes it harder for us to estimate how difficult that puzzle will be for someone else to solve: We’ll assume it’s easier than it really is.
When we know the resolution of an event — whether it’s a basketball game or an election — we tend to overestimate how likely that outcome was.
Information we encounter early on influences our estimation of what is possible later. It doesn’t matter whether we’re reading a story or negotiating a salary: Any initial starting point for our reasoning — however arbitrary or apparently irrelevant — “anchors” our analysis. In one study, legal experts given a hypothetical criminal case argued for longer sentences when presented with larger numbers on randomly rolled dice.
Plot twists pull everything together
Either consciously or intuitively, good writers know all of this.
An effective narrative works its magic, in part, by taking advantage of these, and other, predictable habits of thought. Red herrings, for example, are a type of anchor that set false expectations — and can make twists seem more surprising.
A major part of the pleasure of plot twists, too, comes not from the shock of surprise, but from looking back at the early bits of the narrative in light of the twist. The most satisfying surprises get their power from giving us a fresh, better way of making sense of the material that came before. This is another opportunity for stories to turn the curse of knowledge to their advantage.
Remember that once we know the answer to a puzzle, its clues can seem more transparent than they really were. When we revisit early parts of the story in light of that knowledge, well-constructed clues take on new, satisfying significance.
Consider “The Sixth Sense.” [SPOILER ALERT] After unleashing its big plot twist — that Bruce Willis’ character has, all along, been one of the “dead people” that only the child protagonist can see — it presents a flash reprisal of scenes that make new sense in light of the surprise. We now see, for instance, that his wife (in fact, his widow) did not snatch up the check at a restaurant before he could take it out of pique. Instead it was because, as far as she knew, she was dining alone.
Even years after the film’s release, viewers take pleasure in this twist, savoring the degree to which it should be “obvious if you pay attention” to earlier parts the film.
The pluses and minuses of the spoiler
At the same time, studies show that even when people are certain of an outcome, they reliably experience suspense, surprise and emotion. Action sequences are still heart-pounding; jokes are still funny; and poignant moments can still make us cry.
As UC San Diego researchers Jonathan Levitt and Nicholas Christenfeld have recently demonstrated, spoilers don’t spoil. In many cases, spoilers actively enhance enjoyment.
In fact, when a major turn in a narrative is truly unanticipated, it can have a catastrophic effect on enjoyment — as many outraged “Infinity War” viewers can testify.
If you know the twist beforehand, the curse of knowledge has more time to work its magic. Early elements of the story will seem to presage the ending more clearly when you know what that ending is. This can make the work as a whole feel more coherent, unified and satisfying.
Of course, anticipation is a delicious pleasure in its own right. Learning plot twists ahead of time can reduce that excitement, even if the foreknowledge doesn’t ruin your enjoyment of the story itself.
Marketing experts know that what spoilers do spoil is the urgency of consumers’ desire to watch or read a story. People can even find themselves so sapped of interest and anticipation that they stay home, robbing themselves of the pleasure they would have had if they’d simply never learned of the outcome.
That segment was written by Vera Tobin, an associate professor of Cognitive Science at Case Western Reserve University. It originally appeared on The Conversation and appears here through a Creative Commons license.
Finally, I have a familect story.
"Hi, Mignon. This is Larry. Thank you for your always informative program. I have a word which I believe was used only in our family, but my wife may have brought it from her own. It's 'spug' ... and it refers to any unwanted or useless gift one may receive. Their letters means Society for the Prevention of Useless Gifts. And the first time I heard it was right after we were married, and we were opening the gifts, and one was a huge glass plate with my wife's initials engraved in the middle except that they were wrong. It's totally a useless gift. Over the years, of course, we received, occasionally, some more, but we still usually avoid giving people gifts that would be useless for them because we don't wanna give anybody a spug.”
Thanks, Larry! Wow, a glass plate with your wrong initials is pretty darn useless! I've hated useless gifts ever since my student days when I was dirt poor and really needed basic things and would instead occasionally get useless gifts like that, and for many years after that I kind of snapped and was known for giving overly practical gifts like batteries and socks. I actually even mentioned it in the introduction to my first book because in the same way that I'm obsessed with giving useful, practical gifts, I'm also obsessed with giving useful, practical writing tips. And so I have to tell you that today, November 14, my new tip-a-day book comes out — THE GRAMMAR DAILY — and it is both filled with useful, practical (and fun) tips, and it makes a great gift. It's an update to my similar book from 14 years ago, and it's like a tip-a-day calendar that you can keep forever. See, it's far more practical than a calendar! So get THE GRAMMAR DAILY for all the word lovers on your holiday list. It won't be a spug. And thanks again for the call, Larry.
Grammar Girl is a Quick and Dirty Tips podcast. Thanks to audio engineer, Nathan Semes; ad operations specialist, Morgan Christianson; digital operations specialist, Holly Hutchings; marketing associate, Davina Tomlin; marketing assistant, Kamryn Lacey, and to our brand new director of podcasts, Brannan Goetschius. Welcome, Brannan!
I’m Mignon Fogarty, better known as Grammar Girl. That's all. Thanks for listening.