I need to start by telling you a little bit about my social life, which I know may not seem relevant, but it is.
Treba da počnem tako što ću vam reći nešto o svom društvenom životu, što se, znam, ne čini relevantnim, ali jeste.
When people meet me at parties and they find out that I'm an English professor who specializes in language, they generally have one of two reactions. One set of people look frightened. (Laughter) They often say something like, "Oh, I'd better be careful what I say. I'm sure you'll hear every mistake I make." And then they stop talking. (Laughter) And they wait for me to go away and talk to someone else. The other set of people, their eyes light up, and they say, "You are just the person I want to talk to." And then they tell me about whatever it is they think is going wrong with the English language. (Laughter)
Kada me ljudi upoznaju na žurkama i saznaju da sam profesor engleskog jezika koji se specijalizuje u jezicima, uglavnom imaju jednu od dve reakcije. Jedan deo ljudi izgleda prepadnuto. (Smeh) Često kažu nešto kao: „Oh, bolje da pazim šta ću da kažem. Siguran sam da ćeš čuti svaku grešku koju napravim”, a onda prestanu da pričaju. (Smeh) Čekaju da odem da pričam sa nekim drugim. Druga grupa ljudi - njihove oči zasvetle i kažu: „Vi ste upravo ona osoba sa kojom želim da razgovaram”, a onda mi kažu šta god misle da je pogrešno u engleskom jeziku. (Smeh)
A couple of weeks ago, I was at a dinner party and the man to my right started telling me about all the ways that the Internet is degrading the English language. He brought up Facebook, and he said, "To defriend? I mean, is that even a real word?"
Pre nekoliko nedelja, bila sam na jednoj večeri i čovek sa moje desne strane počeo je da mi priča o svim načinima na koje internet degradira engleski jezik. Spomenuo je Fejsbuk i rekao: „Defrendovati? Mislim, da li je to uopšte prava reč?”
I want to pause on that question: What makes a word real? My dinner companion and I both know what the verb "defriend" means, so when does a new word like "defriend" become real? Who has the authority to make those kinds of official decisions about words, anyway? Those are the questions I want to talk about today.
Želim da zastanem kod tog pitanja. Šta čini neku reč stvarnom? Moje društvo za večerom i ja znamo šta glagol „defrendovati” znači, ali kada nova reč kao „defrendovati” postaje stvarna? Ko uopšte ima ovlašćenje da donese takvu zvaničnu odluku o rečima? To su pitanja o kojima želim danas da pričam.
I think most people, when they say a word isn't real, what they mean is, it doesn't appear in a standard dictionary. That, of course, raises a host of other questions, including, who writes dictionaries?
Mislim da većina ljudi, kada kažu da reč nije stvarna, zapravo misli na to da se ne pojavljuje u standardnom rečniku. To, naravno, otvara brojna pitanja,
Before I go any further, let me clarify my role in all of this. I do not write dictionaries. I do, however, collect new words much the way dictionary editors do, and the great thing about being a historian of the English language is that I get to call this "research." When I teach the history of the English language, I require that students teach me two new slang words before I will begin class. Over the years, I have learned some great new slang this way, including "hangry," which -- (Applause) — which is when you are cranky or angry because you are hungry, and "adorkable," which is when you are adorable in kind of a dorky way, clearly, terrific words that fill important gaps in the English language. (Laughter) But how real are they if we use them primarily as slang and they don't yet appear in a dictionary?
uključujući i pitanje ko piše rečnike. Pre nego što odem dalje, dozvolite mi da razjasnim svoju ulogu u svemu ovome. Ja ne pišem rečnike. Ipak, ja sakupljam nove reči, slično načinu na koji to rade uređivači rečnika, a odlična stvar u poslu istoričara engleskog jezika je u tome što ovo mogu da nazovem „istraživanjem”. Kada predajem istoriju engleskog jezika, tražim od studenata da me nauče 2 nove reči iz slenga pre početka časa. Tokom godina, naučila sam odlične nove reči iz slenga na ovaj način, uključujući „gladnomrzljiv” što znači da ste mrzovoljni ili besni zato što ste gladni, ili „smotoljiv” što znači da ste neodoljivi na pomalo smotan način. Jasno, izvanredne reči koje će popuniti važne praznine u engleskom jeziku. (Smeh) Ipak, koliko su te reči stvarne ako ih prevashodno koristimo kao sleng a još uvek se ne pojavljuju u rečniku?
