Exclusive: New Words on Oxford Radar

The recent coverage of the inclusion of Twerking in Oxford Dictionaries’ latest online update showed just how much people genuinely care about the state of English and the words that we use.

But lexicography moves on, and the guardians of the Oxford lists are already looking at what the next new words to be included might be.

In an exclusive interview, Wordability spoke to Fiona McPherson, Senior Editor, Oxford Dictionaries, who revealed some of the words which are currently being tracked by lexicographers and which may be the ones which feature prominently in updates of the future. You can watch the full interview here:

So to summarise, the words she selected are:

Bacne – basically, acne on your back

Hatewatch – an old Wordability favourite, first identified last year. The practice of watching something you really don’t like, and chatting to your friends about it while hating it.

Dosant – a cross between a doughnut and a croissant

Legsie – hot on the heels of Selfie’s recent inclusion, a photograph you take of your own legs. One can only imagine where this will end, but politeness means I will decline to suggest it

Appisode – an online episode of a television show

Phubbing – one of the great new words of this year, a personal favourite and one which has already entered everyday use in my household. Phone snubbing, using your smartphone when you are supposed to be talking to someone else

Nocialising – See above

Meme – not a new word, but a new sense, as Meme, a cultural idea which passes from person to person, now starts to become a verb

Lolarious – LOL branches out into its own verb. Not sure what David Cameron’s version would become.

So that’s the latest list – now we sit back and wait to see which of them finally makes it all the way through the selection process.

Dictionary Gone, Dictionary Still to Come

The changing nature of English vocabulary has been neatly summed up by two recent stories from opposing ends of the linguistic spectrum. Both give us an insight of how our dictionaries might look over the next few years, but reached their conclusions in contrasting fashions.

The first was research by Disney’s Club Penguin into the language used by teenagers online. The result, unsurprisingly, is that for the most part, their parents don’t understand it. So Disney has published a Digital Dictionary as part of its overall online safety campaign as a way of helping parents to understand what their offspring are actually talking about.

So no longer will words like Keed, Dub and Derp be mystifying, while parents will be able to understand that in this context, Sick is good and Jelly is bad, and that is not just because of the after-effects of eating too much trifle.

The interesting thing for language watchers of course is whether the words in this specific dictionary have enough staying power to cross over into mainstream dictionaries, and whether this listing is just a passing fad that will fade into history, or is instead a tantalising glimpse of the OED in 50 years’ time.

And talking of 50 years, research by Lancaster University has given us an idea of how much language has changed over the last 50 years. They analysed millions of books, articles and speeches to come up with a list of the 2,500 most common words in the English language, and compared it with a list compiled half a century ago.

The results were not necessarily that surprising. Marriage, Religion and God are all on the decline, Sex and Celebrity are on the increase. Words such as Mobile, Internet and Computer are fairly obvious new arrivals.

The list of disappeared words really does capture the imagination and speak of a world now disappeared. Servant, Plough, Gaiety, Telegraph, Mill, Coal – all are redolent of times gone by. It is good to see Hunger going, but maybe the departure of Handshake points to a decline in manners.

So while the lexicographers of the future consider adding Yolo, Spinout and Noob to their pages in years to come, if they have to make space in printed editions, will Grammar, Comb and Bless be the things that make way? It is a sneak peek of the dictionary of tomorrow.

Is it a Fruit or is it a Monster?

When I read that supermarket group Tesco was going to start stocking the world’s largest avocado, my first thought was that the word for it must already be in wide usage. OK, that was my second thought. My first thought was Yum.

But putting my greed to one side, I quickly Googled the word and discovered to my surprise that Avozilla does not appear to have been in any kind of common currency prior to this announcement. It’s not even in Wikipedia, and everything that’s anything is in Wikipedia. Except for Wordability of course, but that’s just a matter of time.

All of which makes me slightly sceptical about the Avozilla. The way it has been hyped and covered suggests it is a new variety of avocado. The press release trumpets that the fruit “is extremely rare and comes from just four trees grown by one of the world’s biggest suppliers of avocados, in South Africa.” Tesco salad buyer Emma Bonny said: “The Avozilla has a fantastic taste with a rich, juicy, buttery texture, and creamy flavour.” As well as its size, the difference in skin colour and texture are also used to highlight that it is a different variety.

Call me cynical, but isn’t this basically just a big avocado? Don’t you already get some avocados with dark skin and some with light skin? Aren’t all the best avocados buttery and creamy? Is this really a new variety?

The answer is surely in the word itself, and not just the fact that it appears nowhere else except in reference to this launch. New varieties are often amalgams of the different fruits which they represent, such as a Papple, or just some other word or scientific term altogether. But the only derivation I can think of for the Avozilla is Godzilla, and that the -zilla suffix is being used here to denote its monstrous size.

