At 5:22 a.m. on June 10, the English language gained its one millionth word, according to the Global Language Monitor. Find out what that word is when you click here to read the article! Then comment on one or more of the questions below:
Do you think including words (or word phrases) like "Obamamania," "defriend," "wardrobe malfunction," and "zombie banks" are legitimate additions to English, or should we be pickier about what we include? Explain why or why not.
I like this article because it provides one more example of globalization, in this case, by one language. Is this a positive development in your opinion? Why or why not? If your answer is yes, would you feel the same if the dominant language was something besides English? Why or why not?
30 comments:
I think these words should be included. They're used everday, so why not add them? I mean since different words and phrases are starting to become more and more popular, they need to count as actual words. Theres no need to be picky, since even if the words aren't added, people are going to say them anyway.
Honestly, I disapprove of the adding of the words, but what else can we do? If they are apart of the human vocab and are said, then they have to have some type of a meaning, right? Are some of them meaningless and said by only one person? Probably, but they are still words and I guess that counting them is politicaly correct. I just think that maybe the adding of words has become more of a popularity bit than an actual concern of people. But it's the 21st century, what do you do?
I think that these words should also be added as well. In the past year millions have included words about Obama in their daily vocabulary and during the election (Obamamama, Obamamania, etc.)
To back track I think that some of these words are dumb, and not legitimate. I think that "zombie banks" is a illegitimate word for the dictionary. I think that the English language wanted to add words just to get to the 1 millionth word.
Overall, some of these words should be included on the grounds that they are said throughout the year and in the future, but some of these words will never be said again. I think that the English language needs to look closer and analyze words before they add them to the dictionary.
I believe that we should be pickier about what we consider to be a legitimate word. For example, Mr. Payack said the the Global Language Monitor used websites and other sources on the internet to determine if something is a word. I don't agree with this because I believe that for a word to be considered a legitimate word the word should frequently be used in conversation as well as literature. Some people are still going to use the words, but honestly how many people are acctualy going to use the word "Obamamania" on a regular basis?
You guys are making great points. I think I hear you saying that some words may be just passing fads and therefore, shouldn't be counted as permanent additions to the English language.
I would love to hear someone address the issue of whether or not it's positive that English seems to be "taking over" the world? Think about advantages and disadvantages before you attempt to answer question. Then put them side by side and determine which side is "heavier". This is a great technique for providing more than a superficial answer to these types of evaluative questions. We'll be doing this a lot in our discussions over the course of the coming school year.
I personally think the fact that English is "taking over the word" can be good or bad. On the bright side the fact that most people speak or are able to speak a common language is good. It makes it easier for people from different countries to communicate with each other. All though I like the idea of people speaking the same language I don't think it should be English.
I agree with Loguen. Some of these new words are used on a regular basis but most are just fads that no one is going to say ten years from now. Although that doesn't seem to matter when considering what makes it into the dictionary. I haven't heard someone use the word Obamamania sense before the election yet it will be a part of our language forever whether people use it or not. We really should have more standards about what is and isn't a word especially when our language is spreading throughout the world. What kind of impression does a nation who uses words like zombie banks, obamamania, and wardrobe malfunction send?
I just typed a whole thing and then accidentally erased it..but here it goes again. Ugh.
I think it is safe to say that a lot of the popular culture words and phrases are passing fads. However, what if they need to be put into the dictionary *because* they are passing fads? History students in the future could use our pop culture and slang words to further understand what living as an English-speaking American citizen in 2009 was like. We use these words now, at this moment, even if just for 2 weeks and then never again. But what if someone many decades down the road needs specific information about pop culture from a 2 week period in 2009? If slang words and passing fads were cut out, some documents, such as magazine articles, Facebook posts, and emails would be confusing, especially if there was no way to look certain words up because they aren't officially recorded anywhere. For example, having access to words that were used centuries ago and being able to look up their meaning helps us to understand the written and spoken language of that time period. This causes us to know more about literature, politics, arts, technology, and the overall characteristics of a time period. After all, language is what brings a civilization together.
Take this hypothetical situation:
A hundred years from now, a student at Berkeley Springs High School is researching her great great grandparents. She is looking back through old letters and emails that were sent between the couple, when she comes across the word "bootylicious." Puzzled by this term, she turns to her reference source and looks up the word. Now she understands: bootylicious means sexually attractive, especially in the buttocks. Thank goodness someone chose to write that one down.. otherwise, she never would have known and would not have had an adequate understanding of her great great grandparents' culture and language.
