Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/35-1433

Title: Highly Irregular
Subtitle: Why Tough, Through, and Dough Don't Rhyme—And Other Oddities of the English Language
Publication Year: 2024

Publisher: Oxford University Press
http://www.oup.com/us
Book URL: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/highly-irregular-9780197760918?utm_source=linguistlist&utm_medium=listserv&utm_campaign=linguistics

Author(s): Arika Okrent

Reviewer: Larry L. LaFond

SUMMARY

Singer/songwriter Pete Seeger once wrote a whimsical song entitled, “English is Crazy.” The song played upon a general perception of English as unusual and different from other languages; he makes observations that are now ubiquitous on social media:
If the plural of tooth is teeth, shouldn't the plural of booth be beeth?
It's one goose, two geese. Why not one moose, two meese?
If it's one index, two indices; why not one Kleenex ,two Kleenices?
English is cuh-ray-zee!
Linguists have long recognized that claims regarding the “craziness” of English are rather exaggerated, and that there are complex, but reasonable, explanations for how English evolved. The perception of English as uniquely chaotic often stems from a lack of awareness regarding the inherent irregularities found in all languages.
Arika Okrent's Highly Irregular: Why Tough, Through, and Dough Don't Rhyme—And Other Oddities of the English Language challenges these common perceptions, arguing that English’s irregularities are an outcome of a rich and divergent set of factors. Okrent does this through forty brief and accessible essays. These essays are grouped under six sections, a first of which sets the stage by introducing the irregular areas, followed by five sections showing who is to “blame” for the irregularities.

The initial section, aptly titled “What the hell, English,” comprises five essays that show how the presence of irregularities in English is real and has been discussed by others for many years. Okrent begins with a discussion of the poem “The Chaos” which the Simplified Spelling Society called, a “compendium of cacography,” and originates with the Dutch writer Gerard Nolst Trenité in the 1920s. Trenité’s perspective is used to illustrate a common expectation that languages should be logical and orderly, with regularized patterns and rules. This expectation often fails and at every level of language irregularities appear. As Okrent says, “It’s not utterly inexplicable chaos. It’s just highly irregular” (9). Part of that irregularity comes from the tension between language as infinitely generative and creative and language as a preserved cultural tradition.

The language oddities that Okrent employs to make the case are not so much dialectal variations but “fully accepted, unquestionably correct, standard English” (10) which contain items of irregularity. Okrent points to the evolution of English reminding us that the present form of it is not the product of engineering, but of language as a social institution transmitted through utterances and individual variation. The five essays in this section serve as a primer in the history of the English language through the use of specific examples:

“The Colonel of Truth: What is the deal with the word colonel?”
“Fairweather Vowels: Why is y a sometimes vowel?”
“Hey Large Spender: Why do we order a large drink and not a big one?”
“Crazy English: Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?”
“What the Hell is with ‘What the Hell?’”

These chapters do not discuss just these examples but serve as an entry into different linguistic phenomena in English. For example, words like ‘colonel,’ ‘surprise,” ‘peregrin,’ or ‘chocolate’ are used to discuss borrowing, dissimilation, syllable reduction, standardization, and other processes. So too, the second essay in this section discusses not only ‘y’ but also other vowels that are a part of the imperfect mapping between speech and writing. The third essay looks at how the speech habits of people can begin to limit the range of usage for words that are synonyms or collocated. The fourth essay deals with language habits in a changing world and shows how constant change to create totally new words without links to the past are relatively rare. The final essay in this section deals mostly with idioms, an irregularity that is distinctly not limited to English.

The next section is the first of the “blame” collection essays, all focused around the theme, “Blame the Barbarians.” The eight essays in this section also make reference to the history of the English language, linking some irregularities to the layers of language contact English has had from the beginning. The introduction to this section points back to earlier Germanic languages, the tribes of the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons, early encounters with Latin and Celtic, and the mismatch between scribal Latin and sounds that were being encountered. Of course, Viking invasions enter into the mix.

The first essay in this section, “Thoroughly Tough, Right?: Why don't tough, through, and dough rhyme?” refers to these layers of contact and the lack of standardized spelling in the early centuries of English. It reminds us that the Latin alphabet could not be expected to cover all the sound possibilities in the diversity of world languages. The next essay, “Getting and Giving the General Gist: Why are there two ways to say the letter g?” focuses mainly on Norse and Viking influences. The third essay, “Egging them On: What is the egg doing in egg on?” continues this theme, making note of connections between Old English and Old Norse, and then jumping ahead to introduce William Caxton and the printing press. The fourth essay, “I Ated All the Cookies: Why do we have irregular verbs?” introduces reflexes of regular and irregular verbs, overgeneralization, and the resistance of regularization of high usage words. Okrent concludes, “Every act of language use involves a mix of enforcing old habits, applying rules to new situations, and economizing efforts” (65). A fifth essay, “It Goes by so Fastly: Why do we move slowly but not fastly? And step softly but not hardly?” handles changes in adjectives and adverbs, primarily contrasting bare and -ly forms and the word endings of Old English. The sixth essay, “Elegantly Clad and Stylishly Shod: Why is it clean-shaven and not clean-shaved?” shows how an irregular form can become well-established for a given context and then sound unusual if used with regular affixation. The seventh essay, “Six of One, Half a Twoteen of the Other: Why is it eleven, twelve instead of oneteen, twoteen?” looks at irregularity in numbering to again emphasize that words used earliest and most frequently often become the most irregular. The final essay in the section, “Woe is We: Why is it woe is me, not I am woe?” speaks of historical remnants transmitted as a particular collocation with persistent old Germanic grammar.

