In today’s new article I’m taking a look at the difference between ‘all right’ and ‘alright’, something which has come up a few times for me in my editing work and a point I’ve considered probably more than I should have in my own writing. It’s possible (and somewhat demonstratively correct) to reject ‘alright’ as incorrect outright, but I personally hold this instead as a good example of how and why the English language changes over time.
First, though, a quick definition: ‘all right’ as a phrase essentially means fine, okay, in good order, and can be used as an adjective, adverb or general interjection/intensifier. It’s taken on a rather nuanced nature, making it quite flexible – and it’s one of those expressions that can, depending on our context and understanding of the speaker, have an opposite application (like ‘fine’; with the right intonation it could mean ‘excellent’ or ‘disappointing’!).
Most likely because it’s acquired such a colloquial usage, however, the words have been compounded and a new spelling has emerged.
Is it ‘all right’ or ‘alright’?
The simple answer to this question, to ensure you’re always correct, would be to always write ‘all right’. Dictionaries generally still have this phrase listed primarily as ‘all right’, and do not necessarily include ‘alright’ at all, and you will never be wrong to write it this way.
However, ‘alright’ has emerged as a variant spelling that encompasses the phrasal use of this expression in one word, and I would say it’s correct/acceptable to use ‘alright’ as long it’s being used for this meaning, i.e. as fine, okay etc.
I actually use ‘alright’ myself to convey this colloquial phrasing, as opposed to ‘all right’, spelt out, so to differentiate between the colloquial/descriptive use and a structure that more specifically refers to grouped nouns with a quality of ‘rightness’ – i.e. when we wish to say ‘everything in this group is correct’ (or alternatively, rightward leaning/directional). Having two separate spellings used consistently here can actually aid clarity, for example in an interpretation of these sentences:
- The students were all right. (They each had the correct answers/understanding.)
- The students were alright. (They were okay.)
Mostly, such sentences should be clear depending on the context anyway, but in the rare circumstances when these separate definitions might make the difference, I think it’s a difference worth having.
However, note that in the above examples, ‘alright’ would actually be incorrect in the meaning of the first sentence, whereas ‘all right’ could work for either, so, as I’ve said above, if want to be safe, you can only use ‘all right’ and it will always be correct.
This is a great example of language adapting, though, and popular usage giving us an alternative; a little tweak that is widely accepted can gradually help demonstrate the difference between a technical structure and a colloquial phrase.
It’s interesting to me because it seems obvious and natural to use ‘alright’ in this way, but actually it’s quite a modern style. Google’s Ngram viewer demonstrates usage of ‘alright’ having only gradually been adopted in the past two decades. So, it’s something that has emerged within my lifetime. If you look at that graph, though, it’s undeniably going up, and ‘alright’ is now in use almost half as much as ‘all right’, which is relatively in decline.
The bottom line here for me is that if someone wants to use ‘alright’, there’s no reason they shouldn’t, as long as it is applied for this specific meaning. Likewise, anyone would be free to always use ‘all right’. It would be really incorrect, though, to suggest that you must use one or the other, as we can plainly see that people are already using both alternatives, and while the dictionary might still favour ‘all right’, the English-speaking world is slowly adopting ‘alright’ too.