With that, let's turn to dictionaries. I'm going to do this as a show of hands: How many of you still regularly refer to a dictionary, either print or online? Okay, so that looks like most of you. Now, a second question. Again, a show of hands: How many of you have ever looked to see who edited the dictionary you are using? Okay, many fewer. At some level, we know that there are human hands behind dictionaries, but we're really not sure who those hands belong to. I'm actually fascinated by this. Even the most critical people out there tend not to be very critical about dictionaries, not distinguishing among them and not asking a whole lot of questions about who edited them. Just think about the phrase "Look it up in the dictionary," which suggests that all dictionaries are exactly the same. Consider the library here on campus, where you go into the reading room, and there is a large, unabridged dictionary up on a pedestal in this place of honor and respect lying open so we can go stand before it to get answers.
Kada smo kod toga, hajde da se okrenemo rečnicima. Uradiću ovo kao podizanje ruku. Koliko vas redovno konsultuje rečnike u štampanom ili elektronskom obliku? Okej, to izgleda kao većina vas. Sada drugo pitanje. Opet, podizanje ruku: Koliko vas je ikada pogledalo da vidi ko je uređivao rečnik koji koristite? Okej, prilično manji broj. Donekle znamo da ljudske ruke stoje iza rečnika, ali nismo baš sigurni čije su to ruke. Ovo me u stvari fascinira. Čak i najkritičniji ljudi skloni su da ne budu mnogo kritični u vezi rečnika, ne praveći razliku između njih i ne postavljajući gomilu pitanja o tome ko ih je uredio. Samo razmislite o frazi „potraži u rečniku”, koja sugeriše da su svi rečnici potpuno isti. Razmislite o biblioteci u ovom studentskom gradu, gde odlazite u čitaonicu i gde se nalazi ogromno, kompletno izdanje rečnika na pijedestalu, na počasnom i poštovanom mestu, koji je izložen otvoren kako bismo mogli stati ispred njega da bismo dobili odgovore.
Now, don't get me wrong, dictionaries are fantastic resources, but they are human and they are not timeless. I'm struck as a teacher that we tell students to critically question every text they read, every website they visit, except dictionaries, which we tend to treat as un-authored, as if they came from nowhere to give us answers about what words really mean. Here's the thing: If you ask dictionary editors, what they'll tell you is they're just trying to keep up with us as we change the language. They're watching what we say and what we write and trying to figure out what's going to stick and what's not going to stick. They have to gamble, because they want to appear cutting edge and catch the words that are going to make it, such as LOL, but they don't want to appear faddish and include the words that aren't going to make it, and I think a word that they're watching right now is YOLO, you only live once.
Nemojte me shvatiti pogrešno. Rečnici su fantastični izvori, ali su proizvod ljudi i nisu vanvremenski. Iznenađena sam kao profesorka da govorimo studentima da kritički pristupaju svakom tekstu koji pročitaju, svakom sajtu koji posete, osim rečnicima, koje obično tretiramo kao da su bez autora, kao da su došli niotkuda da nam daju odgovore o tome šta reči stvarno znače. Evo o čemu se radi: ako pitate uređivače rečnika, oni će vam reći da samo pokušavaju da održe korak s nama dok menjamo jezik. Prate šta pričamo i pišemo i pokušavaju da otkriju šta će se zadržati, a šta neće. Moraju da rizikuju zato što žele da ostave utisak savremenosti i obuhvate reči koje će opstati, kao što je „LOL”, ali ne žele da deluju pomodarski i obuhvate reči koje neće opstati, a mislim da je trenutno reč koju posmatraju „YOLO” -
Now I get to hang out with dictionary editors, and you might be surprised by one of the places where we hang out. Every January, we go to the American Dialect Society annual meeting, where among other things, we vote on the word of the year. There are about 200 or 300 people who come, some of the best known linguists in the United States. To give you a sense of the flavor of the meeting, it occurs right before happy hour. Anyone who comes can vote. The most important rule is that you can vote with only one hand. In the past, some of the winners have been "tweet" in 2009 and "hashtag" in 2012. "Chad" was the word of the year in the year 2000, because who knew what a chad was before 2000, and "WMD" in 2002.
