When definitions and usage collide...

[Sophie 378]

What should happen when the way that a word or phrase is commonly used goes against the dictionary definition?

Examples:
"Turtle" used to mean "tortoise" - that "Bush = post turtle" joke (tortioses are the land creature, turtles are marine :rant: )
"Asylum seeker" used to mean "freeloading, excuse-making, home-and-job-stealing, welfare-demanding, smelly foreigner" - by most tabloids
"Agnostic" and "Atheist" - much debate as to conflicting and overlapping definitions
"Lend" used to mean "borrow" - in school, I often heard "Can I lend a pen?"
"Can" used to mean "may" - see above.

Poll options:
Try to correct errant usage
Change the dictionary
Both (depends on situation)
Neither (ignore it, you spelling nazi)
Compulsary silly option

Discuss!

 

[Masquerouge]

I say we should try to correct the errant usage. That's what we have dictionnaries for: a reference.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

emo is a good example of a term that's misused too much now.

 

[GinandTonic]

While Im generally with the pedants sometimes they bang on about some nonsese up with which I will not put.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

Languages would be perfect if it weren't for those pesky users.


To be serious I think that inaccurate usage in books and newspapers etc should be corrected. That way languages will not change as fast as they do due to slang, dialects and faulty utilisation.

 

[Fifty]

In almost every case, change the dictionary. Language evolution happens, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with "degredation of the language" or other such nonsense. If the meaning of a word is crucial to a debate or an argument, then simply clarify what definition you will use, and if the person you are debating against disagrees with your definition, you can either argue about who has a better definition, or else just use your or the other's definition for the sake of the argument.

 

[LucyDuke]

Fifty's got it. The purpose of language is communication, and as long as your meaning gets across, it's doing its job. I admit that I cringe a bit when I hear a word being hijacked, but that's the way it works. We should certainly try to use the correct words, but any language in use is alive, and that means that the definitions of words are going to change, like it or not.

(Poster is linguistics major.)

 

[Masquerouge]

Fifty's got it. The purpose of language is communication, and as long as your meaning gets across, it's doing its job. I admit that I cringe a bit when I hear a word being hijacked, but that's the way it works. We should certainly try to use the correct words, but any language in use is alive, and that means that the definitions of words are going to change, like it or not.

(Poster is linguistics major.)

But that was valid when there were no dictionaries, I think. Having a reference for both spelling and meaning makes communication easier, precisely because evolution is stopped/heavily slowed down.

 

[LucyDuke]

But that was valid when there were no dictionaries, I think. Having a reference for both spelling and meaning makes communication easier, precisely because evolution is stopped/heavily slowed down.

Woah, evolution of language has certainly not stopped and I'd argue that it hasn't slowed down all that much. Slang is the most obvious example, and before anyone says "slang doesn't count", if it's used, it counts.

The trouble we have with dictionaries is that people consider them authoritative, but they are not. Rand McNally does not decide where the roads will be built, just lets everyone know where they are at the time of the publication, to the best knowledge of the publishers.

 

[Gothmog]

This is in fact what dictionaries do, they monitor word usages and make changes as appropriate.

Different dictionaries monitor differing numbers and types of sources.

For the english language, IMO, the Oxford English Dictionary can be considered the gold standard. "It traces the usage of words through 2.5 million quotations from a wide range of international English language sources, from classic literature and specialist periodicals to film scripts and cookery books."

So if you want to use definitions that are not included in general usage (as defined by a dictionary) that's fine, but in any contentious context such as a debate or legal proceeding you might be misunderstood to your own detriment (and it would be no one's fault but your own). In these contexts there does need to be some preagreed upon standard.

 

[Masquerouge]

Woah, evolution of language has certainly not stopped and I'd argue that it hasn't slowed down all that much. Slang is the most obvious example, and before anyone says "slang doesn't count", if it's used, it counts.

