0:00:00.504,0:00:02.566
I need to start by telling you a little bit

0:00:02.566,0:00:04.555
about my social life,

0:00:04.555,0:00:07.473
which I know may not seem relevant,

0:00:07.473,0:00:09.220
but it is.

0:00:09.220,0:00:11.150
When people meet me at parties

0:00:11.150,0:00:13.342
and they find out that I'm an English professor

0:00:13.342,0:00:15.739
who specializes in language,

0:00:15.739,0:00:19.189
they generally have one of two reactions.

0:00:19.189,0:00:24.378
One set of people look frightened. (Laughter)

0:00:24.378,0:00:25.971
They often say something like,

0:00:25.971,0:00:29.277
"Oh, I'd better be careful what I say.

0:00:29.277,0:00:32.495
I'm sure you'll hear every mistake I make."

0:00:32.495,0:00:36.553
And then they stop talking. (Laughter)

0:00:36.553,0:00:38.950
And they wait for me to go away

0:00:38.950,0:00:41.187
and talk to someone else.

0:00:41.187,0:00:43.222
The other set of people,

0:00:43.222,0:00:45.647
their eyes light up,

0:00:45.647,0:00:46.878
and they say,

0:00:46.878,0:00:51.187
"You are just the person I want to talk to."

0:00:51.187,0:00:53.607
And then they tell me about whatever it is

0:00:53.607,0:00:56.142
they think is going wrong with the English language.

0:00:56.142,0:00:58.511
(Laughter)

0:00:58.511,0:01:00.828
A couple of weeks ago, I was at a dinner party

0:01:00.828,0:01:03.065
and the man to my right

0:01:03.065,0:01:05.100
started telling me about all the ways

0:01:05.100,0:01:08.381
that the internet is degrading the English language.

0:01:08.381,0:01:11.620
He brought up Facebook, and he said,

0:01:11.620,0:01:17.470
"To defriend? I mean, is that even a real word?"

0:01:17.470,0:01:21.040
I want to pause on that question:

0:01:21.040,0:01:24.826
what makes a word real?

0:01:24.826,0:01:26.910
My dinner companion and I both know

0:01:26.910,0:01:30.077
what the verb "defriend" means,

0:01:30.077,0:01:32.777
so when does a new word like "defriend"

0:01:32.777,0:01:34.858
become real?

0:01:34.858,0:01:37.362
Who has the authority to make those kinds

0:01:37.362,0:01:40.780
of official decisions about words anyway?

0:01:40.780,0:01:45.075
Those are the questions I want to talk about today.

0:01:45.075,0:01:48.375
I think most people, when they say a word isn't real,

0:01:48.375,0:01:49.866
what they mean is, it doesn't appear

0:01:49.866,0:01:51.864
in a standard dictionary.

0:01:51.864,0:01:54.327
That, of course, raises a host of other questions,

0:01:54.327,0:02:00.184
including, who writes dictionaries?

0:02:00.184,0:02:01.048
Before I go any further,

0:02:01.048,0:02:03.490
let me clarify my role in all of this.

0:02:03.490,0:02:05.998
I do not write dictionaries.

0:02:05.998,0:02:08.695
I do, however, collect new words

0:02:08.695,0:02:11.750
much the way dictionary editors do,

0:02:11.750,0:02:13.573
and the great thing about being a historian

0:02:13.573,0:02:14.640
of the English language

0:02:14.640,0:02:18.276
is that I get to call this "research."

0:02:18.276,0:02:20.620
When I teach the history of the English language,

0:02:20.620,0:02:23.377
I require that students teach me

0:02:23.377,0:02:26.903
two new slang words before I will begin class.

0:02:26.903,0:02:29.220
Over the years, I have learned

0:02:29.220,0:02:32.454
some great new slang this way,

0:02:32.454,0:02:36.492
including "hangry," which

0:02:36.492,0:02:40.188
—(Applause)—

0:02:40.188,0:02:42.535
which is when you are cranky or angry

0:02:42.535,0:02:46.774
because you are hungry,

0:02:46.774,0:02:51.550
and "adorkable,"

0:02:51.550,0:02:53.257
which is when you are adorable

0:02:53.257,0:02:56.278
in kind of a dorky way,

0:02:56.278,0:02:59.471
clearly, terrific words that fill

0:02:59.471,0:03:02.176
important gaps in the English language.

