Each year, major publishers of dictionaries such as Oxford, Cambridge and Merriam-Webster determine which relatively newly coined words are worthy of being entered into the lexicon.
For better or worse, when deciding whether or not to add a new word to the dictionary, it’s strictly a popularity contest. Usage alone dictates which words are accepted and which words are not. Dictionary editors seek out new words and add them to their database in order to track their usage. If a newly coined word is used often enough, long enough, and widely enough by a variety of different sources, it is added as a dictionary entry. Language critics may object as some new words can seem unnecessary or simply silly, but dictionary editors have long followed a descriptive view of language rather than a prescriptive view; they are primarily interested in showing how the language is currently used, and not how someone might think the language should be used.
This is how language has always worked. I recall one elderly public figure in my state being vocal about the word kid being used to refer to a human child. Kid, he argued, means a baby goat, and no respectable parent should ever refer to their child as such.
 |
| He would have probably been fine with piglet, though. |
Yet it turns out the human child meaning of kid has been around for centuries. According to the online etymology dictionary, in the 19th century the word was used for ‘skillful young thieves and pugilists’ and by the early 20th century took on the general meaning we know today. Now it has become such a part of the mainstream that on hearing that someone has a new kid, nearly no one would expect it to have horns.
 |
| Unless you named him Damion |
How should language learners approach learning slang?
Newly coined words and slang have always posed somewhat of a dilemma for adult language learners. Slang can be frequently heard in some contexts and thus can be useful to learn. However, slang also has a tendency to come and go quickly, and it may be wiser to focus your vocabulary learning on words that you can be confident will stick around for more than a few years. To make matters more complicated, slang can often be limited to rather specific social groups and contexts, and can have an unintended humorous effect if used at the wrong time by the wrong person.
 |
| Shall we, as you coloured Yanks say, get our krunk on? Turn down for what, amirite? |
So every year when the major dictionaries roll out the newly accepted words, English language learners should use a bit of caution when deciding which words, if any, should be learned. It may seem that once a slang word has entered the dictionary, it is worthy of being learned, but this is risky. The majority of newly accepted words will still fall by the wayside after a few years, and the problem is no one really can know for sure which will stick and which will fade away.
And yet, here I am about to do that very thing. [insert appropriate shock emoticon here]
The following are some words that were given dictionary status by Merriam Webster in 2014. Some have a good chance to continue to be widely used in the next decade and thus are useful to learn. Others I am not so sure about.
Probably will stick
Internet Slang Abbreviations
jel (‘jealous’) WRT (‘with reference to’), xlnt (‘excellent’)
Abbreviations that have originated from typing online or on mobile phones that stick around for several years will likely survive in the written form in the long term, as they serve the important function of brevity. Some of the earliest Internet slang abbreviations, such as LOL, BRB, and OMG, are still commonly used more than a decade later. They stick because they work. Some will leak over into spoken language, though most, thankfully, will not. A lot of communication these days is online and texting on mobile phones, so these kinds of abbreviations deserve the attention of the ESL/EFL learner.
Words that fill a needed gap in the language
algorithmic trading, digital footprint, crony capitalism, duck face, five-second rule, man crush, respawn, shabby chic, secret Santa, misery index
The world changes and the language needs to keep apace. New technology, trends, and concepts create the demand for language that can be used to talk about them.
Some explanations for a few of my choices:
five-second rule Variations of this term have already been around for decades. Science has yet to pin down the exact number of seconds that can safely pass before dropped food officially becomes gross. Personally, I always stayed with the three-second rule, but then, I’ve always held myself to a higher standard. Unless the human race makes a major leap in sanitary behaviors, this term is going to be around.
respawn: This comes from video games in which a recently deceased character returns to life so the player can continue playing. The word will be relevant as long as there are games that have this feature, and it’s hard to imagine that this will change. I wouldn’t be surprised if the word soon spills over into non-gaming contexts, such as in celebrity culture and politics (the return of a politician just a few years after it seemed he was finished due to some scandal, for example).
Don’t bother learning…
Quick Expiration Date
mahoosive, cool beans, simples
The reason they are used now is because they sounds fresh, silly and creative, but after a year (if not much, much sooner), they will no longer be fresh nor seem creative. That just leaves us with silly. I wouldn’t bet on the long-term survival of silly alone.
Too narrow
economic man, flash crash, permadeath, MAMIL, all the food words specific to certain cuisine
These are words that are very specific to certain fields and I don’t suspect they’ll crossover into general use. If you do not belong to the field, it may not be worth the time.
New spellings
fone, hawt
For text messages these might remain options, but for other writing? I’m thinking nah. Standard spelling will remain more common for the majority of these words.
One interesting question is whether spelling changes in online slang and text messaging will have any impact on standard spelling. I suspect not. Despite some alarmist fears about the new generation being unable to spell, there isn’t much support for this idea as it seems young people actually learn correct spelling just fine as they move through the education system and enter the professional world.