0:00:00.734,0:00:02.996
I need to start by telling you a little bit

0:00:02.996,0:00:04.995
about my social life,

0:00:04.995,0:00:07.493
which I know may not seem relevant,

0:00:07.493,0:00:09.074
but it is.

0:00:09.074,0:00:11.410
When people meet me at parties

0:00:11.410,0:00:13.582
and they find out that I'm an English professor

0:00:13.582,0:00:15.899
who specializes in language,

0:00:15.899,0:00:19.409
they generally have one of two reactions.

0:00:19.409,0:00:24.128
One set of people look frightened. (Laughter)

0:00:24.128,0:00:26.301
They often say something like,

0:00:26.301,0:00:29.327
"Oh, I'd better be careful what I say.

0:00:29.327,0:00:32.735
I'm sure you'll hear every mistake I make."

0:00:32.735,0:00:36.753
And then they stop talking. (Laughter)

0:00:36.753,0:00:39.002
And they wait for me to go away

0:00:39.002,0:00:41.577
and talk to someone else.

0:00:41.577,0:00:43.332
The other set of people,

0:00:43.332,0:00:45.887
their eyes light up,

0:00:45.887,0:00:47.158
and they say,

0:00:47.158,0:00:50.667
"You are just the person I want to talk to."

0:00:50.667,0:00:53.767
And then they tell me about whatever it is

0:00:53.767,0:00:56.562
they think is going wrong with the English language.

0:00:56.562,0:00:58.811
(Laughter)

0:00:58.811,0:01:00.858
A couple of weeks ago, I was at a dinner party

0:01:00.858,0:01:02.895
and the man to my right

0:01:02.895,0:01:05.100
started telling me about all the ways

0:01:05.100,0:01:08.531
that the internet is degrading the English language.

0:01:08.531,0:01:11.950
He brought up Facebook, and he said,

0:01:11.950,0:01:17.850
"To defriend? I mean, is that even a real word?"

0:01:17.850,0:01:21.270
I want to pause on that question:

0:01:21.270,0:01:24.906
what makes a word real?

0:01:24.906,0:01:27.041
My dinner companion and I both know

0:01:27.041,0:01:30.337
what the verb "defriend" means,

0:01:30.337,0:01:32.677
so when does a new word like "defriend"

0:01:32.677,0:01:35.118
become real?

0:01:35.118,0:01:37.582
Who has the authority to make those kinds

0:01:37.582,0:01:41.036
of official decisions about words anyway?

0:01:41.036,0:01:45.265
Those are the questions I want to talk about today.

0:01:45.265,0:01:48.595
I think most people, when they say a word isn't real,

0:01:48.595,0:01:50.226
what they mean is, it doesn't appear

0:01:50.226,0:01:52.364
in a standard dictionary.

0:01:52.364,0:01:54.557
That, of course, raises a host of other questions,

0:01:54.557,0:02:00.074
including, who writes dictionaries?

0:02:00.074,0:02:01.388
Before I go any further,

0:02:01.388,0:02:03.880
let me clarify my role in all of this.

0:02:03.880,0:02:05.888
I do not write dictionaries.

0:02:05.888,0:02:08.565
I do, however, collect new words

0:02:08.565,0:02:12.110
much the way dictionary editors do,

0:02:12.110,0:02:13.813
and the great thing about being a historian

0:02:13.813,0:02:15.140
of the English language

0:02:15.140,0:02:18.526
is that I get to call this "research."

0:02:18.526,0:02:20.990
When I teach the history of the English language,

0:02:20.990,0:02:23.307
I require that students teach me

0:02:23.307,0:02:27.233
two new slang words before I will begin class.

0:02:27.233,0:02:29.056
Over the years, I have learned

0:02:29.056,0:02:32.824
some great new slang this way,

0:02:32.824,0:02:36.492
including "hangry," which

0:02:36.492,0:02:40.598
—(Applause)—

0:02:40.598,0:02:42.735
which is when you are cranky or angry

0:02:42.735,0:02:46.774
because you are hungry,

0:02:46.774,0:02:51.790
and "adorkable,"

0:02:51.790,0:02:53.527
which is when you are adorable

0:02:53.527,0:02:56.688
in kind of a dorky way,

0:02:56.688,0:02:59.781
clearly, terrific words that fill

0:02:59.781,0:03:02.436
important gaps in the English language.