Not a normal way of naming varieties and not one I see catching on beyond the world of marketing spin. Applezilla anyone?

Will the Olinguito Ride the Hyperloop?

Two new words for brand new concepts have appeared on the scene this week, but that is the only thing that links them. What is interesting about them is how they are at almost opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the objects for which they have been coined.

First out of the blocks was the Hyperloop, the name of a putative high-speed link of the future between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Proposed by entrepreneur Elon Musk, the Hyperloop would place passengers in a vehicle which is propelled along a tube at enormous speeds, covering the distance between the two cities in half an hour.

Will this ever happen? At this stage, who can say, meaning that Hyperloop may be a word of much discussion in 2013, but could have absolutely no linguistic future because the thing which it describes may never exist. Of course if it does, Londoners undertaking tube travel may become very jealous of the version of tube travelling happening 8,000 miles away.

The nature of this word is diametrically opposed to Olinguito, which has also been unveiled this week. The Olinguito is a newly identified carnivore living in cloud forests in South America, the first newly named carnivore in 35 years.

So we have something that doesn’t exist with a name, and something which has always existed but has never had a name up to now. Both are great new words of this year. Something man-made versus something natural.

I suspect that the one which has had to wait much longer for recognition will be the one that makes it through to full lexical recognition,

Not the End of the World. Literally

There has literally never been a reaction like it. The last bastion of linguistic pedantry knocked over. Reams of invective across the media. And why? Because the Oxford English Dictionary has done its job.

Alleged misuse of the word ‘Literally’ is one of the favourite bugbears of those who delight in nothing more than correcting other people’s grammar and bemoaning the apparent desecration of our beautiful language. Literally means ‘in a literal manner, exactly’, rather than its increasingly common usage as a word of emphasis and exaggeration, they say.

Except that the OED disagrees, and has in fact disagreed since 2011. It’s just that nobody noticed until this week that the definition had been extended to include the sense of emphasis, reflecting the way the word is actually used by speakers today.

Of course I wholly endorse the extended definition. As I have said literally thousands of times, language changes and those who document this need to recognise that evolution and record it, which is what has happened here.

What is funny about this story is that it seems to be the straw which has literally broken the camel’s back. There has been a wonderful outpouring of emotion on the subject. The alleged misuse of literally is the linguistic touch paper which stokes up all pedants, so this is the story which has enraged them more than any other.

But of course it is not the death of English as we know it, as some have suggested. It is just an acknowledgement that the English language is always changing, as the strap line of an excellent blog on new words points out.

Those who are upset by this change should literally get over it.

Phubbing Becomes A Phenomenon

Lets be honest. We’ve all done it. I’m not proud of it but I’ve definitely done it. And I’ve had it done to me as well. What am I talking about? Phubbing.

Phubbing, an amalgam of phone and snubbing, is defined as ‘The act of snubbing someone in a social setting by looking at your phone instead of paying attention’. The word is the brainchild of Melbournian Alex Haigh, who has set up the hilarious Stop Phubbing website as a way of drawing attention to the practice and allowing people to fight back and stop it. So successful has this been that the term is now going viral.

It’s a brilliant word, undoubtedly one of my favourites of the year. Why, I hear you ask? Well firstly, it passes the test of being a semantic gap needing filling. This is a modern phenomenon, it is an emerging aspect of modern life, and when you talk to people about it, they all agree they’re aware of it. Well they would agree if they weren’t so busy sending Tweets.

Secondly, it’s a great neologism in its own right and blends the right two words to get the new one. Phubbing retains enough of the sense of its ancestry to aid understanding and stand alone, and also sounds just judgmental enough to make its point. It is also infinitely better than other options. I don’t think phignoring or phold-shouldering would really have cut it.

And its usage is already taking off and moving away from the original source. The day after reporting the advent of the word, The Independent used it in perfect context in a story about how crossing the road is dangerous when you are glued to your phone.

So phubbing as both a concept and a word is here to stay. I think we can all agree that it’s rude and people shouldn’t do it. Unless they’re reading Wordability of course, in which case it’s absolutely fine.

Zero-Hours Contracts On The Rise

I’m not sure exactly how long zero-hours contracts have been around, but their sudden ascent to the front pages suggest this is a phrase that has found its place in history in 2013.

The contracts, which basically offer no guarantee of hours or pay to those employed on them, have been getting wider coverage over the last few months.

However, a new report that suggests that one million people are employed on such contracts has elevated the word to the top of public consciousness, suggesting it may prove to be a political hot potato for all parties over the next few months. It is certainly a term that we are not going to be able to avoid for the forseeable future and is a linguistically neat way of describing a very particular set of circumstances. Or is it too neat, and kind of spirits away the difficulties faced by people on these contracts in a simple phrase. The term potentially masks the reality of the issues.