My point is, we shouldn't just think about how adding terms and phrases are going to affect us in our lifetime. We should think about future generations and preserve our culture so that students in the future can understand how we lived and what we said, even if seems stupid to us now.
I think we should be pickier about the words we are adding to the English dictionary. We need to look at the bigger picture and ask ourselves in ten years is this word still going to be popular and used in the same way? I think that by adding these words it makes our language look less sophisticated and unintelligent. If we add words like “zombie banks” or “Obamamania”, do we really believe that people will take our language seriously or know what they even mean? Once Obama isn’t president are people still going to use the words “Obama—”, I highly doubt it. It feels like by creating a computer system and all the technology to come up with the timeline of how many words the English language will have, it has become a game. Language is not a game; once a word is created it is there forever, not just until people stop saying it, so I think we need to take a step back and rethink the way we are adding words to our language before we gain anymore.
Although many of you made great points, I have to agree most strongly with Sarah: she put everything I wanted to say in perspective, short and sweet. Passing fads are just that, fads. And just because we teenagers like to make up words all the time and create a "fad" doesn't mean it's English language worthy. As helpful as it would be for people to be able to look back and see a fad of words in a two-week span, how many people would actually do something like that? Research a few specific weeks? In the span of a few hundred years, a few weeks isn't going to matter. Also, the use of fad words has much to do with regional dialect. For instance, in Maine, their word fads are most likely very different from those used in California. These fads are not accurate examples of English usage overall, and therefore are not influential enough to be added to the dictionary. Afterall web 2.0? What a great millionth word!
I think it's great that there are so many words in the English language. To some extent it shows how creative the human brain can be. Should they all be added to the dictionary? Probably not. The words in the article, for example, "Obamamania", are more of what I would consider "fad words". They are words that make sense in the present, and are commonly used now, but within the next four years will probably become obsolete. Therefore, my solution to this would to have two separate dictionaries. Your typically Merriam-Webster, and a "Fad Dictionary". The MW of coarse would hold the legitimate words that have been used for thousands of years and will continue to be used, whereas the FD would hold all your words such as "Obamamania", which would be publish every two years or so. =) The next problem would be who gets to decided what a legitimate word is.
I think some of these words should be included because there used every day and people are going to say them anyway even if there not included. Some words though, like Obamamania, shouldn’t be included because they are just fads and people will not be saying them 10 years from now. But I believe if words make sense, are used in peoples' everyday conversations, and are not fads, they should be included.
I think there are both pros and cons to the fact that the English language is taking over the world. I think having a common language would be great and easier to communicate with people from other countries. But there are so many other languages out there and I don’t think people should only have to learn English. Although I think it would be easier to communicate with one language, I don’t think it should just be the English language.
“Obamamania.” Will someone please define this ‘word?’ Who are we, Dr. Seuss? And 20 years from now when Obama is old news, who’s going to use the so-called word. We aren’t having a contest to see which language contains the most words; therefore adding a made-up word to our language is silly, especially when it’s not a word that is commonly used now, nor will it be in twenty years from now. Now take the phrase, “wardrobe malfunction.” I understand it’s meaning, hey, I even use the phrase. However, just because someone took two words, threw them together, and gave them a different connotation, doesn’t mean they need to be given their own spot in our language. “Wardrobe” is a word. “Malfunction” is a word. So what’s the necessity in making “wardrobe malfunction” it’s own separate word? In addition, English is one of the most difficult languages to learn, and if we’re hoping to “globalize” the language, why add new words that would make it more difficult to learn. Albeit, it isn’t making the language ten times more difficult, it is an unnecessary obstacle.
Now, is the globalization of English good or bad? I guess, in a way, it’s good. It spreads culture, and it allows more and more people to be able to communicate. Then again, should a kid in France have to learn English just to keep up in his own country? I don’t think English should dominate over all other languages, a powerhouse.
I agree that this is the 21st century and the people are tired of the same old english vocab. I get so mad when im around older people and i say a word like "ain't", for example. They get all bent out shape. "That's not a word", they say. But i beg to differ. It's in the dictionary ain't it. Haha! Just kidding. I wouldn't use it in a paper for school or nothing, but I will say it. I do disagree with adding words like Obamamania. i mean, what makes him so great from all the other presidents we've had. He's putting in programs for little convicts to work in big expensive country clubs and such. I went to get a job in Beaver Creek Country Club and they turned me down. They said they have a program for teens that get in trouble and I didn't qualify because I'm not bad enough. What's up with that. Who wants a kid that steels working in a high dollar country club. To rob them blind? Sorry way off topic, but thats pathetic. He definently doesn't deserve a word in the dictionary, in my opinion. But other than that, lighten up America and have some fun. Add the words this generation likes to use. PEACE
I don't know how to feel about the English taking over the world. I guess it's a good thing for the U.S. Once again, we come out on top! But if I spoke a different language i would feel different. I would be mad that I have to learn a different languge just to fit in with the world. Americans usually only have to know english. But mexicans and others have to learn english if there going to make it in America. If we travel somewhere that speaks a different languge, we really don't need to know anything else because english is taking over the world, like you said. It's a good thing for us.