0:03:02.436,0:03:06.589
(Laughter)

0:03:06.589,0:03:08.950
But how real are they

0:03:08.950,0:03:11.569
if we use them primarily as slang

0:03:11.569,0:03:15.396
and they don't yet appear in a dictionary?

0:03:15.396,0:03:18.343
With that, let's turn to dictionaries.

0:03:18.343,0:03:20.323
I'm going to do this as a show of hands:

0:03:20.323,0:03:22.697
how many of you still regularly

0:03:22.697,0:03:25.515
refer to a dictionary, either print or online?

0:03:27.578,0:03:29.862
Okay, so that looks like most of you.

0:03:29.862,0:03:32.697
Now, a second question. Again, a show of hands:

0:03:32.697,0:03:35.892
how many of you have ever looked to see

0:03:35.892,0:03:38.791
who edited the dictionary you are using?

0:03:42.518,0:03:45.420
Okay, many fewer.

0:03:45.420,0:03:49.110
At some level, we know that there are human hands

0:03:49.110,0:03:50.966
behind dictionaries,

0:03:50.966,0:03:55.437
but we're really not sure who those hands belong to.

0:03:55.437,0:03:57.547
I'm actually fascinated by this.

0:03:57.547,0:04:00.036
Even the most critical people out there

0:04:00.036,0:04:02.744
tend not to be very critical about dictionaries,

0:04:02.744,0:04:04.847
not distinguishing among them

0:04:04.847,0:04:06.568
and not asking a whole lot of questions

0:04:06.568,0:04:09.111
about who edited them.

0:04:09.111,0:04:10.624
Just think about the phrase

0:04:10.624,0:04:13.037
"look it up in the dictionary,"

0:04:13.037,0:04:14.567
which suggests that all dictionaries

0:04:14.567,0:04:16.513
are exactly the same.

0:04:16.513,0:04:19.213
Consider the library here on campus,

0:04:19.213,0:04:20.889
where you go into the reading room,

0:04:20.889,0:04:23.442
and there is a large, unabridged dictionary

0:04:23.442,0:04:27.560
up on a pedestal in this place of honor and respect

0:04:27.560,0:04:29.967
lying open so we can go stand before it

0:04:29.967,0:04:32.003
to get answers.

0:04:32.003,0:04:34.456
Now don't get me wrong,

0:04:34.456,0:04:37.381
dictionaries are fantastic resources,

0:04:37.381,0:04:39.011
but they are human

0:04:39.011,0:04:41.501
and they are not timeless.

0:04:41.501,0:04:43.253
I'm struck as a teacher

0:04:43.253,0:04:45.750
that we tell students to critically question

0:04:45.750,0:04:49.664
every text they read, every website they visit,

0:04:49.664,0:04:51.802
except dictionaries,

0:04:51.802,0:04:54.997
which we tend to treat as un-authored,

0:04:54.997,0:04:57.539
as if they came from nowhere to give us answers

0:04:57.539,0:05:02.083
about what words really mean.

0:05:02.083,0:05:05.460
Here's the thing: if you ask dictionary editors,

0:05:05.460,0:05:06.528
what they'll tell you

0:05:06.528,0:05:08.802
is they're just trying to keep up with us

0:05:08.802,0:05:10.747
as we change the language.

0:05:10.747,0:05:13.222
They're watching what we say and what we write

0:05:13.222,0:05:15.089
and trying to figure out what's going to stick

0:05:15.089,0:05:17.057
and what's not going to stick.

0:05:17.057,0:05:18.407
They have to gamble,

0:05:18.407,0:05:20.556
because they want to appear cutting edge

0:05:20.556,0:05:22.942
and catch the words that are going to make it,

0:05:22.942,0:05:25.101
such as LOL,

0:05:25.101,0:05:27.825
but they don't want to appear faddish

0:05:27.825,0:05:30.377
and include the words that aren't going to make it,

0:05:30.377,0:05:32.210
and I think a word that they're watching right now

0:05:32.210,0:05:35.359
is YOLO, you only live once.

0:05:37.587,0:05:40.111
Now I get to hang out with dictionary editors,

0:05:40.111,0:05:41.459
and you might be surprised

0:05:41.459,0:05:43.845
by one of the places where we hang out.

0:05:43.845,0:05:45.802
Every January, we go

0:05:45.802,0:05:49.025
to the American Dialect Society annual meeting,

0:05:49.025,0:05:50.612
where among other things,

0:05:50.612,0:05:54.400
we vote on the word of the year.

