Language Is Illogical And Resistance Is Futile

Photo: Alan Wiig via

Grammar prescriptivists -- who believe rules should be followed; "descriptivists" believe correct grammar is whatever works -- love to appeal to logic. If "he could care less," then he could care less -- you have to say "he couldn't"! It's the rock we cling to against the rising tide of literally-means-figuratively-now. Well, it may be time to loosen that grip, because the evolutionary forces of language extremely do not care.

A new study from the University of Pennsylvania shows that randomness is a more powerful component of English's evolution than previously thought. (The findings can't necessarily be extrapolated to other languages - as one of the researchers told The Guardian, "English is weird.")

For a long time, linguists have thought about language as subject to evolutionary selection, much like species. When a language has more than one way to say something, or variable spellings, the "fittest" one wins, with speakers, en masse, selecting for ease, speed, and regularity. But the new research shows that those streamlining forces don't always seem to win.

By tracking past-tense spellings of 36 verbs -- those found to have at least two spellings, like quit/quitted and spilt/spilled -- researchers could see a slice of how English, from 1810 to the present, evolved. And they saw that it made no sense. Six of the 36 verbs had one form being actively selected for. And for four of those six, the chosen past-tense form is the irregular one, which in grammatical terms is decidedly unfit.

Researchers expected selective pressures to steer language toward regularity, making the language easier to remember (and more logical!). But no, they saw "Dove" instead of "dived," at least in American English; "woke" instead of "waked." There may be other logical factors driving these evolutions -- the researchers speculate, for example, that "dove" is favoured because it lines up with the similar-sounding, and similarly patterned, "drove."

The logic is in there, if deeply. Can anyone say the same for where "literally" is going?

No, really. It would make me feel a lot better to know.

Resistance to changes in grammar is futile, say researchers [The Guardian]

WATCH MORE: Science & Health News


    I say simplify it all down. Theres far too many rules and we need to spell everything phonetically. Let's reduce everything to a grunt.

    These researchers aren’t very logical if they expected the longer, more complex ‘dived’ to beat out ‘dove’. Pretty obvious which version the average human would LOGICALLY select for every day use: the shortest one.

      I'd argue that for everyday use "dove" is a type of bird. Who talks about diving every day, other than deep sea or pool divers?

      Interesting also that the past tense of "skydiving" is never "skydove"

        I’d argue that the name of the bird is pronounce ‘duv’. But okay.

    Can anyone say the same for where "literally" is going?

    Unfortunately, this does make sense in the context of this article. "Literally" is four syllables, and "figuratively" is five. "Metaphorically" is also five syllables.

Join the discussion!