Well frankly it has tremendously slowed down. The specific examples that I have are mostly French, but... I can read a French text written up until the late 18th century as is. That's when dictionnaries started to be used frequently. Before that, I have trouble reading a 17th century French text, and yet it's so different from a 16th century text that my guess is a 17th-century French would have had trouble too. Meanings and spellings vary wildy. For instance, in the 15th century "layette" meant "drawer". in the 16th century it started to refer to the piece of cloth that was used inside the drawer to preserve documents from moist, in the 17th century it was used to refer to any piece of cloth, and in the 18th it finally meant "diapers", because people were using a piece of cloth back then. Since then, it has meant diaper. No changes.

This is mainly why they used Latin back then. It guaranteed that people could understand each other across space and time.

This is in fact what dictionaries do, they monitor word usages and make changes as appropriate.
So if you want to use definitions that are not included in general usage (as defined by a dictionary) that's fine, but in any contentious context such as a debate or legal proceeding you might be misunderstood to your own detriment (and it would be no one's fault but your own). In these contexts there does need to be some preagreed upon standard.

Yes, exactly!

EDIT: and thus I advocate trying to correct the errant usage. When and if it becomes obvious that the errant usage has become the norm, then update the dictionnary.

Note also that we're discussing errant usages, not new ones.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Ideally, both.

There's no reason to misuse words when they have a perfectly good meaning, and to incorrectly use a word is not good for communication.

However, if the word is commonly perceived to mean something other than what's in the dictionary, it's time to change the dictionary entry.

 

[White Elk]

I voted to "Change the Dictionary" though to be clear that option should have said "Update the Dictionary". To change makes it sound like a new definition will take the place of an older version. But this is most often not the case. Generally a new definition of a word emerges, and the context of the communication will define its definition. The purpose of language is communication. The need to communicate new information and new concepts will always be neccesary... I hope.

Some definitions require a context such as... Turtling in MP games is to hunker down ones units in preperation for an attack. So to be called a Turtle in an MP game is something very differant than to be called a Turtle in the context of the animal kingdom. The context will define the word.

Yet some new definitions of words have nearly completely taken the place of older definitions. Such as the word gay used to be about being happy. Now it is used to define ones sexuality. For decades now, new children born into this english speaking world, many never know the original definition of the word. For good or bad our language will always evolve. This is just a fact of human expression. To be a purist one would have to speak and write in Olde English. But using that archic from would limit ones ability to communiate with their fellows. So why would anyone want to do that when the purpose of language is to communicate? Better to just go with the flow and adapt and evolve.

However if I misuse a word then I would very much like to be corrected. The point of my word usage is communication. If my communication is limited because of an improper use of a word, then I really do want to be corrected. And if the reader does not understand my usage of a word then I would like for them to ask for clarification.

 

[MrCynical]

The concepts a language needs to comunicate change with time, and hence so does the language. Once a term has widespread usage it becomes the "right" usage, as it functions for purposes of communication. Trying to constrain language to an existing dictionary is largely a waste of time, since the dictionary is intended to catalogue the language rather than vice versa.

Word misusage by an individual should of course still be corrected where in fails in the function of comunicating. Language is however one of those few areas where the opinion of the majority is necessarily correct.

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

Errant usage of words is a pet peeve of mine.*insert witty quote about mis-using words here*

 

[Bast]

Fifty's got it. The purpose of language is communication, and as long as your meaning gets across, it's doing its job. I admit that I cringe a bit when I hear a word being hijacked, but that's the way it works. We should certainly try to use the correct words, but any language in use is alive, and that means that the definitions of words are going to change, like it or not.

(Poster is linguistics major.)

Generally I tend to agree but what if someone starts to spell fish as "phish" and begins to widely accepted. I think there are some things where we should just put the foot down and say no. For example, I'm very much against the split infinitive.

 

[White Elk]

As I have pondered deeper into the OPs question and points, I think about just how much differing definitions impede communication. And in that context I would indeed want Word Cops out there correcting our usage. But I think most of the damage of poor communication comes from the unreasonable pinheads who can take one line out of a paragraph, or one word out of a sentance and use that to prejudice their thinking regarding of an entire topic of discussion. Is there really any hope for these people? Would a standardized and proper understanding of word usage Really help them to understand? I am begining to doubt that it would. Thoughtfull communicators will try and understand what others are trying to say. Others don't seem to care and seem to be unwilling to take even the most minor effort to understand.