0:03:02.176,0:03:06.389
(Laughter)

0:03:06.389,0:03:09.060
But how real are they

0:03:09.060,0:03:11.279
if we use them primarily as slang

0:03:11.279,0:03:15.396
and they don't yet appear in a dictionary?

0:03:15.396,0:03:18.213
With that, let's turn to dictionaries.

0:03:18.213,0:03:20.053
I'm going to do this as a show of hands:

0:03:20.053,0:03:22.387
how many of you still regularly

0:03:22.387,0:03:25.515
refer to a dictionary, either print or online?

0:03:27.338,0:03:29.532
Okay, so that looks like most of you.

0:03:29.532,0:03:32.697
Now, a second question. Again, a show of hands:

0:03:32.697,0:03:35.902
how many of you have ever looked to see

0:03:35.902,0:03:38.791
who edited the dictionary you are using?

0:03:42.048,0:03:45.680
Okay, many fewer.

0:03:45.680,0:03:49.360
At some level, we know that there are human hands

0:03:49.360,0:03:50.936
behind dictionaries,

0:03:50.936,0:03:55.207
but we're really not sure who those hands belong to.

0:03:55.207,0:03:57.547
I'm actually fascinated by this.

0:03:57.547,0:04:00.020
Even the most critical people out there

0:04:00.020,0:04:02.614
tend not to be very critical about dictionaries,

0:04:02.614,0:04:04.497
not distinguishing among them

0:04:04.497,0:04:06.568
and not asking a whole lot of questions

0:04:06.568,0:04:08.791
about who edited them.

0:04:08.791,0:04:10.414
Just think about the phrase

0:04:10.414,0:04:12.890
"look it up in the dictionary,"

0:04:12.890,0:04:14.567
which suggests that all dictionaries

0:04:14.567,0:04:16.273
are exactly the same.

0:04:16.273,0:04:18.873
Consider the library here on campus,

0:04:18.873,0:04:20.569
where you go into the reading room,

0:04:20.569,0:04:23.442
and there is a large, unabridged dictionary

0:04:23.442,0:04:27.320
up on a pedestal in this place of honor and respect

0:04:27.320,0:04:29.667
lying open so we can go stand before it

0:04:29.667,0:04:31.870
to get answers.

0:04:31.870,0:04:34.176
Now don't get me wrong,

0:04:34.176,0:04:37.381
dictionaries are fantastic resources,

0:04:37.381,0:04:38.930
but they are human

0:04:38.930,0:04:41.211
and they are not timeless.

0:04:41.211,0:04:43.013
I'm struck as a teacher

0:04:43.013,0:04:46.230
that we tell students to critically question

0:04:46.230,0:04:49.964
every text they read, every website they visit,

0:04:49.964,0:04:51.452
except dictionaries,

0:04:51.452,0:04:54.617
which we tend to treat as un-authored,

0:04:54.617,0:04:57.259
as if they came from nowhere to give us answers

0:04:57.259,0:05:01.603
about what words really mean.

0:05:01.603,0:05:05.200
Here's the thing: if you ask dictionary editors,

0:05:05.200,0:05:06.358
what they'll tell you

0:05:06.358,0:05:08.672
is they're just trying to keep up with us

0:05:08.672,0:05:10.427
as we change the language.

0:05:10.427,0:05:12.912
They're watching what we say and what we write

0:05:12.912,0:05:15.070
and trying to figure out what's going to stick

0:05:15.070,0:05:17.220
and what's not going to stick.

0:05:17.220,0:05:18.537
They have to gamble,

0:05:18.537,0:05:20.286
because they want to appear cutting edge

0:05:20.286,0:05:22.942
and catch the words that are going to make it,

0:05:22.942,0:05:25.381
such as LOL,

0:05:25.381,0:05:27.585
but they don't want to appear faddish

0:05:27.585,0:05:30.127
and include the words that aren't going to make it,

0:05:30.127,0:05:31.940
and I think a word that they're watching right now

0:05:31.940,0:05:35.359
is YOLO, you only live once.

0:05:37.317,0:05:39.811
Now I get to hang out with dictionary editors,

0:05:39.811,0:05:41.319
and you might be surprised

0:05:41.319,0:05:43.535
by one of the places where we hang out.

0:05:43.535,0:05:45.492
Every January, we go

0:05:45.492,0:05:48.825
to the American Dialect Society annual meeting,

0:05:48.825,0:05:50.172
where among other things,

0:05:50.172,0:05:53.930
we vote on the word of the year.

