In TOK class the other day we were discussing what makes a word a "word?" Who created language and what makes one word valid but another form of the word not valid? An example of this would be when a baby is learning how to talk and they can not pronounce words like "mama" or "dadda" properly so they make up their own words. What makes their words "wrong" and the words mama and dadda "right?" It's hard to determine what makes a word valid when we do not even know the origin of language and how it was invented. Many words in the English language originate from Latin, but then the question comes up: who invented the Latin language?

Now there's the question about slang terms. These days some slang terms are actually being added into the dictionary. What criteria do these slang terms have to pass to make it into the dictionary? Now even the word "bootylicious" is in the dictionary! Who is putting these words in there? This makes me wonder, how valid really is the dictionary?

School Trinity HS

Ever heard of the famous dictionary definition for 'dord'? Go look it up. It will help answer your question.

It's scary to think that almost any group of letters can be put into a dictionary and that this can lead to our vocab being infiltrated by a word that actually doesn't exist. How do we know the creators of the dictionary don't add words from the top of their heads, knowing that most people wouldn't question their existence? That's a slightly scary idea. (And, I guess, I little far-fetched.) Is our language based off make-believe? But, I guess, that's how the whole 'language process' started--creating letters, forming groups with those letters, and providing objects or meanings to those groups.

Yet, the idea of creating words NOW almost seems unfathomable...unrealistic. I mean, if someone came up to you tomorrow and told you they worked at Webster's and said that they were going to add a word to the dictionary, how would you feel? I mean, besides the fact that you would probably think them to be crazy, sarcastic, or just joking around. Say you actually believed them. Before I started TOK, I would have most likely been thinking, "How false! How does anyone have a right to add words to a language that has already been created and that has boundaries? Our language is what it is, and there's no possible and meaningful way to add or change it."

But, this doesn't seem right either! As Laura asked, what makes our words and language structures correct while others aren't? When languages were first created, there really wasn't a basis for any of the words formed. (Except, possibly, for words describing sounds; ie. The bee passing by my ear makes some type of noise like 'buzz', and therefore, that is what this noise shall be called, 'buzz' --*this is just my interpretation of course*). What we now call a tree could have easily been called a car and the prefix ex- could have easily have been created to mean its counterpart im- (import/export). It's rather impossible to find out exactly where language originated, and yet we accept it for what it is.

...which still brings us to the fact that we most likely aren't happy with the guy adding a word to the dictionary. Why would this cause so much controversy? How do we know this word really isn't meant for its meaning? Why can't it be allowed into our language just like so many words before it? Why can't we accept something if we've already accepted so many other word forms?

We just can't I suppose. Unless, that is, if we use it everyday, spread it around to everyone we know, and cause everyone to use it. Then maybe it would be added to the dictionary...just like Laura said with 'bootylicious'. This just leads me to another question. If our society can have this much power over language, how many 'new' words are we going to have in the future, and is our language going to ever stop growing?

So perhaps the dictionary is going to continue to grow and perhaps the word 'dord' WILL end up becoming a 'real' word. There are just too many possibilities for words and too many possibilities for mistakes in the dictionary that may lead us to believing in the existence of words that actually don't exist and other dictionaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicographic_error

This is a good reference to errors like the one with 'dord'. I'm sure with more research one could find out more about the errors, but this is a good start. Even a simple spelling error can lead us into a whole new breed of words. From the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary, we have the new terms hink, hinking, and hinked. This must lead to someone who can hink, or a hinker, right?

I think these mistakes show how much we rely on others and on materials. We think we know our language so well, and yet the word 'dord' went on undetected for years, even from the editors of the dictionary! And in the meantime, there may have been many people who believed in the actual existence of the word!

Slang terms. Just as art, literature, fasion, education, and other subjects change and reflect society, I guess so does language. I suppose we will just have to accomodate our present society's 'language' into our vocabulary, because it seems as if it is practically unavoidable. If it goes in the dictionary, then it's highly probable that it's going to become even more well spoken than it is now, and that its existence as an actual word will cease to be questioned.

School Trinity HS

If anything leads to the idea that our English language is being "dumbed down," it is the admission of slang words like "ain't" and "bootylicious" into our dictionary. For me, the dictionary has always been an erudite, scholarly source that I looked at when writing assignments for school. If these new words are being accepted into the dictionary, does that mean they are acceptable to use in papers and speeches? The dictionary is losing its "prestige" as a valuable source of information because now, the reader must determine whether or not a word is appropriate to use.

On the other hand, you cannot put all the blame on the dictionary because the dictionary is just trying to reflect the culture at hand. If people are using such words, it only makes sense that they be included in the dictionary which is the KING of books about words.

The fact is, no matter how much one wants to deny it, the English language is extremely divided. The slang language is not the same as the formal language and therefore they can not be used in the same situations. As time seems to pass, and more words are created, the division becomes all that much stronger. This brings about the question of whether we are advancing ourselves by creating these new words, or are we making ourselves look less intelligent? Also, who is to say that as this division swells, a fully complete break will not come and leave two utterly different languages?

Also, this is a little bit off topic but it is a question I brought up today with one of my classmates, so I thought I might pose it to other TOK students. When looking in a dictionary, how often is a word defined using another form of the word if not the SAME EXACT WORD!! First of all this annoys me, but that is not really relevant. More importantly, it seems ridiculous and unreasonable. If you are looking for the meaning of a word, and the word is defined with the same word you were looking up in the first place, it seems that you would just go in circles. Does this prove a limitation of language? Is the same word being used because there is no other word that can be used in its place?

What does everyone else think?

p.s.

I thought I would share with everyone [even though this really is not of major importance -- so please don't jump down my throat] that I won a game of Trivial Pursuit Pop Culture Edition by answering a question with the word BOOTYLICIOUS! Yes, BOOTYLICIOUS was the answer. Trivial Pursuit is a pretty scholarly game, and requires knowledge in a lot of genres. If words like bootylicious are sneaking into our dictionary and sneaking into our games, what next? Will people be using the word bootylicious on a daily basis?

Again, this is a very random post on a personal experience, take it for what it is.

Dictionaries follow one of two modus operandi. The first philosophy, prescriptionism, holds that they include the words people ought to use. The second philosophy, descriptionism, holds that dictionaries should describe the words people actually do use. Some dictionaries are descriptionist, and thus would include bootylicious if enough people spoke it. Obviously, others are not. I believe many are a mixture of both; where should the line be drawn?

School PV

No line should be drawn, for the english language did not reach its size through inflexibility. We constantly make up words to describe things, and that is how our language grows. Just look at the difference between old, middle, and modern english. Without additions being constantly made, our cultural language history will be lost, and without subractions of entries, the past of our language will be preserved. We would never grow up, culturally speaking, if we didn't have new words, and we would never grow old and venerable as a culture if we don't record our past.

People may have different opinions on the meaning of words. The opinion of a child may differ from the opinion of an adult. However, if everyone decided to come up with their own version of a "dictionary", it would be extremely difficult to communicate. Therefore, it is important that there is a formal dictionary which everyone approves of as otherwise, it could lead to lack of communication and misunderstanding. Even though it may not be right, it would atleast provide people with certain guidelines. Secondly, if one begins to question a language ( because the origin is unknown), it will make it very difficult to survive in everyday life. If one begins to question everything, it would not be realistic. Other than that, there is no solution to this problem as it is highly unlikely that someone will actually come up with a suitable solution if a language is considered invalid.

School isk