Either way, expect to see it jostling near the top of words of the year lists at the end of 2013.

Gay Marriage Already Recognised

The Oxford English Dictionary is thinking about extending its definition of marriage to include Gay Marriage. At least, that is what you would believe if you were to read the coverage this story has received in the last week.

Except it’s not really true. Because the OED has already done it.

The story that prompted the flurry of reaction appeared in the Gay Stay News, quoting an OED spokeswoman as saying: “We continually monitor the words in our dictionaries, paying particular to those words whose usage is shifting, so yes, this will happen with marriage.”

But what appeared to be a significant language story was nothing of the sort, despite the number of sources which then picked it up and used it to further whichever side of the argument they subscribe to. Because when Wordability contacted the OED, I got the following statement:

“Many of our dictionaries including the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as oxforddictionaries.com, already include references to same sex-marriage as part of their definitions. Dictionaries reflect changes in the use of language, rather than changes in law, and we are constantly monitoring usage in this area in order to consider what revisions and updates we may need to make. The English language is always developing and, along with many other words, we will continue to monitor the way in which ‘marriage’ is used.”

Here is a link to the definition, which includes the meaning “(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex”. Now that seems pretty cut and dried to me. What is weird is that this definition is included in the Gay Star Times story, but never let that get in the way of a good headline. The story dismisses it by saying that campaigners object to this definition, calling it discriminatory, beause if it is law in any country it should be on the same ‘ranking’ as a heterosexual union.

I am happy to admit there may be minutiae of this debate that I don’t understand, but it seems to be that this is a pretty good position for campaigners. The most highly regarded dictionary in the world already has the definition included, and also acknowledges that it is a changing situation. But what it doesn’t do is in any way suggest that an alternative word is needed, as many daft people have continued to argue and Wordability has continually battled against.

It would seem only a matter of time before the OED definition evolves again, and with the gay marriage meaning already encapsulated, it appears that the correct linguistic conclusion will be reached for this particular story.

London’s New Way To Fly

Ambitious plans have been unveiled for tackling some of London’s most congested roads. But while I applaud the ambition, I am less sure about the new word which these proposals may unleash on an unsuspecting world.

A major part of the plan would see the six-lane flyover at Brent Cross covered over with a new pedestrianised area, with the road disappearing under the ground instead. Then new proposed highway has been dubbed a ‘Flyunder’.

I have often said on the cyber pages of Wordability that new words emerge when there is a linguistic gap which needs filling. But there are already some quite serviceable words to cover such a road. How about underpass. Or tunnel.

Flyunder may tick the box of making the proposal sound sexier and more 21st century, but it is what it is – a great big road under the ground. And we all know that underground, you can’t fly. Sadly, if it had been announced that there were plans to build a Burrowunder, it just wouldn’t have had the same ring.

The Truth About Husbands And Wives

As moves to legalise gay marriage rumble on, so the effect on the English Language continues to be a live issue. I have argued in the past that attempts to introduce a brand new word to describe such unions are misguided.

The latest developments in the UK had some of the right wing press in a foment of rage. Men can be wives and women can be husbands, they raged, as the minutiae of Government legislation began to be picked apart.

The issue comes in the fine print of new official guidance for MPs and clarifies what words will mean as the bill is debated in parliament. In some contexts, husband and wife will be allowed to be used interchangeably for those who are part of same-sex couples, so indeed men will be wives and women will be husbands. The vocabulary of “cloud cuckoo land”, the critics lambast.

It’s easy to see why this makes a good headline, and why on the surface, this might be a story to get exercised about. After all, redefining basic words like husband and wife is surely wrong. But behind every good headline there is of course the truth.

And the truth is that this is simply about the past, about how to understand the way that old legislation has been written. Where the words husband and wife have been used, in this context, it can refer to either partner in a same sex-marriage.

The guidance cites early health and safety legislation from 1963 which includes a range of exemptions for family businesses where the terms husbands and wives will mean people of either gender. It says: “This means that ‘husband’ here will include a man or a woman in a same sex marriage, as well as a man married to a woman.”

Is this language being redefined? No, it is instead a pragmatic approach to avoid rewriting reams and reams of old legislation, a sensible acknowledgement that for this old legalese, a wider interpretation is needed.

It is not a suggestion that future legislation will use husband and wife in anything other than a gender-specific way. In future, a man married to either a woman or a man will be a husband, and a wife married to someone of either sex will be referred to as a wife. No confusion there.

A spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage said: “We always knew the Government would tie itself in knots trying to redefine marriage, and this shows what a ridiculous mess they’ve created.”

No, this shows how critics will jump on anything to try and get a cheap headline.

Wordability

Primary Menu

Tag: definition