0:05:53.930,0:05:56.933
There are about two or three[br]hundred people who come,

0:05:56.933,0:05:59.373
some of the best-known[br]linguists in the United States.

0:05:59.373,0:06:01.121
To give you a sense of the flavor of the meeting,

0:06:01.121,0:06:04.532
it occurs right before happy hour.

0:06:04.532,0:06:06.608
Anyone who comes can vote.

0:06:06.608,0:06:07.920
The most important rule is

0:06:07.920,0:06:11.049
that you can vote with only one hand.

0:06:11.049,0:06:14.513
In the past, some of the winners have been

0:06:14.513,0:06:16.998
"tweet" in 2009

0:06:16.998,0:06:20.403
and "hashtag" in 2012.

0:06:20.403,0:06:23.462
"Chad" was the word of the year in the year 2000,

0:06:23.462,0:06:27.282
because who knew what a chad was before 2000,

0:06:27.282,0:06:31.696
and "WMD" in 2002.

0:06:31.696,0:06:34.497
Now, we have other categories in which we vote too,

0:06:34.497,0:06:36.090
and my favorite category

0:06:36.090,0:06:38.474
is Most Creative Word of the Year.

0:06:38.474,0:06:41.224
Past winners in this category have included

0:06:41.224,0:06:44.277
"recombobulation area,"

0:06:44.277,0:06:48.080
which is at the Milwaukee Airport after security,

0:06:48.080,0:06:50.640
where you can recombobulate.

0:06:50.640,0:06:52.124
(Laughter)

0:06:52.124,0:06:53.643
You can put your belt back on,

0:06:53.643,0:06:56.104
put your computer back in your bag.

0:06:58.289,0:07:01.621
And then my all-time favorite word at this vote,

0:07:01.621,0:07:03.847
which is "multi-slacking."

0:07:03.847,0:07:06.350
(Laughter)

0:07:06.350,0:07:08.363
And multi-slacking is the act

0:07:08.363,0:07:11.501
of having multiple windows up on your screen

0:07:11.501,0:07:12.902
so it looks like you're working

0:07:12.902,0:07:14.996
when you're actually goofing around on the web.

0:07:14.996,0:07:19.825
(Laughter) (Applause)

0:07:21.381,0:07:24.989
Will all of these words stick? Absolutely not.

0:07:24.989,0:07:27.888
And we have made some questionable choices,

0:07:27.888,0:07:29.565
for example in 2006

0:07:29.565,0:07:31.604
when the word of the year was "pluto'd,"

0:07:31.604,0:07:33.596
to mean demoted.

0:07:33.596,0:07:37.351
(Laughter)

0:07:38.586,0:07:40.955
But some of the past winners

0:07:40.955,0:07:43.870
now seem completely unremarkable,

0:07:43.870,0:07:45.388
such as "app"

0:07:45.388,0:07:47.401
and "e" as a prefix,

0:07:47.401,0:07:50.360
and "Google" as a verb.

0:07:50.360,0:07:54.427
Now, a few weeks before our vote,

0:07:54.427,0:07:56.208
Lake Superior State University

0:07:56.208,0:08:00.987
issues its word of banished words for the year.

0:08:00.987,0:08:02.920
What is striking about this

0:08:02.920,0:08:05.691
is that there's actually often quite a lot of overlap

0:08:05.691,0:08:08.528
between their list and the list that we are considering

0:08:08.528,0:08:10.778
for words of the year,

0:08:10.778,0:08:14.870
and this is because we're noticing the same thing.

0:08:14.870,0:08:17.900
We're noticing the words that[br]are coming into prominence.

0:08:17.900,0:08:20.053
It's really a question of attitude.

0:08:20.053,0:08:23.720
Are you bothered by language[br]fads and language change,

0:08:23.720,0:08:27.130
or do you find it fun, interesting,

0:08:27.130,0:08:28.484
something worthy of study

0:08:28.484,0:08:31.369
as part of a living language?

0:08:31.369,0:08:33.525
The list by Lake Superior State University

0:08:33.525,0:08:36.170
continues a fairly long tradition in English

0:08:36.170,0:08:38.443
of complaints about new words.

0:08:38.443,0:08:42.795
So here is Dean Henry Alford in 1875,

0:08:42.795,0:08:45.041
who was very concerned that "desirability"

0:08:45.041,0:08:47.490
is really a terrible word.