Shouldn't we get people to use actual words that are already in the dictionary instead of making up words and adding them? Even though people say those words everyday they shouldn't be added. Those words are called slang and they are not part of the proper English language. If those words become part of the our language then shouldn't we teach them in schools? No, because those words are ridiculous and they don't even need to be added, they are just a fad.
Personally I like the fact that English is becoming more popular because it's the language I speak fluently. But I think that everyone should learn a language that is already extremely wide-spread so not as many people have to work so hard to talk to people in other countries.
Bonjour Mrs. Stotler! I think that words we use everyday (slang, basically) should be included in the books because it is part of our culture. Take for example someone reading a book based a different part of the country that the reader is not from, hence they would not be familiar with the slang and terms that are used there, but mean the same thing in their slang, just with a different word. Plus, it's fun to go through the dictionary and picking out words. Although, I don't think wardrobe malfunction should be included. That's just two words combined and basically mean the same thing apart. The wardrobe had a problem, do you really need to define that? Slang is an important part of our culture and most should be in the dictionary. I think I did that circle-talk thing again, I'm sorry.
~H. Baker
I believe that this system is ridiculous. Adding these words and phrases that make no sense and that have absolutely no definate meaning only make the English speaking people look as though they have no common sense. We should definately be pickier when deciding what to include because of this, and because most of these words will eventually stop being used. But I don't blame the people running the Global Language Monitor too much because if they were to start being pickier now, they'd have to go threw one million words to choose what should be included. And that would not be fun at all.
I definitely disagree with Charlotte. I don't think these words should be added to the dictionary. Supposedly they're used everyday, but who uses them? I can honestly say that I have never heard anyone say "Obamamania." There is a need to be picky, but only to a certain extent. Words are sort of like trends. They're awesome at first, but after a while they are forgotten.
I agree that adding words to the English dictionary just because they are used for a time is very pointless. I think that words that are supposed to be added to the dictionary should be decided later on after the big event or whatever that started them dies down. I mean does anybody remember the term "freakazoid"? That word was used in the eighties for a while but nowadays how often do you hear somebody say it? If it had been put into the dictionary it would have been pointless. People will always just keep coming up with made up words. If we kept putting everything that people come up with into the dictionary and calling it a word it would be impossible to learn our own language. Imagine if we tried to make the English language the only language, nobody would be able to understand it. I don’t think that the only language spoken should be English though because after a while people would completely forget their cultures language and that is a part of their history.
I do not believe some words like these need to be included in the dictionary, we need to find a balance with what qualifies as a word. If we have too many words it will just make our languages harder to learn but on the other hand we need to preserve the slang that we use because it is a part of our culture. For example, I don’t think “wardrobe malfunction” should count as its own word. Wardrobe is a word and Malfunction is describing it. When the words are separate people know what both words mean, so put them together and its not too hard to figure out. An example of an acceptable word is “Obamamania” because although it is already out of use, the past election was a milestone in American History and the word is an example of someone ridiculing the president which shows not all people were ready for a change like that. All of which is now part of history.
There are some good and bad points about the world globalization under one language. On one hand it will make communication easier between people of different cultures and it will make people learn more about each others backgrounds, which will make us more understanding about each other. But on the other hand, your native tongue is a huge part of your culture and if you lose that what is stopping all cultures from blending together until cultures are no longer unique. I really don’t have an opinion on whether it was my language or another that was the main language spoken. It would happen according to what the people as a whole decided and slowly it would start to take over whether I liked it or not.
It is not surprising news that English has become the common lingusitc denominator. English is becoming the globalizing language. As Americans- the language comes naturally to us. As American students we struggle to get through our minimum of two years of a foreign language in high school. It is ironic that foreign students are just as fluent in English as they are in their native language. English is the globalizing language.