0:05:54.400,0:05:57.193
There are about two or three[br]hundred people who come,

0:05:57.193,0:05:59.503
some of the best-known[br]linguists in the United States.

0:05:59.503,0:06:01.491
To give you a sense of the flavor of the meeting,

0:06:01.491,0:06:04.912
it occurs right before happy hour.

0:06:04.912,0:06:06.868
Anyone who comes can vote.

0:06:06.868,0:06:08.083
The most important rule is

0:06:08.083,0:06:11.519
that you can vote with only one hand.

0:06:11.519,0:06:14.203
In the past, some of the winners have been

0:06:14.203,0:06:17.398
"tweet" in 2009

0:06:17.398,0:06:20.773
and "hashtag" in 2012.

0:06:20.773,0:06:23.832
"Chad" was the word of the year in the year 2000,

0:06:23.832,0:06:27.722
because who knew what a chad was before 2000,

0:06:27.722,0:06:31.986
and "WMD" in 2002.

0:06:31.986,0:06:34.697
Now, we have other categories in which we vote too,

0:06:34.697,0:06:36.069
and my favorite category

0:06:36.069,0:06:38.814
is Most Creative Word of the Year.

0:06:38.814,0:06:41.604
Past winners in this category have included

0:06:41.604,0:06:44.427
"recombobulation area,"

0:06:44.427,0:06:48.038
which is at the Milwaukee Airport after security,

0:06:48.038,0:06:50.086
where you can recombobulate.

0:06:50.086,0:06:52.324
(Laughter)

0:06:52.324,0:06:53.933
You can put your belt back on,

0:06:53.933,0:06:56.104
put your computer back in your bag.

0:06:58.289,0:07:01.281
And then my all-time favorite word at this vote,

0:07:01.281,0:07:04.147
which is "multi-slacking."

0:07:04.147,0:07:06.790
(Laughter)

0:07:06.790,0:07:08.703
And multi-slacking is the act

0:07:08.703,0:07:11.751
of having multiple windows up on your screen

0:07:11.751,0:07:13.112
so it looks like you're working

0:07:13.112,0:07:15.296
when you're actually goofing around on the web.

0:07:15.296,0:07:19.825
(Laughter) (Applause)

0:07:21.831,0:07:25.299
Will all of these words stick? Absolutely not.

0:07:25.299,0:07:28.108
And we have made some questionable choices,

0:07:28.108,0:07:29.795
for example in 2006

0:07:29.795,0:07:31.944
when the word of the year was "pluto'd,"

0:07:31.944,0:07:33.766
to mean demoted.

0:07:33.766,0:07:37.351
(Laughter)

0:07:38.896,0:07:40.955
But some of the past winners

0:07:40.955,0:07:44.076
now seem completely unremarkable,

0:07:44.076,0:07:45.668
such as "app"

0:07:45.668,0:07:47.741
and "e" as a prefix,

0:07:47.741,0:07:50.820
and "Google" as a verb.

0:07:50.820,0:07:54.657
Now, a few weeks before our vote,

0:07:54.657,0:07:56.498
Lake Superior State University

0:07:56.498,0:08:01.377
issues its word of banished words for the year.

0:08:01.377,0:08:03.004
What is striking about this

0:08:03.004,0:08:05.991
is that there's actually often quite a lot of overlap

0:08:05.991,0:08:08.528
between their list and the list that we are considering

0:08:08.528,0:08:11.178
for words of the year,

0:08:11.178,0:08:15.018
and this is because we're noticing the same thing.

0:08:15.018,0:08:18.096
We're noticing the words that[br]are coming into prominence.

0:08:18.096,0:08:20.413
It's really a question of attitude.

0:08:20.413,0:08:23.720
Are you bothered by language[br]fads and language change,

0:08:23.720,0:08:27.050
or do you find it fun, interesting,

0:08:27.050,0:08:28.704
something worthy of study

0:08:28.704,0:08:31.549
as part of a living language?

0:08:31.549,0:08:33.715
The list by Lake Superior State University

0:08:33.715,0:08:36.050
continues a fairly long tradition in English

0:08:36.050,0:08:38.713
of complaints about new words.

0:08:38.713,0:08:43.185
So here is Dean Henry Alford in 1875,

0:08:43.185,0:08:45.251
who was very concerned that "desirability"

0:08:45.251,0:08:47.490
is really a terrible word.