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

0:08:50.224,0:08:51.680
wrote a letter to David Hume

0:08:51.680,0:08:55.483
giving up the word "colonize" as bad.

0:08:55.483,0:08:57.432
Over the years, we've also seen worries

0:08:57.432,0:08:59.572
about new pronunciations.

0:08:59.572,0:09:02.620
Here is Samuel Rogers in 1855

0:09:02.620,0:09:05.219
who is concerned about some[br]fashionable pronunciations

0:09:05.219,0:09:07.226
that he finds offensive,

0:09:07.226,0:09:10.714
and he says "as if contemplate were not bad enough,

0:09:10.714,0:09:13.132
balcony makes me sick."

0:09:13.132,0:09:16.528
(Laughter)

0:09:16.528,0:09:18.608
The word is borrowed in from Italian

0:09:18.608,0:09:22.418
and it was pronounced bal-COE-nee.

0:09:22.418,0:09:25.361
These complaints now strike us as quaint,

0:09:25.361,0:09:30.306
if not downright adorkable,

0:09:30.306,0:09:33.040
but here's the thing:

0:09:33.040,0:09:37.413
we still get quite worked up about language change.

0:09:37.413,0:09:39.475
I have an entire file in my office

0:09:39.475,0:09:42.537
of newspaper articles

0:09:42.537,0:09:45.040
which express concern about illegitimate words

0:09:45.040,0:09:47.109
that should not have been included in the dictionary,

0:09:47.109,0:09:48.557
including "LOL"

0:09:48.557,0:09:50.627
when it got into the Oxford English Dictionary

0:09:50.627,0:09:52.402
and "defriend"

0:09:52.402,0:09:55.174
when it got into the Oxford American Dictionary.

0:09:55.174,0:09:57.291
I also have articles expressing concern

0:09:57.291,0:10:00.260
about "invite" as a noun,

0:10:00.260,0:10:02.216
"impact" as a verb,

0:10:02.216,0:10:05.187
because only teeth can be impacted,

0:10:05.187,0:10:08.162
and "incentivize" is described

0:10:08.162,0:10:12.673
as "boorish, bureaucratic misspeak."

0:10:12.673,0:10:14.394
Now, it's not that dictionary editors

0:10:14.394,0:10:17.325
ignore these kinds of attitudes about language.

0:10:17.325,0:10:19.520
They try to provide us some guidance about words

0:10:19.520,0:10:21.950
that are considered slang or informal

0:10:21.950,0:10:25.293
or offensive, often through usage labels,

0:10:25.293,0:10:26.983
but they're in something of a bind,

0:10:26.983,0:10:30.635
because they're trying to describe what we do,

0:10:30.635,0:10:32.594
and they know that we often go to dictionaries

0:10:32.594,0:10:35.482
to get information about how we should use a word

0:10:35.482,0:10:37.640
well or appropriately.

0:10:37.640,0:10:40.664
In response, the American Heritage Dictionaries

0:10:40.664,0:10:42.805
include usage notes.

0:10:42.805,0:10:44.922
Usage notes tend to occur with words

0:10:44.922,0:10:46.245
that are troublesome in one way,

0:10:46.245,0:10:49.110
and one of the ways that they can be troublesome

0:10:49.110,0:10:51.043
is that they're changing meaning.

0:10:51.043,0:10:54.279
Now usage notes involve very human decisions,

0:10:54.279,0:10:56.528
and I think, as dictionary users,

0:10:56.528,0:10:58.770
we're often not as aware of those human decisions

0:10:58.770,0:10:59.869
as we should be.

0:10:59.869,0:11:00.993
To show you what I mean,

0:11:00.993,0:11:03.710
we'll look at an example, but before we do,

0:11:03.710,0:11:05.352
I want to explain what the dictionary editors

0:11:05.352,0:11:08.990
are trying to deal with in this usage note.

0:11:08.990,0:11:11.664
Think about the word "peruse"

0:11:11.664,0:11:15.302
and how you use that word.

0:11:15.302,0:11:17.838
I would guess many of you are thinking

0:11:17.838,0:11:22.375
of "skim, scan, reading quickly."

0:11:22.375,0:11:25.210
Some of you may even have some walking involved,

0:11:25.210,0:11:27.456
because you're perusing grocery store shelves,

0:11:27.456,0:11:29.127
or something like that.