As a young child I was horribly embarrassed one particular time (when that sort of thing still mattered). I was an avid reader and read many of the classics, and read most of Louis L'amours westerns and Asimovs and Heinleins sci-if by the time I entered Junior High School. Novels written decades prior to the 1980's. The classics of course dated from much further back in time. I was never concerned about following trends or keeping up with the new slang. My word usage was learned from reading not communicating. In older novels the term Fag referred to a cigarette. Once while engaging in kid talk with my peers I boasted that I had smoked a fag. Instead of having the desired effect of gaining respect from my peers by invoking images of the "Marlboro Man", it instead had the opposite effect. I was teased as a homosexual and the rumour was that I had blown a fag. These things matter little to me now, but at that time it was a social death. This is an unimportant example for sure. But other misundertandings of word definitions can have far more destructive results.

When I read a book that used a term that I did not understand; I would either learn a working definition from the context of the passage or I would actually look it up in my most current version of the Websters Dictionary. For those whom understanding is important, they will search for a definition or will take into consideration the context of the passage. Those who won't take this time are not likely to care about effective communication. This has been my experiance anyway. So although I do think that updated dictionaries are vital to our communication, I don't think this will fix many of our miscommunication problems. Those who care will take steps to better understand; while those who don't won't. I think the only way to improve accurate communication is to improve our societies interpersonal ideals as a whole. And of course an imporved Educational system is a must. Kids need help understanding the past and incorporating this knowledge into their present.

 

[LucyDuke]

Well frankly it has tremendously slowed down. The specific examples that I have are mostly French, but...

The rate of change may have slowed down somewhat in some languages, but I disagree about the extent. It makes little sense to cite French and apply a few examples to language in general. Perhaps French has stagnated. Latin is (effectively) completely dead, however, there are many languages, especially in less industrialized parts of the world, that are as lively as ever.

Generally I tend to agree but what if someone starts to spell fish as "phish" and begins to widely accepted. I think there are some things where we should just put the foot down and say no. For example, I'm very much against the split infinitive.

I think spelling is a slightly different issue, as it usually doesn't reflect a change in meaning, but rather reflects laziness or ignorance. People aren't going to start writing "farmacy" just because some dummies do. But if they do, well, how much difference does it make?

What's so offensive about the split infinitive? Sure, we're told it's bad, but I've never heard any good reasons why.

 

[Masquerouge]

The rate of change may have slowed down somewhat in some languages, but I disagree about the extent. It makes little sense to cite French and apply a few examples to language in general. Perhaps French has stagnated.

My examples were used just as that, examples. They were not proofs in themselves.

Latin is (effectively) completely dead, however, there are many languages, especially in less industrialized parts of the world, that are as lively as ever.

Well Latin is still the official language of the Vatican, so...
And I bet that these many languages, precisely because they are in less industrialized parts of the world, do not have dictionnaries. What languages are you referring to?

I think spelling is a slightly different issue, as it usually doesn't reflect a change in meaning, but rather reflects laziness or ignorance. People aren't going to start writing "farmacy" just because some dummies do. But if they do, well, how much difference does it make?

Well it also is language evolving. So it's not strictly speaking the subject of the OP, but I believe it's part of the evolution of language.
Again, in languages where dictionnaries are heavily used, changes in spelling have dramatically slowed down...

 

[White Elk]

Again, in languages where dictionnaries are heavily used, changes in spelling have dramatically slowed down...

I have never seen so many misspellings as I have in the last six years (since I've been web connected). The internet is ripe with misspellings. And I am one of the worst! Though I use a spell checker since I understand that some folks translate my english words into their native language. So accurate spelling is vital to accurate communication. I must also learn how to better structure my words into sentances. Written communication is a weakness of mine and one that I have invested much time into, yet nothing I do seems to bring about real understanding of what I write (at least as applies to the masses). Then to make things worse the software translators do not do a very good job thus far.