My general annoyance at the use of 'bunch'

[Le Baron]

...as a collective noun for absolutely everything!

One might think I am having an unjustified pop at American vernacular, and I am, but it's not unjustified. Not so long ago I read the introduction to a book on 'writing style' which had this in it:

...it was their publisher's idea, hoping to cash in on the abundant name equity of those authors. Having read a bunch of these books myself...

It bothered me a bit. Especially after a fairly well-wrought sentence preceding it, which then just defaulted to the same old noun. He could have written e.g. 'a slew of...' or 'stacks of...' or 'a pile of...' Though describing 'piles of' books now seems to not exist for many people.

Then there's using it for things like 'a bunch of sh*t..' Okay it's cool vernacular, very good (applause), but sh*t is a non-countable noun and bunches are things where you could count the members. It describes 'numbers' of things fastened together. Like keys or bananas (but not 'lies'). You might not want to count them, but they could be counted. Will I see the day when someone asks me for 'a bunch of water'?

I notice that a lot of young people who learn English seem to gravitate towards it. Also the not-so-young, because Luca Lampariello (over)uses it, I suppose with the intention of 'sounding more authentic'. Though it tends to make foreigners sound less authentic and stick out like a sore thumb trying too hard.

[Severine]

...as a collective noun for absolutely everything!

One might think I am having an unjustified pop at American vernacular, and I am, but it's not unjustified. Not so long ago I read the introduction to a book on 'writing style' which had this in it:

...it was their publisher's idea, hoping to cash in on the abundant name equity of those authors. Having read a bunch of these books myself...

It bothered me a bit. Especially after a fairly well-wrought sentence preceding it, which then just defaulted to the same old noun. He could have written e.g. 'a slew of...' or 'stacks of...' or 'a pile of...' Though describing 'piles of' books now seems to not exist for many people.

Then there's using it for things like 'a bunch of sh*t..' Okay it's cool vernacular, very good (applause), but sh*t is a non-countable noun and bunches are things where you could count the members. It describes 'numbers' of things fastened together. Like keys or bananas (but not 'lies'). You might not want to count them, but they could be counted. Will I see the day when someone asks me for 'a bunch of water'?

I notice that a lot of young people who learn English seem to gravitate towards it. Also the not-so-young, because Luca Lampariello (over)uses it, I suppose with the intention of 'sounding more authentic'. Though it tends to make foreigners sound less authentic and stick out like a sore thumb trying too hard.

In my view, the meaning of "a bunch of" has shifted, for many people, to be merely an expression of great quantity and not a collective noun in the normal sense. It's the same thing that happened with "a lot of." In such usages, nobody is thinking about the meaning of a "bunch" or a "lot" or what objects might be organized into such groups. People are simply using it as a colloquial way to say "many."

It's easily seen if you plug "many" into the sentence you used as an example: "...it was their publisher's idea, hoping to cash in on the abundant name equity of those authors. Having read many of these books myself..."

This usage is by no means limited to non-native speakers; I hear it often from native speakers, specifically friends of mine in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, who are well-educated native speakers of English in the US and Canada. It doesn't sound unnatural to me in the slightest. I do note that it's avoided by people who care about sounding well-educated and refined - they tend to avoid it the same way they avoid catch-all words like "stuff."

I'm on Team Descriptivist when it comes to linguistics, so this new usage doesn't bother me in the slightest, but I could see how it would be potentially confusing and/or irritating for some people while the meaning is in flux.

I checked, and it turns out Merriam Webster already reflects the new meaning in its definition (meaning 2c): https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bunch

[Le Baron]

This usage is by no means limited to non-native speakers; I hear it often from native speakers..

Oh I'm aware of this. I'm referring to its use mainly by native speakers. The fact of colloquial use or not thinking about the precise meaning of, as you say e.g. 'a lot of' isn't really what's so bothersome about 'a bunch', but the defaulting to it even in situations when the rest of the vocabulary is varied.

I don't trust Merriam Webster. It's not a discerning dictionary. They just let any old thing in if people decide to say it. There is no 'new' meaning of bunch, it already has a defined meaning.

[Severine]

I don't trust Merriam Webster. It's not a discerning dictionary. They just let any old thing in if people decide to say it. There is no 'new' meaning of bunch, it already has a defined meaning.

I see that I do not need to send you a Team Descriptivist t-shirt in advance of this year's BBQ

This usage is by no means limited to non-native speakers; I hear it often from native speakers..

Oh I'm aware of this. I'm referring to its use mainly by native speakers. The fact of colloquial use or not thinking about the precise meaning of, as you say e.g. 'a lot of' isn't really what's so bothersome about 'a bunch', but the defaulting to it even in situations when the rest of the vocabulary is varied.

Honestly, based on this, it sounds to me like you're taking issue with lazy, ineloquent, or inappropriately informal writing more than anything. Perfectly valid, of course, but separate from questions of evolving word usage.

[Le Baron]

Honestly, based on this, it sounds to me like you're taking issue with lazy, ineloquent, or inappropriately informal writing more than anything. Perfectly valid, of course, but separate from questions of evolving word usage.

The first bit is probably true, though also repetitive speech. I don't recognise the 'evolving usage' bit. Words do shift in meaning over quite long periods of time (or gain extra meaning), but this 'a bunch' nonsense is devolving language use, not evolving. There are quite a few surveys and studies demonstrating the fall in breadth of vocabulary.