0:08:47.490,0:08:50.224
In 1760, Benjamin Franklin

0:08:50.224,0:08:51.990
wrote a letter to David Hume

0:08:51.990,0:08:55.763
giving up the word "colonize" as bad.

0:08:55.763,0:08:57.732
Over the years, we've also seen worries

0:08:57.732,0:08:59.892
about new pronunciations.

0:08:59.892,0:09:02.850
Here is Samuel Rogers in 1855

0:09:02.850,0:09:05.429
who is concerned about some[br]fashionable pronunciations

0:09:05.429,0:09:07.226
that he finds offensive,

0:09:07.226,0:09:10.994
and he says "as if contemplate were not bad enough,

0:09:10.994,0:09:13.312
balcony makes me sick."

0:09:13.312,0:09:16.618
(Laughter)

0:09:16.618,0:09:18.928
The word is borrowed in from Italian

0:09:18.928,0:09:22.638
and it was pronounced bal-COE-nee.

0:09:22.638,0:09:25.551
These complaints now strike us as quaint,

0:09:25.551,0:09:30.636
if not downright adorkable,

0:09:30.636,0:09:33.280
but here's the thing:

0:09:33.280,0:09:37.633
we still get quite worked up about language change.

0:09:37.633,0:09:39.725
I have an entire file in my office

0:09:39.725,0:09:41.267
of newspaper articles

0:09:41.267,0:09:45.057
which express concern about illegitimate words

0:09:45.057,0:09:47.379
that should not have been included in the dictionary,

0:09:47.379,0:09:48.927
including "LOL"

0:09:48.927,0:09:50.997
when it got into the Oxford English Dictionary

0:09:50.997,0:09:52.662
and "defriend"

0:09:52.662,0:09:55.384
when it got into the Oxford American Dictionary.

0:09:55.384,0:09:57.691
I also have articles expressing concern

0:09:57.691,0:10:00.097
about "invite" as a noun,

0:10:00.097,0:10:02.516
"impact" as a verb,

0:10:02.516,0:10:05.587
because only teeth can be impacted,

0:10:05.587,0:10:08.312
and "incentivize" is described

0:10:08.312,0:10:12.993
as "boorish, bureaucratic misspeak."

0:10:12.993,0:10:14.674
Now, it's not that dictionary editors

0:10:14.674,0:10:17.205
ignore these kinds of attitudes about language.

0:10:17.205,0:10:19.860
They try to provide us some guidance about words

0:10:19.860,0:10:22.290
that are considered slang or informal

0:10:22.290,0:10:25.563
or offensive, often through usage labels,

0:10:25.563,0:10:27.283
but they're in something of a bind,

0:10:27.283,0:10:30.265
because they're trying to describe what we do,

0:10:30.265,0:10:32.964
and they know that we often go to dictionaries

0:10:32.964,0:10:35.822
to get information about how we should use a word

0:10:35.822,0:10:37.970
well or appropriately.

0:10:37.970,0:10:40.664
In response, the American Heritage Dictionaries

0:10:40.664,0:10:43.205
include usage notes.

0:10:43.205,0:10:44.922
Usage notes tend to occur with words

0:10:44.922,0:10:46.745
that are troublesome in one way,

0:10:46.745,0:10:49.086
and one of the ways that they can be troublesome

0:10:49.086,0:10:51.473
is that they're changing meaning.

0:10:51.473,0:10:54.709
Now usage notes involve very human decisions,

0:10:54.709,0:10:56.408
and I think, as dictionary users,

0:10:56.408,0:10:58.770
we're often not as aware of those human decisions

0:10:58.770,0:11:00.279
as we should be.

0:11:00.279,0:11:01.243
To show you what I mean,

0:11:01.243,0:11:03.710
we'll look at an example, but before we do,

0:11:03.710,0:11:05.592
I want to explain what the dictionary editors

0:11:05.592,0:11:09.059
are trying to deal with in this usage note.

0:11:09.059,0:11:12.374
Think about the word "peruse"

0:11:12.374,0:11:15.782
and how you use that word.

0:11:15.782,0:11:17.908
I would guess many of you are thinking

0:11:17.908,0:11:22.835
of "skim, scan, reading quickly."

0:11:22.835,0:11:25.006
Some of you may even have some walking involved,

0:11:25.006,0:11:27.886
because you're perusing grocery store shelves,

0:11:27.886,0:11:29.517
or something like that.