samo jednom se živi. Družim se sa uređivačima rečnika i možda ćete biti iznenađeni jednim od mesta gde se srećemo. Svakoga januara, odlazimo na godišnji sastanak Društva američkog dijalekta, gde, između ostalog, glasamo za reč godine. Tamo bude oko 200 ili 300 ljudi koji dođu, neki su od najpoznatijih lingvista u Sjedinjenim Državama. Da vam približim atmosferu sastanka - dešava se tačno pred sniženje cena pića. Svako ko dođe može da glasa. Najvažnije pravilo je da možete da glasate samo jednom rukom. U prošlosti, neki od pobednika bili su „tvit” 2009. godine i „hašteg” 2012. godine. „Čed” bila je reč za 2000. godinu, jer ko je pre 2000. znao šta je to,
Now, we have other categories in which we vote too, and my favorite category is most creative word of the year. Past winners in this category have included "recombobulation area," which is at the Milwaukee Airport after security, where you can recombobulate. (Laughter) You can put your belt back on, put your computer back in your bag. And then my all-time favorite word at this vote, which is "multi-slacking." (Laughter) And multi-slacking is the act of having multiple windows up on your screen so it looks like you're working when you're actually goofing around on the web. (Laughter) (Applause)
i „WMD” za 2002. godinu. Postoje i druge kategorije za koje takođe glasamo, a moja omiljena je najkreativnija reč godine. Raniji pobednici u ovoj kategoriji su „područje rekombobulacije” koje se nalazi na aerodromu u Milvokiju posle sigurnosne provere, gde možete da se rekombobulationišete. (Smeh) Možete da opet stavite svoj kaiš, vratite kompjuter u torbu. Zatim, moja omiljena reč sa ovog glasanja za sva vremena - multi-zabušavanje. (Smeh) A multi-zabušavanje je kada imate otvorene prozore na ekranu pa izgleda kao da radite, dok se zapravo zezate na internetu. (Smeh) (Aplauz)
Will all of these words stick? Absolutely not. And we have made some questionable choices, for example in 2006 when the word of the year was "Plutoed," to mean demoted. (Laughter) But some of the past winners now seem completely unremarkable, such as "app" and "e" as a prefix, and "google" as a verb.
Da li će se sve ove reči zadržati? Sigurno neće. Napravili smo i neke sumnjive izbore, na primer, 2006. godine, kada je reč godine bila „plutonisan” sa značenjem „degradiran”. (Smeh) Ipak, neki od prethodnih pobednika sada se čine sasvim uobičajenim, kao što su „ap” „e” kao prefiks i „guglati” kao glagol.
Now, a few weeks before our vote, Lake Superior State University issues its list of banished words for the year. What is striking about this is that there's actually often quite a lot of overlap between their list and the list that we are considering for words of the year, and this is because we're noticing the same thing. We're noticing words that are coming into prominence. It's really a question of attitude. Are you bothered by language fads and language change, or do you find it fun, interesting, something worthy of study as part of a living language?
Nekoliko nedelja pre našeg glasanja, Državni univerzitet Lejk Superior objavljuje listu zabranjenih reči za tu godinu. Interesantno je da postoji prilično veliko preklapanje između njihove liste i one koju razmatramo za reči godine, a ovo se dešava zbog toga što primećujemo iste stvari. Primećujemo reči koje počinju da se ističu. To je u stvari pitanje stava - da li vam smetaju jezičke novine i promena jezika ili nalazite da je to zabavno, interesantno, nešto što je vredno proučavanja kao deo živog jezika.
The list by Lake Superior State University continues a fairly long tradition in English of complaints about new words. So here is Dean Henry Alford in 1875, who was very concerned that "desirability" is really a terrible word. In 1760, Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to David Hume giving up the word "colonize" as bad.
Lista Državnog univerziteta Lejk Superior nastavlja u engleskom jeziku prilično dugu tradiciju nezadovoljstva novim rečima. Evo Dina Henrija Alforda 1875. godine koji je bio veoma zabrinut da je „poželjnost” zaista grozna reč. Godine 1760, Bendžamin Frenklin napisao je pismo Dejvidu Hjumu priznajući da je reč „kolonizovati” loša.
