The Evolution of Language: A Case Study of the Urban Dictionary
Historically, dictionaries have been crucial for establishing the meaning of words, and without them communication would be a terrible struggle. While usage makes a word real, the placement of that word in a dictionary legitimized it and standardized its usage. With help from authors such as Alan Turing, Matthew Fuller, Alexander R. Galloway and Jose van Dijck, this paper will discuss the effect technological expansion has had in developing forums that allow the modern English language to form competing definitions, both with themselves and more established definitions. Urban Dictionary is an exemplary forum for consumers to participate in an open discussion about any relevant term they see fit, and debate the positive or negative values of it. This is attributed to our ever-increasing ability to keep track of more words with more technology. Additionally, former authoritative figures possessing the power to define words are no longer solely holding these positions, as new waves of user-submitted dictionaries are coming to prominence.
In Alan Turing’s article, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” he debates the question, “Can machines think?”[3] This is a huge question, which Turing has a lot of difficulty answering, but finally summarizes his beliefs that machines have the capacity to think for themselves. Urban Dictionary can be considered a ‘thinking machine’ by the consistent and speedy updating it carries out everyday. The Turing ‘Imitation test’ examines a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour and test the ability of a machine too imitate the human mind. If the judge in the test cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. The test does not check the ability to give the correct answer; rather how closely it resembles typical human answers. In Turing’s article, he raises the oppositional opinion that machines cannot think because there are limitations on the power of machines; “there are certain things that such a machine cannot do.”[4] However, as machines have increasingly efficient memory capacities and processing speed, their ability to exceed the learning and knowledge capacity is highly probable.
The Turing Machine was designed to replicate the human mind, much like the Urban Dictionary was created to do. For the Turing Machine to solve any problem, it just had to make marks on some tape, or erase those marks, or move the tape – it is constantly changing its methods and intelligence to solve issues that arise. The Urban Dictionary is designed to be constantly updated as well, with newly written words or definitions. Thus analogies emerge about how we think about the brain as something that processes, because the Turing Machine could simulate any describable process.
Turing believed that language could never ‘finish’ and was always in the midst of evolving, much like the human brain. Our bodies are also crucial to our brains and memory, so to neglect the body is to misunderstand our surroundings and conversation. This is where the function of Urban Dictionary directly contradicts Turing’s findings. The Urban Dictionary works solely with words to convey its message, with no images or videos whatsoever. The founders and editors of Urban Dictionary also make no effort to bring about any personal interactions with its viewers at all, in fact, it is near impossible to find an advertisement, video promotion or campaign for this website. Though it has had a profound impact on the shape and direction language has taken in the past twelve years, it has fallen behind in what Turing believes to be fundamental in communication.
Matthew Fuller’s essay, “It Looks Like You’re Writing a Letter” discusses how different interfaces change the way we act and the development of society. He uses the example of Microsoft Word, and how it has altered our ability to write about ourselves. This simple program has reconfigured how we record our culture and how we all behave. Word has this in common with the Urban Dictionary. Both programs “[…] construct ways of seeing, knowing, and doing in the world that at once contain a model of that part of the world it ostensibly pertains to and that also shape it every time it is used.”[5] This Urban Dictionary has completely challenged the classical forms of dictionaries, by being both completely digital and therefore always up to date, and for integrating questionable words that are not exactly genuine words or definitions, but do have a significance to a certain population or class.
The Urban Dictionary is widely considered the best place to privately educate yourself about indelicate pop phenomena, which more often than not leads to an expansion in the template and codes of writing. From toolbars, to keyboard shortcuts, “in order to create the fastest possible route between the human and the computer, a conduit to every function must be as accessible as possible on the screen.”[6] The template of the website allows easy navigation throughout the features the site provides. However the limitations on the options of the toolbar, and the repetition of links, such as looking up names, allows its viewers to merely scratch the surface of the website without experiencing its full potential. It also facilitates links to their webpages on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook consistently in numerous places on each web page, leading me to believe the site values how many times their page was viewed more than the presentation of the interface.
Fuller’s essay examines the concept of Microsoft Word’s ‘ideal user’ in significant detail. He notes that Microsoft predicts future work patterns is by discovering what kind of user the program is targeting,[7] and what they should be creating or updating to draw that user in. The nature of language has its roots in syntax, punctuation and spelling. Without these features, language changes severely and many misinterpretations come about. In a correspondence with no punctuation or syntax and misspelling, a light-hearted response such as, “I will. See you tonight” can be interpreted as a stern, “i will c u tonite.” This lack of bodily reassurance or verbal pauses signalling an end to a sentence causes a crack in our communication abilities, relating back to Turing’s emphasis on the necessity of body language. With the Urban Dictionary, editors require no proofreading of posts, censoring of inappropriate language and thus has no definite ‘ideal user.’ In fact, to edit entries on Urban Dictionary, one is not even required to submit an email address. Instead, the toolbar has an “edit” button, and from there the Urban Dictionary provides random definitions and allows any user to “Publish” or “Don’t publish” definitions. Similar to Fuller’s interpretation of Word, Urban Dictionary has “no direct interest in information or communication, but rather in its facilitation.”[8] There are only ten ‘requirements’ for deciding what gets published. The highlights include “publish racial and sexual slurs but reject racist and sexist entries,” “publish opinions,” “ignore misspellings and swearing,” “publish jokes” and “publish if it looks plausible.” Interestingly enough Virginia Heffernan summarizes my opinion of these requirements when she states in an article, “Urban Dictionary avoids most of the standard dictionary apparatus. You won’t find information about parts of speech, etymologies or even standard spellings in it. Its sensibility, in fact, borders on the illiterate, which must be a first for a dictionary.”[9]
Historically, dictionaries were a mythical tome that determined a real word. However with technology progressing more rapidly every day, regular printed dictionaries cannot keep up with the development of new terms daily. For example, in the past give years, new verbs such as “to text” and “to Google” have hastened to a point where some technologies cannot keep up with it. In my opinion, any language that does not evolve or that is not undergoing constant change is a dead language. Modern English is the largest language on the planet, and is notable for the rapidity with which new vocabulary is created, and for the ease with which it adopts vocabulary from other tongues. Does this mean the downfall of dictionaries, or will they be supplanted by new authorities?