The second section of blame essays are titled, “Blame the French.” The five essays in this section are as follows:

“A Sizeable, Substantial, Extensive Vocabulary: Why are there so many synonyms?”
“Don't inSULT me with that INsult: Why are there noun-verb pairs that only differ by stress?”
“Without Fail: Why is it without fail and not failure or failing?”
“Ask the Poets Laureate: Why is it sum total and not total sum?”
“Of Unrequited Lof: Why isn't of spelled with a v?”

Although these essays contains many new examples, the basic discussion follows mostly along the line of ideas already discussed, for example, that of borrowing or the standardization of English spelling following the introduction of the printing press. What is added in this section is a discussion of how the diglossic situation following the Norman conquest inserted many layers of French vocabulary into the basic structure of English, which remained Germanic. Okrent discusses how these layers have given English, “two deep wells to draw from” (93). Okrent points out that this can be seen not only in synonyms at differing levels or the divergent use for animal names (Germanic on the hoof, French on the plate), but also in syllabus stress patterns, adjective ordering in borrowed phrases, words that have differing pronunciations but an intertwined history, and the spread of silent letters.

Okrent delves more deeply into the effects of standardization and printing with a five essay section entitled, “Blame the Printing Press.”

“Uninvited Ghuests: Why are ghost, ghastly, and ghoul spelled with a gh?”
“Gnat, Knot, Comb, Wrist: Why do we have silent consonants?”
“Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda: Why is there a silent l?”
“Peek, Peak, Piece, People: Why are there so many ways to write the 'ee' sound?”
“Crew, Grew, Stew, New...Sew?: Why don't sew and new rhyme?”

These essays explore how the advent and widespread adoption of the printing press contributed to the standardization and, paradoxically, the fixation of certain irregular spellings and pronunciations, coming as they did before the Great Vowel Shift was complete. Early printers, introduced or perpetuated spelling inconsistencies that then became standardized through printed materials. “…over time the printers’ habit became everyone’s habit” (125). Once spellings became fixed in print, there would have been a greater resistance to phonetic reforms or spellings that more closely reflected spoken English. The essays show how the printing press in some cases preserved older spellings that no longer reflected contemporary pronunciation, contributing to the disconnect between how words are written and how they are spoken.

A fourth section entitled, “Blame the snobs,” is comprised of five essays:

“Get Receipts on those Extra Letters: Why is there a p in receipt, an l in salmon, and a b in doubt?”
“Asthma, Phelgm, and Diarrhea: Why all the extra letters?”
“The Data are in on the Octopi: What's the deal with Latin plurals?”
“Too Much Discretion: Keeping discreet and discrete discrete, discreetly”
“Pick a Color/Colour: Can't we get this standardized/standardised?”

Again, while these essays take up differing irregularities, that may be summarized together under common themes, the first of these being the desire by some to improve the newly standardized language by appeals to logic, authority, and analogy to the classical languages or lengthier established languages of science, literature, philosophy, etc. While unsuccessful, Jonathan Swift’s 1712 proposal to establish an English authority, an academy, played into this idea of improvement and correctness; however, while an academy was not formed, an age of codified rule of language etiquette introduced artificial regularity and irregularity into an ever-developing language. Okrent points out the roles of dictionaries and grammars, as well as the meddlesome nature of the whole prescriptivist movement. As Okrent notes, “The standards themselves did not emerge from supreme laws of truth and logic but from people doing stuff, sometimes out of snobbery, oftentimes irrationally and inconsistently” (153). The last essay in this section is the first to deal extensively with dialectal variation, particularly revealed in difference in US and UK lexical items or spellings.

The fifth and final section of the blame essays is entitled, “Blame Ourselves.” This section consists of twelve essays, most of which are quite short and which Okrent admits is a “grab bag” of answers:

“Couth, Kempt, and Ruthful: Why have some words lost their better halves?”
“If it Ain't Broke, Don't Scramble It: Why is There no egg in eggplant?”
“Proving the Rule: How can an exception prove a rule?”
“How Dare You Say How Try You!: Why dare isn't like the other verbs”
“Release the Meese: Why isn't the plural of moose meese?”
“Why do Noses Run and Feet Smell?: A corny joke with a serious answer”
“Negative Fixation: Why can you say "this won't take long" but not "this will take long"?”
“Abbreviation Deflation: Why is there an r in Mrs.?”
“How it Comes to Be: How come we say how come?”
“Phrasal Verbs, Let's Go Over Them: But don't try to "go them over." (You can look them over though)”
“Terrible and Terrific, Awful and Awesome: How does the same root get opposite meanings?”
“Literally Messed Up: How did literally get to mean figuratively?”