Over the years, we've also seen worries about new pronunciations. Here is Samuel Rogers in 1855 who is concerned about some fashionable pronunciations that he finds offensive, and he says "as if contemplate were not bad enough, balcony makes me sick." (Laughter) The word is borrowed in from Italian and it was pronounced bal-COE-nee.
Tokom godina, videli smo i zabrinutost zbog novih izgovora. Evo Semjuela Rodžersa 1855. godine koji je zabrinut zbog nekih pomodnih izgovora koje smatra uvredljivim i kaže: „kao da reč 'kontemplirati' nije dovoljno loša, od reči „balkon” mi je muka”. (Smeh) Reč je pozajmljena iz italijanskog i izgovarala se kao bal-KOU-ni.
These complaints now strike us as quaint, if not downright adorkable -- (Laughter) -- but here's the thing: we still get quite worked up about language change. I have an entire file in my office of newspaper articles which express concern about illegitimate words that should not have been included in the dictionary, including "LOL" when it got into the Oxford English Dictionary and "defriend" when it got into the Oxford American Dictionary. I also have articles expressing concern about "invite" as a noun, "impact" as a verb, because only teeth can be impacted, and "incentivize" is described as "boorish, bureaucratic misspeak."
Ove žalbe nam se sad čine čudne, ako ne i stvarno „smotoljive" - (Smeh) - ali znate šta: i dalje se prilično uzbuđujemo oko promene jezika. Imam celu fasciklu u svojoj kancelariji sa novinskim člancima koji izražavaju zabrinutost oko nelegitimnih reči koje ne treba da su uključene u rečnik, u šta spada i „LOL” kada je ušla u Oksfordski engleski rečnik i „defrendovati” kada je ušla u Oksfordski američki rečnik. Imam i članke koji izražavaju zabrinutost zbog reči „pozivnica” kao imenice, „uticati” kao glagola, zato što samo zubi mogu biti impaktirani, a „podsticanje” se opisuje kao „dosadno, birokratsko nepropisno izražavanje”.
Now, it's not that dictionary editors ignore these kinds of attitudes about language. They try to provide us some guidance about words that are considered slang or informal or offensive, often through usage labels, but they're in something of a bind, because they're trying to describe what we do, and they know that we often go to dictionaries to get information about how we should use a word well or appropriately. In response, the American Heritage Dictionaries include usage notes. Usage notes tend to occur with words that are troublesome in one way, and one of the ways that they can be troublesome is that they're changing meaning. Now usage notes involve very human decisions, and I think, as dictionary users, we're often not as aware of those human decisions as we should be. To show you what I mean, we'll look at an example, but before we do, I want to explain what the dictionary editors are trying to deal with in this usage note.
Nije baš slučaj da uređivači rečnika ignorišu ovakve stavove o jeziku. Pokušavaju da nam obezbede informacije o rečima koje se smatraju slengom, ili neformalnima, ili uvredljivima, često kroz oznake korišćenja, ali one su često nejasne zato što pokušavaju da opišu šta radimo i znaju da se često okrećemo rečnicima da bismo dobili informacije o tome kako da koristimo reč pravilno ili prikladno. Kao odgovor na to, rečnici „Američkog nasledstva” uključuju oznake korišćenja. Oznake korišćenja obično se javljaju sa rečima koje su problematične u nekom smislu, a jedan od načina na koji mogu biti problematične je da menjaju značenje. Oznake korišćenja uključuju ljudske odluke, a mislim da ih, kao korisnici rečnika, često nismo svesni kao što bi trebalo. Da bih vam pokazala šta mislim, pogledaćemo jedan primer, ali pre nego što to uradimo, želim da vam objasnim čime uređivači rečnika
Think about the word "peruse" and how you use that word. I would guess many of you are thinking of skim, scan, reading quickly. Some of you may even have some walking involved, because you're perusing grocery store shelves, or something like that. You might be surprised to learn that if you look in most standard dictionaries, the first definition will be to read carefully, or pore over. American Heritage has that as the first definition. They then have, as the second definition, skim, and next to that, they say "usage problem." (Laughter) And then they include a usage note, which is worth looking at.
