Must. Remind. Self.. The OED is not an arbiter of, but a chronicler of, English language use.
Every year, the Powers-That-Be lean over the windowsills located high atop their Ivory Towers and cock an ear towards the milling crowds below. When they hear a word they do not recognize being shouted often enough, they dip their quills into wells of octopus ink and inscribe that word on gold-rimmed parchment.
Okay, not really. Actually, it’s only been since 2004 that Oxford has selected a word of the year at all. Judy Pearsall, editorial director at Oxford, explains that a language usage program “collects around 150m words of current English in use each month.” The word in 2013 that has become the most frequent was “selfie.” According to The Guardian,
The word can be traced back to a post on an Australian online forum in 2002: “Um, drunk at a mates 21st, I tripped ofer [sic] and landed lip first (with front teeth coming a very close second) on a set of steps. I had a hole about 1cm long right through my bottom lip. And sorry about the focus, it was a selfie.”
So now we can blame Australia for both Crocodile Dundee and the word “selfie”! (Just kidding, mates!)
It is pretty incredible when you see the rise in usage in chart form:
Curious what other words made the shortlist? They are:
binge-watch (“I just binge-watched the entire first season of Orange is the New Black in a single day!”)
bitcoin (“You can try to explain how bitcoin works to me a million times and I will never understand it.”)
bedroom tax (A lot less sexy than it sounds.)
Seriously.. This is an olinguito
schmeat (“Dale! Can you make me another schmeat sammich?”)
You don’t want to know. You clicked it, didn’t you??
showrooming (Best Buy employee: Can I help you? / Literally Everyone: No, thank you….just showrooming.”)
twerk (“Ma! Call the vet! Either the dog’s sick or he’s been watchin’ Miley videos again!”)
Yes, all worthy contenders. But none outshone our navel-gazing, this time, quite literally. As for myself, this is how I take selfies:
*stares at the one selfie till it turns ugly*
Don’t know what FOMO stands for? Yeah, me either. (Psst… old folks! It means, “Fear of Missing Out.”) Good thing it is one of the sixty-five new entries in the venerable Oxford English Dictionary. As you will see, many of them are from the virtual world. Among my favorites, which originated on Reddit, is TL;DR (Too long; did not read.) Some of this year’s entries have met with howls of outrage among the literati, but we would all do well to remember the wise counsel of Jorge Luis Borges who said that “language is not, as we are led to suppose by the dictionary, the invention of academicians or philologists. Rather, it has been evolved through time…by peasants, by fishermen, by hunters, by riders.” Say that over and over to yourself when you understand that ”twerk” is now an officially recognized word:
[no object] informal
Here are a few of those new entries. Do you know your emoji from your omnishambles? WELL, DO YOU?
I was in graduate school in 2005. During the Spring semester, I was enrolled in two courses which I adored and looked forward to daily. One was “The History of Science” with Dr. Pamela Gossin and the other was “Women in Science and Science Fiction” with Dr. Edrie Sobstyl.
I also had an eight-year-old daughter and a five-year-old son. I was a teaching assistant at my university as well. I thought it would kill me.
I’ve always had an interest in science and love to learn about process and theory, but sadly, I’ve never had the math brain to pursue “real” science. But I knew plenty of brilliant women who did. I knew what would be required of them, far more than would be asked of someone in humanities pursuing a doctoral degree. Many of these young women also wanted to have children. They wondered and worried about how they could pursue the intellectual life they loved and the emotional life they also desired. There was no good answer.
But we all realized how the system was “stacked” for men. So in the winter of 2005, when Harvard President Lawrence Summers made dismissive remarks about women’s intellectual abilities, many of us balked at how unfair such comparisons were, The reasons women were not reaching the upper echelons of research and academia had almost nothing to do with ability. Instead, what mostly held (and holds) women back is a system designed around the lives and needs of men. A recent article on this topic in the Atlantic by Nicholas H. Wolfinger clearly articulates those reasons. Wolfinger writes:
“[L]ess than one half of tenured female faculty all disciplines are married with children. Consequently, aspiring female scholars don’t have a lot of role models, especially those who’ve managed to combine marriage and children with a successful career in academic science…Married female scientists are almost always in dual-career marriages, while only around half of male faculty have wives who work full-time. One spouse must defer, and that spouse is likely to be wife (unfortunately we have no data on same-sex unions, or non-marital live-in relationships). And unlike in most other professions, taking an academic job typically requires relocation to another state. The baby penalty is even easier to understand. Many women are loath to face the demanding “publish or perish” assistant professor years while caring for young children; cognizant of this challenge, some academic search committees are reluctant to hire women perceived to be on the mommy track rather than the tenure track. These problems persist because the rigid academic career structure really doesn’t offer women any good time to have children.