0:11:29.517,0:11:31.981
You might be surprised to learn

0:11:31.981,0:11:33.860
that if you look in most standard dictionaries,

0:11:33.860,0:11:36.493
the first definition will be to read carefully,

0:11:36.493,0:11:39.147
or pour over.

0:11:39.147,0:11:41.846
American Heritage has that as the first definition.

0:11:41.846,0:11:44.951
They then have, as the second definition, skim,

0:11:44.951,0:11:48.316
and next to that, they say "usage problem."

0:11:48.316,0:11:50.756
(Laughter)

0:11:50.756,0:11:52.634
And then they include a usage note,

0:11:52.634,0:11:54.561
which it's worth looking at.

0:11:54.561,0:11:56.572
So here's the usage note:

0:11:56.572,0:11:58.739
"Peruse has long meant 'to read thoroughly' ...

0:11:58.739,0:12:00.466
But the word if often used more loosely,

0:12:00.466,0:12:02.626
to mean simply 'to read.' ...

0:12:02.626,0:12:05.585
Further extension of the word[br]to mean 'to glance over, skim,'

0:12:05.585,0:12:08.251
has traditionally been considered an error,

0:12:08.251,0:12:10.244
but our ballot results suggest that it is becoming

0:12:10.244,0:12:12.046
somewhat more acceptable.

0:12:12.046,0:12:13.469
When asked about the sentence

0:12:13.469,0:12:16.065
I only had a moment to peruse the manual quickly,

0:12:16.065,0:12:18.205
66 percent of the [Usage] Panel

0:12:18.205,0:12:20.372
found it unacceptable in 1988,

0:12:20.372,0:12:22.819
58 percent in 1999,

0:12:22.819,0:12:26.397
and 48 percent in 2011."

0:12:26.397,0:12:28.768
Ah, the Usage Panel,

0:12:28.768,0:12:30.968
that trusted body of language authorities

0:12:30.968,0:12:34.170
who is getting more lenient about this.

0:12:34.170,0:12:36.200
Now, what I hope you're thinking right now is,

0:12:36.200,0:12:39.885
"Wait, who's on the Usage Panel?

0:12:39.885,0:12:43.297
And what should I do with their pronouncements?"

0:12:43.297,0:12:45.067
If you look in the front matter

0:12:45.067,0:12:46.548
of American Heritage Dictionaries,

0:12:46.548,0:12:47.853
you can actually find the names

0:12:47.853,0:12:49.472
of the people on the Usage Panel.

0:12:49.472,0:12:51.754
But who looks at the front matter of dictionaries?

0:12:51.754,0:12:54.551
There are about 200 people on the Usage Panel.

0:12:54.551,0:12:56.538
They include academicians,

0:12:56.538,0:12:58.715
journalists, creative writers.

0:12:58.715,0:13:00.757
There's a Supreme Court justice on it

0:13:00.757,0:13:02.646
and a few linguists.

0:13:02.646,0:13:07.168
As of 2005, the list includes me.

0:13:07.168,0:13:10.980
(Applause)

0:13:11.922,0:13:15.170
Here's what we can do for you.

0:13:15.170,0:13:17.044
We can give you a sense

0:13:17.044,0:13:20.752
of the range of opinions about contested usage.

0:13:20.752,0:13:23.779
That is and should be the extent of our authority.

0:13:23.779,0:13:27.087
We are not a language academy.

0:13:27.087,0:13:29.837
About once a year, I get a ballot

0:13:29.837,0:13:33.109
that asks me about whether new uses,

0:13:33.109,0:13:36.177
new pronunciations, new meanings, are acceptable.

0:13:36.177,0:13:39.139
Now here's what I do to fill out the ballot.

0:13:39.139,0:13:43.197
I listen to what other people are saying and writing.

0:13:43.197,0:13:45.401
I do not listen to my own likes

0:13:45.401,0:13:48.057
and dislikes about the English language.

0:13:48.057,0:13:49.859
I will be honest with you:

0:13:49.859,0:13:52.728
I do not like the word "impactful,"

0:13:52.728,0:13:54.910
but that is neither here nor there

0:13:54.910,0:13:57.969
in terms of whether "impactful"[br]is becoming common usage

0:13:57.969,0:14:01.030
and becoming more acceptable in written prose.

0:14:01.030,0:14:02.638
So to be responsible,

0:14:02.638,0:14:04.956
what I do is go look at usage,

0:14:04.956,0:14:06.632
which often involves going to look

0:14:06.632,0:14:09.377
at online databases such as Google Books.