[tastyonions]

Interesting: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9618302198

We examined trends over time in vocabulary, a key component of verbal intelligence, in the nationally representative General Social Survey of U.S. adults (n = 29,912). Participants answered multiple-choice questions about the definitions of 10 specific words. When controlled for educational attainment, the vocabulary of the average U.S. adult declined between the mid-1970s and the 2010s. Vocabulary declined across all levels of educational attainment (less than high school, high school or 2-year college graduate, bachelor's or graduate degree), with the largest declines among those with a bachelor's or graduate degree.

[Severine]

Interesting: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9618302198

We examined trends over time in vocabulary, a key component of verbal intelligence, in the nationally representative General Social Survey of U.S. adults (n = 29,912). Participants answered multiple-choice questions about the definitions of 10 specific words. When controlled for educational attainment, the vocabulary of the average U.S. adult declined between the mid-1970s and the 2010s. Vocabulary declined across all levels of educational attainment (less than high school, high school or 2-year college graduate, bachelor's or graduate degree), with the largest declines among those with a bachelor's or graduate degree.

Yes, I've seen many of these studies over the years (please note that I cannot read the entirety of the one you linked to due to a paywall). I was happy to see that, unlike some, this one did mention the growing percentage of the US population whose native language is a language other than English. Said percentage grew rapidly over the same time period being discussed here with respect to vocabulary decline:

The number of people in the United States who spoke a language other than English at home nearly tripled from 23.1 million (about 1 in 10) in 1980 to 67.8 million (almost 1 in 5) in 2019, according to a recent U.S. Census Bureau report.

Source: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/12/languages-we-speak-in-united-states.html

I cannot presume to quantify the impact that has had, but given how much smaller the vocabulary of a non-native speaker is, I imagine it has had a non-trivial impact on the population-wide average English vocabulary size. Of course, these people have much larger vocabularies in their native languages.

As I said, this paper does mention immigrant populations as a potential explanatory factor for the noted vocabulary drop (thus it is fair to assume that they included non-native speakers in their sample), but there seems to be no attempt made to evaluate to what extent this factor explains changing trends.

There are other reasons, I'm sure, for the decline in average US adult vocabulary size. The state of education in the US cannot be helping, and many people's reading has shifted more toward texts, short blogs, tweets, and listicles rather than more challenging material such as books and longform articles. Anti-intellectual sentiment in the US is arguably at a historic high. In addition, the economic payoff for an advanced vocabulary is declining - just ask the many people with advanced degrees who are driving Ubers or working in food service. When the perceived payoff of education declines, so does the effort invested therein.

All of that being said, it's a fallacy to assume that any linguistic shift happening during a period of time when average vocabulary sizes are dropping is automatically a devolution (whatever that might be taken to mean). I agree that "a bunch of" has no place in formal or professional writing, but when used in daily speech or informal writing, especially with one's friends and family, as a synonym for "a lot of," I don't think it's any cause for alarm.

[Le Baron]

All of that being said, it's a fallacy to assume that any linguistic shift happening during a period of time when average vocabulary sizes are dropping is automatically a devolution (whatever that might be taken to mean). I agree that "a bunch of" has no place in formal or professional writing, but when used in daily speech or informal writing, especially with one's friends and family, as a synonym for "a lot of," I don't think it's any cause for alarm.

My initial criticism was about it being used in formal situations and the fact that the crossover from ordinary vernacular to such speech or writing has increased significantly. In informal speech it's always less of a concern, though if you watch videos or hear audio of all age groups from the past, just speaking in an everyday way, the variety of vocabulary is refreshing.

I reject the notion of a fallacy. That could easily be used as a stick to beat any proposed critique. There are many linguistic shifts of which I'm aware which don't at all look like linguistic deterioration. Linguistic shift is ongoing and I made no assumptions about any particular linguistic shift in the sense of 'neutral change'. It was in fact you yourself who identified it as that sort of shift shift. I'm identifying it as linguistic laziness.

[iguanamon]

When I lived in England, it was Northern England- Cheshire; Yorkshire; Liverpool... definitely not the "Home" Counties. Of course as an American, I was a stand-out minority there whenever I opened my mouth. Also, as someone from the upper Appalachian South, I didn't even fit in with what few Americans I'd run into from time to time there. I didn't hear "bunch" back home much . It wasn't really a part of my vocabulary growing up. We said "a whole lot of"; "several" or "a mess of fish"; a "mess of beans/taters/folks/trouble"... which I am certain would send the OED, and ESL-speakers round the bend. English is diverse and constantly in flux. Obviously, I don't use these forms formally.

In Northern England, the collective forms I heard were "heaps" and/or "loads". These forms are of course completely comprehensible and colloquial. I doubt if I'd hear the Royals uttering them. So, my question to the OP is, are these colloquial equivalent uses of "bunch" that I have heard in England annoying as well?

[Le Baron]

So, my question to the OP is, are these colloquial equivalent uses of "bunch" that I have heard in England annoying as well?

Yes, they often are when overused or filtering into writing.

Then again they had to be highlighted here. Hardly anyone else knows them, because they don't really move outside the regions they are used. Whereas 'bunch' is everywhere and in the mouths of natives and foreigners alike.

I understand that everyone who uses it will now be annoyed with me and like any post that contradicts me.