pokušavaju da se bave u ovoj uređivačkoj oznaci. Razmislite o reči „pregledati” i kako je koristite. Pretpostavljam da mnogi od vas razmišljaju o brzom bacanju pogleda, skeniranju, brzom čitanju. Neki od vas će u to uključiti čak i hodanje, zato što pregledavate police radnje ili nešto slično tome. Možda vas iznenadi saznanje da, ako pogledate većinu standardnih rečnika, prva definicija je „pažljivo čitati” ili „pažljivo prostudirati”. „Američko nasledstvo” ima to kao prvu definiciju. Zatim imaju, kao drugu definiciju, „letimice pogledati”, a pored toga kažu „problem sa upotrebom”. (Smeh) Zatim uključuju belešku za upotrebu
So here's the usage note: "Peruse has long meant 'to read thoroughly'... But the word is often used more loosely, to mean simply 'to read.'... Further extension of the word to mean 'to glance over, skim,' has traditionally been considered an error, but our ballot results suggest that it is becoming somewhat more acceptable. When asked about the sentence, 'I only had a moment to peruse the manual quickly,' 66 percent of the [Usage] Panel found it unacceptable in 1988, 58 percent in 1999, and 48 percent in 2011."
koju vredi pogledati. Dakle, evo je: „Pregledati je dugo značilo temeljno čitati... ali reč se češće slobodnije koristi da označava jednostavno čitati... Dalje proširenje reči u značenju 'letimično, brzo pogledati' tradicionalno se smatra greškom, ali rezultati našeg glasanja ukazuju da to postaje donekle prihvatljivije. Kada su ih upitali u vezi sa rečenicom: 'Imao sam samo trenutak da brzo pregledam priručnik', 66 procenata Komisije za upotrebu smatralo je da je neprihvatljiva 1988. godine, 58 procenata 1999. godine, a 48 procenata 2011. godine."
Ah, the Usage Panel, that trusted body of language authorities who is getting more lenient about this. Now, what I hope you're thinking right now is, "Wait, who's on the Usage Panel? And what should I do with their pronouncements?" If you look in the front matter of American Heritage Dictionaries, you can actually find the names of the people on the Usage Panel. But who looks at the front matter of dictionaries? There are about 200 people on the Usage Panel. They include academicians, journalists, creative writers. There's a Supreme Court justice on it and a few linguists. As of 2005, the list includes me. (Applause)
Ah, Komisija za upotrebu, to telo od poverenja sačinjeno od jezičkih stručnjaka, koje postaje blaže po ovom pitanju. Nadam se da trenutno mislite: „Čekaj, ko je u Komisiji za upotrebu i šta da radim sa njihovim izjavama?” Ako pogledate početni deo rečnika „Američkog nasleđa”, zapravo možete naći imena ljudi koji se nalaze u toj Komisiji. Ali, ko još gleda u početni deo rečnika? Ima negde oko 200 ljudi u Komisiji za upotrebu. Uključuju akademike, novinare, kreativne pisce. Ima tu i ljudi iz Vrhovnog suda i nekoliko lingvista. Počevši od 2005. godine, lista uključuje i mene. (Aplauz)
Here's what we can do for you. We can give you a sense of the range of opinions about contested usage. That is and should be the extent of our authority. We are not a language academy. About once a year, I get a ballot that asks me about whether new uses, new pronunciations, new meanings, are acceptable.
Evo šta možemo da uradimo za vas. Možemo vam predstaviti spektar mišljenja o spornom korišćenju. To jesu i trebalo bi da budu naša ovlašćenja. Nismo akademija jezika. Jednom godišnje, dobijem glasački listić koji mi postavlja pitanje da li su nove upotrebe, novi izgovori, nova značenja prihvatljivi.
Now here's what I do to fill out the ballot. I listen to what other people are saying and writing. I do not listen to my own likes and dislikes about the English language. I will be honest with you: I do not like the word "impactful," but that is neither here nor there in terms of whether "impactful" is becoming common usage and becoming more acceptable in written prose. So to be responsible, what I do is go look at usage, which often involves going to look at online databases such as Google Books. Well, if you look for "impactful" in Google Books, here is what you find. Well, it sure looks like "impactful" is proving useful for a certain number of writers, and has become more and more useful over the last 20 years.