"Globalization is not a phenomenon. It is not just some passing trend. Today it is an overarching international system shaping the domestic politics and foreign relations of virtually every country, and we need to understand it as such." - The Lexus and the Olive Tree, by Thomas Friedman
One must consider Thomas Friedman's (author of The Worlds is Flat) view on globalization. Globalization can be a positive thing. It brings the world together- it makes it flat. Having a universal language definitely has its benefits and is one step closer to becoming a more globalized world. Which to me means that countries will be able to understand and make agreements with eachother, cooperation will be more evident, etc. If that language weren't English I would still feel the same way, the benefits would still be there.
And in regards to whether or not we should be pickier about which words are included in the English language- I agree with Mary Schultz. I read the article you attached to the question. It seemed to me that the word count in the English language really isn't a big deal. Not even the Oxford Dictionary includes all the words in the language. Think about it- English contains the most words of all languages, the language experts said it themselves in the aritcle. So what does it matter whether we include trendy words? If they are being used at the time I feel they ought to be remembered. There is no point in forgetting or throwing out history. None at all.
I think it is a positive thing that our language is growing, however i don't think we should put certain words into our dictionary. On one hand, this growth is just another example of cultural evolution and these fads are an important part of our culture and should be documented. On the other hand, words like Obamamania are not a long term addition to our language and should maybe have a more separate slang category. Our language should be growing, it is only natural for that to happen.
Ni Hao, Mrs. Stotler! I believe words such as "Obamamania," "defriend," and "zombie banks" should not be added. For one these words are more slang than anything, and most of these new words have no meaning or stupid meaning. I think people make up words for the heck of it, just to confuse people. Personally stupid words or words with stupid meanings anger me, because its annoying trying to read things that are filled with these stupid words, and not knowing what they mean. That is my oppinion on this subject.
Toshiro
I disagree with adding new words to the English language. Especially words that are just trends and won't be used in ten years from now. I think there should be a higher standard for what qualifies as a word. If there is a ligitimate word that is used often by a variety of people and will continue to be used in the future, then I have no problem with adding it our language. But words like "Obamamania" that are only used for a breif time should not be added. I think it's great that the English language is spreading because it makes communication easier, and promotes cultural diffusion. I just feel that we should analyze words more closely before we add them to the English language.
I think that the idea of having a central language could be good in today's world of commerce and trade. However, if other cultures stop using their native languages, part of their culture will go with it. Culture is something that is very important to maintain, without it, things start to fall apart. Also, if there were to be a central language, I think that they should pick a language without so many rules and exceptions. A purely phonetic language with simple grammar would be nice.
Okay, some words are just completely ridiculous. As much as I LOVE LOVE LOVE Obama, "Obamamania" definitely doesn't deserve a spot in our English dictionary. Honestly, our nation doesn't even have a set language, does it? Even if English wasn't our dominant language, I'd still feel that this is a positive step. Many words though do not belong in the dictionary. Fads should have their own publication.
This is just me, but if I came over from another country and looked in our dictionary and saw words such as "obamamania", "zombie banks", and my favorite "jagaloon" I would be sooo lost.
We do need to be pickier about what we include, but here's the thing... Who would be that person to decide? Wouldn't it be unfair to pick just any one particular person or group. I definitely believe this is a nation wide thing. Americans should have enough sense about them to know what words are acceptable to be put into a dictionary and which ones shouldn't.
What are half these words? I've never in my life heard of any of these words. Just because it's the new hip thing to say, doesn't mean it will be in our vocab permantly. Half these words will, if not already, die out in the next few years. I could just put a bunch of letters together, spread it on the internet and make it a word.
New word.
Snugluckle- 1 act of snuggling or carressing without counterparts beforehand knowledge.
2 a word to replace any vulgar word or added in the middle of sentences in place of another word to cause uneasiness in the room
3 shouted at odd or unauthorized times
I don't believe that the so called "slang" words should be added to the dictionary. It's like adding ttyl and lol to the english language. Even though it is used by a majority of the new generation, it shouldn't be added.
If it is a ridiculous word then why make us think that we have to use it because it is an English word in our dictionary. If people want to say it then let them say it because why make us all have to learn it. It doesn't have to be in the dictionary to say the word. People can say it with every sentence, but what difference will it make if it is in the dictionary. People are going to say it anyway.
Mrs. Stotler
here is the blog that i posted a long time ago, i copied it and will put my name on it.
I think it is a positive thing that our language is growing, however i don't think we should put certain words into our dictionary. On one hand, this growth is just another example of cultural evolution and these fads are an important part of our culture and should be documented. On the other hand, words like Obamamania are not a long term addition to our language and should maybe have a more separate slang category. Our language should be growing, it is only natural for that to happen.
Post a Comment