0:11:29.127,0:11:31.611
You might be surprised to learn

0:11:31.611,0:11:33.480
that if you look in most standard dictionaries,

0:11:33.480,0:11:36.253
the first definition will be to read carefully,

0:11:36.253,0:11:38.697
or pour over.

0:11:38.697,0:11:41.556
American Heritage has that as the first definition.

0:11:41.556,0:11:44.521
They then have, as the second definition, skim,

0:11:44.521,0:11:48.316
and next to that, they say "usage problem."

0:11:48.316,0:11:50.226
(Laughter)

0:11:50.226,0:11:52.314
And then they include a usage note,

0:11:52.314,0:11:54.191
which it's worth looking at.

0:11:54.191,0:11:56.102
So here's the usage note:

0:11:56.102,0:11:58.459
"Peruse has long meant 'to read thoroughly' ...

0:11:58.459,0:12:00.096
But the word if often used more loosely,

0:12:00.096,0:12:02.386
to mean simply 'to read.' ...

0:12:02.386,0:12:05.315
Further extension of the word[br]to mean 'to glance over, skim,'

0:12:05.315,0:12:07.771
has traditionally been considered an error,

0:12:07.771,0:12:09.914
but our ballot results suggest that it is becoming

0:12:09.914,0:12:11.870
somewhat more acceptable.

0:12:11.870,0:12:13.269
When asked about the sentence

0:12:13.269,0:12:16.000
I only had a moment to peruse the manual quickly,

0:12:16.000,0:12:17.875
66 percent of the [Usage] Panel

0:12:17.875,0:12:20.422
found it unacceptable in 1988,

0:12:20.422,0:12:22.529
58 percent in 1999,

0:12:22.529,0:12:26.397
and 48 percent in 2011."

0:12:26.397,0:12:28.358
Ah, the Usage Panel,

0:12:28.358,0:12:30.968
that trusted body of language authorities

0:12:30.968,0:12:33.820
who is getting more lenient about this.

0:12:33.820,0:12:35.890
Now, what I hope you're thinking right now is,

0:12:35.890,0:12:39.885
"Wait, who's on the Usage Panel?

0:12:39.885,0:12:42.997
And what should I do with their pronouncements?"

0:12:42.997,0:12:44.960
If you look in the front matter

0:12:44.960,0:12:46.068
of American Heritage Dictionaries,

0:12:46.068,0:12:47.493
you can actually find the names

0:12:47.493,0:12:49.212
of the people on the Usage Panel.

0:12:49.212,0:12:51.244
But who looks at the front matter of dictionaries?

0:12:51.244,0:12:54.291
There are about 200 people on the Usage Panel.

0:12:54.291,0:12:56.668
They include academicians,

0:12:56.668,0:12:58.345
journalists, creative writers.

0:12:58.345,0:13:00.437
There's a Supreme Court justice on it

0:13:00.437,0:13:02.336
and a few linguists.

0:13:02.336,0:13:07.168
As of 2005, the list includes me.

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

0:13:11.342,0:13:14.710
Here's what we can do for you.

0:13:14.710,0:13:17.070
We can give you a sense

0:13:17.070,0:13:20.122
of the range of opinions about contested usage.

0:13:20.122,0:13:23.479
That is and should be the extent of our authority.

0:13:23.479,0:13:26.890
We are not a language academy.

0:13:26.890,0:13:29.837
About once a year, I get a ballot

0:13:29.837,0:13:32.869
that asks me about whether new uses,

0:13:32.869,0:13:36.207
new pronunciations, new meanings, are acceptable.

0:13:36.207,0:13:39.099
Now here's what I do to fill out the ballot.

0:13:39.099,0:13:42.607
I listen to what other people are saying and writing.

0:13:42.607,0:13:44.851
I do not listen to my own likes

0:13:44.851,0:13:48.060
and dislikes about the English language.

0:13:48.060,0:13:49.529
I will be honest with you:

0:13:49.529,0:13:52.478
I do not like the word "impactful,"

0:13:52.478,0:13:54.480
but that is neither here nor there

0:13:54.480,0:13:57.609
in terms of whether "impactful"[br]is becoming common usage

0:13:57.609,0:14:00.970
and becoming more acceptable in written prose.

