states, "Use regardless instead." The Chicago Manual of Style calls irregardless "[a]n error" and instructs writers to "[u]se regardless (or possibly irrespective)." 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. Prescriptive vs. descriptive 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. References English words Nonstandard English grammar Linguistic controversies