Evo šta radim da bih popunila listić - slušam šta drugi ljudi pričaju i pišu. Ne slušam sopstvene preferencije i nenaklonosti o engleskom jeziku. Biću iskrena sa vama: ne sviđa mi se reč „uticajan”, ali to ništa ne znači u smislu da li upotreba reči „uticajan” postaje uobičajena ili prihvatljivija u pisanoj prozi. Da budem odgovorna, ono što radim je pregledavanje upotrebe, što često uključuje pregled onlajn baza podataka kao što su Gugl knjige. Ako potražite „uticajan” na Gugl knjigama, evo šta ćete naći. Sigurno je da se reč „uticajan” pokazala korisnom za određene pisce a postala je sve korisnija tokom poslednjih 20 godina.
Now, there are going to be changes that all of us don't like in the language. There are going to be changes where you think, "Really? Does the language have to change that way?" What I'm saying is, we should be less quick to decide that that change is terrible, we should be less quick to impose our likes and dislikes about words on other people, and we should be entirely reluctant to think that the English language is in trouble. It's not. It is rich and vibrant and filled with the creativity of the speakers who speak it. In retrospect, we think it's fascinating that the word "nice" used to mean silly, and that the word "decimate" used to mean to kill one in every 10. (Laughter) We think that Ben Franklin was being silly to worry about "notice" as a verb. Well, you know what? We're going to look pretty silly in a hundred years for worrying about "impact" as a verb and "invite" as a noun. The language is not going to change so fast that we can't keep up. Language just doesn't work that way. I hope that what you can do is find language change not worrisome but fun and fascinating, just the way dictionary editors do. I hope you can enjoy being part of the creativity that is continually remaking our language and keeping it robust.
E, sad, biće promena u jeziku koje se neće sviđati svima. Biće takvih promena da ćete pomisliti: „Stvarno? Da li jezik mora tako da se promeni?” Ono što govorim je da bi trebalo manje da žurimo sa zaključkom da je ta promena grozna, treba da manje žurimo da drugima nametnemo ono što nam se sviđa ili ne sviđa kod reči i da ne bi trebalo da olako zaključujemo da je engleski jezik u nevolji. Nije. Bogat je, živ i prepun kreativnosti onih koji njime govore. Gledano unazad, mislimo da je fascinantno da je reč „fino” nekada označavala „budalasto”, a da je reč „desetkovati” označavala ubiti jednog na svakih deset. (Smeh) Mislimo da je Ben Frenklin bio blesav što je brinuo o „primetiti” kao glagolu. Pa, znate šta? Mi ćemo izgledati prilično blesavo za 100 godina što smo zabrinuti oko glagola „uticati” i „pozivnice” kao imenice. Jezik se neće tako brzo promeniti da ne možemo da održimo korak sa tim. Jezik prosto tako ne funkcioniše. Nadam se da možete da shvatite jezik ne kao zabrinjavajući, već kao zabavan i fascinantan, na isti način kao što to rade uređivači rečnika. Nadam se da ćete uživati što ste deo kreativnosti koja stalno stvara jezik
So how does a word get into a dictionary? It gets in because we use it and we keep using it, and dictionary editors are paying attention to us. If you're thinking, "But that lets all of us decide what words mean," I would say, "Yes it does, and it always has." Dictionaries are a wonderful guide and resource, but there is no objective dictionary authority out there that is the final arbiter about what words mean. If a community of speakers is using a word and knows what it means, it's real. That word might be slangy, that word might be informal, that word might be a word that you think is illogical or unnecessary, but that word that we're using, that word is real.
i održava ga snažnim. Kako reč postane deo rečnika? Tako što je koristimo i nastavljamo da je koristimo, a uređivači rečnika obraćaju pažnju na nas. Ako mislite: „Ali to dozvoljava svima nama da odlučimo šta reči znače”, rekla bih vam: „Da, tako je, i oduvek je tako i bilo”. Rečnici su sjajan vodič i izvor, ali ne postoji spoljašnji objektivni autoritet za rečnike koji je vrhovni arbitar koji odlučuje šta reč znači. Ako zajednica govornika koristi reč i zna šta ona znači - stvarna je. Ta reč može biti šatrovačka, može biti neformalna, može biti reč koju smatrate nelogičnom ili bespotrebnom, ali ta reč koju koristimo -
Thank you.
ta reč je stvarna. Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)