0:14:00.970,0:14:02.018
So to be responsible,

0:14:02.018,0:14:04.546
what I do is go look at usage,

0:14:04.546,0:14:06.382
which often involves going to look

0:14:06.382,0:14:09.077
at online databases such as Google Books.

0:14:09.077,0:14:11.897
Well, if you look for "impactful" in Google Books,

0:14:11.897,0:14:15.103
here is what you find.

0:14:15.103,0:14:17.344
Well, it sure looks like "impactful"

0:14:17.344,0:14:19.074
is proving useful

0:14:19.074,0:14:20.703
for a certain number of writers,

0:14:20.703,0:14:22.303
and has become more and more useful

0:14:22.303,0:14:24.262
over the last 20 years.

0:14:24.262,0:14:26.415
Now, there are going to be changes

0:14:26.415,0:14:29.049
that all of us don't like in the language.

0:14:29.049,0:14:31.233
There are going to be changes where you think,

0:14:31.233,0:14:32.220
"Really?

0:14:32.220,0:14:35.905
Does the language have to change that way?"

0:14:35.905,0:14:37.588
What I'm saying is,

0:14:37.588,0:14:39.310
we should be less quick

0:14:39.310,0:14:43.101
to decide that that change is terrible,

0:14:43.101,0:14:44.815
we should be less quick to impose

0:14:44.815,0:14:48.116
our likes and dislikes about words on other people,

0:14:48.116,0:14:51.030
and we should be entirely reluctant

0:14:51.030,0:14:53.774
to think that the English language is in trouble.

0:14:53.774,0:14:57.970
It's not. It is rich and vibrant and filled

0:14:57.970,0:15:00.980
with the creativity of the speakers who speak it.

0:15:00.980,0:15:03.598
In retrospect, we think it's fascinating

0:15:03.598,0:15:06.976
that the word "nice" used to mean silly,

0:15:06.976,0:15:08.320
and that the word "decimate"

0:15:08.320,0:15:12.165
used to mean to kill one in every 10.

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

0:15:17.162,0:15:22.255
We think that Ben Franklin was being silly

0:15:22.255,0:15:24.904
to worry about "notice" as a verb.

0:15:24.904,0:15:26.367
Well, you know what?

0:15:26.367,0:15:29.067
We're going to look pretty silly in a hundred years

0:15:29.067,0:15:31.364
for worrying about "impact" as a verb

0:15:31.364,0:15:34.176
and "invite" as a noun.

0:15:34.176,0:15:36.416
The language is not going to change so fast

0:15:36.416,0:15:38.313
that we can't keep up.

0:15:38.313,0:15:40.596
Language just doesn't work that way.

0:15:40.596,0:15:42.209
I hope that what you can do

0:15:42.209,0:15:45.038
is find language change not worrisome

0:15:45.038,0:15:47.076
but fun and fascinating,

0:15:47.076,0:15:50.085
just the way dictionary editors do.

0:15:50.085,0:15:52.047
I hope you can enjoy being part

0:15:52.047,0:15:57.051
of the creativity that is continuously remaking

0:15:57.051,0:16:00.327
our language and keep it robust.

0:16:00.327,0:16:03.247
So how does a word get into a dictionary?

0:16:03.247,0:16:05.716
It gets in because we use it

0:16:05.716,0:16:07.340
and we keep using it,

0:16:07.340,0:16:11.575
and dictionary editors are paying attention to us.

0:16:11.575,0:16:14.695
If you're thinking, "But that lets all of us decide

0:16:14.695,0:16:16.444
what words mean,"

0:16:16.444,0:16:20.495
I would say, "Yes it does,

0:16:20.495,0:16:22.847
and it always has."

0:16:22.847,0:16:26.774
Dictionaries are a wonderful guide and resource,

0:16:26.774,0:16:30.270
but there is no objective[br]dictionary authority out there

0:16:30.270,0:16:34.043
that is the final arbiter about what words mean.

0:16:34.043,0:16:36.556
If a community of speakers is using a word

0:16:36.556,0:16:40.152
and knows what it means, it's real.

0:16:40.152,0:16:41.520
That word might be slangy,

0:16:41.520,0:16:43.162
that word might be informal,

0:16:43.162,0:16:45.067
that word might be a word that you think

0:16:45.067,0:16:47.524
is illogical or unnecessary,

0:16:47.524,0:16:50.075
but that word that we're using,

0:16:50.075,0:16:52.433
that word is real.

0:16:52.433,0:16:54.774
Thank you.

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