In the introduction to this section, Okrent notes that while there is blame enough to go around for the “weirdness” of English (from Barbarians, French, Snobs), and while historical moments such as the introduction of the printing press, the great vowel shift, and the Norman conquest have all played a role, we also need to be aware that many irregularities in English come from the language users themselves. Okrent writes, “When it comes to language, we are creatures of habit and creatures of creativity” (184). This again is not a cause for irregularities only in English but in all languages. Language is something we do and in the doing of it some things are kept and others discarded without concern about regularity. Meanings are expanded, words change categories, and rules are kept—or not—in unconscious ways. Ultimately, some of the things we do with language are done without clearly discernable reasons.

This final hodge podge of essays shows messiness that occurs not just after all the other many influences have had their effect but in the midst of those influences at every point along the way. Okrent calls attention to the creative power of language in use and our ready willingness to exploit that power. That English makes full use polysemy to communicate a broad array of meanings is on full display with words like ‘run’ or smell’ (the theme of one of these essays).

Okrent concludes by asserting that language changes accrue, bit by bit, often without respect to other changing parts. By the time irregularities are even noticed, they are often already fully adopted. This again, is not unlike processes that occur in other languages. She states, “But that doesn’t stop the system from working…we don’t need to make order out of the chaos; we just need to put it to use” (244). Following the conclusion are Acknowledgments, Notes, Bibliography, and an Index.

EVALUATION

Okrent’s book is clearly aimed at lay readers or a general audience. The book is highly accessible and easily readable. Its chief appeal is its ability to answer questions that readers may have about English while at the same time introducing them to questions that draw them deeper than expected. While there is little here that could truly be called new, the book’s originality lies primarily in its presentation, not its content. This book could effectively be used in an undergraduate principles of linguistics course or as supplementary light reading in a history of the English language course. Other history of English texts may go into more depth and be more comprehensive, but this readable treatment is a welcome addition to other popular literature on the topic.

Structuring the book as a series of essays giving answer to different questions about the irregularity of English is a great idea, although also not quite original. The same format was used by John McWhorter in his quite similarly titled Highly Irregular: Why Tough, Technical, and Weird Words are Better Than Plain Ordinary English (2023). McWhorter too argues that these irregularities are signs of the language’s creativity and productivity. Nevertheless, Okrent’s treatment is not exactly the same as McWhorter’s. Okrent is certainly adept at achieving her purpose of making complicated concepts understandable, and the journey taken helps the reader see the language’s richness and dispels the idea of a chaotic language without any discernible system.

There are a few shortcomings to the book. The various essays do not always make a cohesive whole and often appear to have been written independently of each other. Some sentences repeat in different essays without reference to other occurrences, the bibliography includes references that do not appear in the text, and the use of quotations in the book is a bit inconsistent. Sometimes those quotes refer to other chapters, sometimes to the notes section of the book, and sometimes to nowhere at all. In any case, the reference is not clear to the reader. From the perspective of a descriptivist, the use of judgment-laden terms for irregularity (“weirdness,” “errors,” “crazy,” etc.) can be annoying, though one suspects that Okrent is merely connecting with the reader while dispelling the idea.

Whatever shortcomings the book has are outweighed by its merits, the first of which is the writing itself. Okrent is an insightful writer whose work appears in various popular venues, such as Smithsonian Magazine, Popular Science, Slate, and more. She is practiced in communicating linguistic concepts to a broader audience and in bringing order to the variety of questions that readers ask. The skillful narration shows through in this book. Additionally, the chapters are delightfully illustrated by Sean O’Neill in ways that contribute to the text, and the Okrent and O’Neill team make the overall presentation informative and entertaining. Supporting the accessible presentation is information that is based on solid and serious research. While the answers to some of the questions asked could have been dry, Okrent makes the inquiry captivating and inviting. I plan on using Okrent’s work with some of my own introductory students. Many language enthusiasts, general readers, and English language learners may find reading this book very rewarding.

REFERENCES

McWhorter, J. H. (2023). Highly Irregular: Why Tough, Technical, and Weird Words are Better Than Plain Ordinary English. Oxford University Press.

Okrent, A. (2023). Highly Irregular: Why Tough, Through, and Thorough Are All Pronounced Differently. Oneworld Publications.

Trenité, G. N. (1932). Drop Your Foreign Accent. Allen & Unwin.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Dr. Larry LaFond is Professor of English Language and Literature at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. For the last 24 years, he has conducted research in syntax, second language acquisition, and dialectal variation within American Midlands English. He has taught undergraduate linguistic minors and graduate students in an MA TESOL program, served as chair of two academic departments, and as Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.