0:14:09.377,0:14:12.127
Well, if you look for "impactful" in Google Books,

0:14:12.127,0:14:15.473
here is what you find.

0:14:15.473,0:14:17.704
Well, it sure looks like "impactful"

0:14:17.704,0:14:19.414
is proving useful

0:14:19.414,0:14:20.903
for a certain number of writers,

0:14:20.903,0:14:22.533
and has become more and more useful

0:14:22.533,0:14:24.772
over the last 20 years.

0:14:24.772,0:14:26.845
Now, there are going to be changes

0:14:26.845,0:14:29.519
that all of us don't like in the language.

0:14:29.519,0:14:31.533
There are going to be changes where you think,

0:14:31.533,0:14:32.500
"Really?

0:14:32.500,0:14:36.145
Does the language have to change that way?"

0:14:36.145,0:14:37.948
What I'm saying is,

0:14:37.948,0:14:39.790
we should be less quick

0:14:39.790,0:14:43.401
to decide that that change is terrible,

0:14:43.401,0:14:45.175
we should be less quick to impose

0:14:45.175,0:14:48.386
our likes and dislikes about words on other people,

0:14:48.386,0:14:51.039
and we should be entirely reluctant

0:14:51.039,0:14:53.694
to think that the English language is in trouble.

0:14:53.694,0:14:58.059
It's not. It is rich and vibrant and filled

0:14:58.059,0:15:01.310
with the creativity of the speakers who speak it.

0:15:01.310,0:15:03.818
In retrospect, we think it's fascinating

0:15:03.818,0:15:07.266
that the word "nice" used to mean silly,

0:15:07.266,0:15:08.690
and that the word "decimate"

0:15:08.690,0:15:12.165
used to mean to kill one in every 10.

0:15:12.165,0:15:16.358
(Laughter)

0:15:17.362,0:15:22.155
We think that Ben Franklin was being silly

0:15:22.155,0:15:25.284
to worry about "notice" as a verb.

0:15:25.284,0:15:26.897
Well, you know what?

0:15:26.897,0:15:28.897
We're going to look pretty silly in a hundred years

0:15:28.897,0:15:31.474
for worrying about "impact" as a verb

0:15:31.474,0:15:34.576
and "invite" as a noun.

0:15:34.576,0:15:36.786
The language is not going to change so fast

0:15:36.786,0:15:38.503
that we can't keep up.

0:15:38.503,0:15:40.616
Language just doesn't work that way.

0:15:40.616,0:15:42.529
I hope that what you can do

0:15:42.529,0:15:44.858
is find language change not worrisome

0:15:44.858,0:15:47.326
but fun and fascinating,

0:15:47.326,0:15:50.325
just the way dictionary editors do.

0:15:50.325,0:15:52.207
I hope you can enjoy being part

0:15:52.207,0:15:56.801
of the creativity that is continuously remaking

0:15:56.801,0:16:00.557
our language and keep it robust.

0:16:00.557,0:16:03.447
So how does a word get into a dictionary?

0:16:03.447,0:16:05.546
It gets in because we use it

0:16:05.546,0:16:07.790
and we keep using it,

0:16:07.790,0:16:11.635
and dictionary editors are paying attention to us.

0:16:11.635,0:16:14.545
If you're thinking, "But that lets all of us decide

0:16:14.545,0:16:16.554
what words mean,"

0:16:16.554,0:16:20.795
I would say, "Yes it does,

0:16:20.795,0:16:23.337
and it always has."

0:16:23.337,0:16:27.124
Dictionaries are a wonderful guide and resource,

0:16:27.124,0:16:30.440
but there is no objective[br]dictionary authority out there

0:16:30.440,0:16:34.293
that is the final arbiter about what words mean.

0:16:34.293,0:16:36.916
If a community of speakers is using a word

0:16:36.916,0:16:40.362
and knows what it means, it's real.

0:16:40.362,0:16:41.880
That word might be slangy,

0:16:41.880,0:16:43.622
that word might be informal,

0:16:43.622,0:16:45.447
that word might be a word that you think

0:16:45.447,0:16:47.794
is illogical or unnecessary,

0:16:47.794,0:16:50.455
but that word that we're using,

0:16:50.455,0:16:52.763
that word is real.

0:16:52.763,0:16:54.774
Thank you.

0:16:54.774,0:16:56.453
(Applause)