These questions give rise to a new era of authoritative figures in language. You actually have the biggest stake in creating and patrolling the content of Urban Dictionary. A ranking system means that the ‘best’ definitions make it to the top of the list, meaning that many different versions of the same definition make it onto the website. The Urban Dictionary model is the epitome of what language is truly like, and what dictionaries should be like. There are many different definitions for words, meaning completely different things, or having in fact contradictory definitions. In this forum, you the user are the author of your own language and have final say on your own choice of definitions.
In Jose van Dijck’s article, “Users like you? Theorizing Agency in User-Generated Content,” he discusses Time Magazine’s presentation of the Person of the Year 2006 to ‘you,’ the millions of anonymous web users who contribute their time and energy to the booming web culture. “Its about the many wrestling power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how they will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.”[10] Van Dijck focuses on the necessity of building individual and group identities in a democratic culture. He notes, “Citizenship has to do with belonging and participating in a public sphere inundated with media”[11]This shift in the authority language facilitated by the Urban Dictionary has allowed citizens to give their opinions on terms, which is truly democratic. This current trend in participatory culture emphasizes users to become part of their community, and even Urban Dictionary is following this trend, setting their motto as “Define Your World.”
But do the interactive features of the website really facilitate us to “define our world,” or have modern definitions just been replaced with a neutral point of view with a different set of standards? In fact, I decided to take Urban Dictionary’s advice. The generic directions given to me when submitting my definition stated, “Write for a large audience. Lots of people will read this, so give some background information. Don’t name your friends. We’ll reject inside jokes and definitions naming non-celebrities.” This “Don’t name your friends” rule seems to not be enforced at all. My name, Amanda, comes up with 120 definitions in total, ranging from, “Meaning 'worthy of love' in Latin, it has recently become slang for 'the best sister in the whole wide world”[12] to my personal favourite,
an amanda is extra short, black/ white/ maybe asian(her eyes) gurl who is a great dancer;) she is extra pretty. she likes black guys named Q, she absolutely loves chocolate. if anyone touches her chocolate..she will flip SHIT!!! but if she loves you..she will give you some. some times has a short temper. is an amazing friend &you can count on her when evs you need a ride. she likes making love faces:)<33 SHE IS ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. I WOULD DIE FOR THIS GIRL. she is one &only. so if you can find a special amanda like mine...thn your super luky.[13]
The first definition I submitted was for the word ‘dictionary.’ It was not given nearly enough credit, and needed to be resuscitated. Under the screen-name the.man13, I submitted the following definition,
Book containing the words of a language alphabetically arranged, with their meanings, etymology etc: a work containing information on any department of knowledge.
Registered under the screen-name, dictionary>pictionary, I submitted a second definition,
Why are you looking up the definition of a dictionary, in a dictionary? You should really learn the basics of normal human society before you do something stupid like this again.
By the next evening, the posts from both the.man13 and dictionary>pictionary appeared on Urban Dictionary. The test here was aimed at the authorities and whether or not they would allow these definitions to be posted. It seems almost absurd that the latter definition should be published in a dictionary. Hundreds of definitions similar to this one or worse are part of Urban Dictionary; they have spelling mistakes, they give opinions, and hold informal writing mannerisms.
Alexander R. Galloway’s article on Protocol and Institutionalization discusses how control used to be implemented by society, but now has become a law of nature because it is everywhere. Galloway states, “Protocol is based on a contradiction between two opposing machines, one that radically distributes control into autonomous locales, and another that focuses control into rigidly defined hierarchies.”[14] Dictionaries, while indispensable, are only one way of getting to know words. The usage and immersion in language is just as important. This brings about a conflict between prescriptive linguistics and descriptive linguistics. Prescriptive linguistics argue spoken or written language ought to follow established rules, and therefore would severely oppose the openness and lack of protocol in the Urban Dictionary. They look to maintain traditional languages, spellings and punctuation patterns through highly formal procedures, such as the publishing of dictionaries. They wish to, if I may, ensure everyone is speaking the same language. However prescriptive figures of authority are no longer essentially necessary with the establishment of online dictionaries such as Urban Dictionary and Wiktionary.
Descriptive linguistics are more concerned with understanding language as it is used. The language spoken on the streets is not the same language that is written in academia, and Urban Dictionary provides a setting for modern language to be, in loose terms, controlled. As Galloway notes, protocol establishes regulation, but it is entered into voluntarily, as is the case for Urban Dictionary. Participation in the site is not necessary to be able to use the site, and those who wish to consistently participate in it can hold a higher position on the site’s hierarchy in the form of paid employment.
Thus, the Urban Dictionary in fact disrupts and challenges dominant notions that follow prescriptive, classical and hierarchical ideals. Perhaps the presence of the Internet and Urban Dictionary type tools is only narrowing the gap between the formal and the informal, the ‘prescriptives’ and the ‘descriptives.’ However, this chaos seems to delight Peckman, who is quoted as saying, “Wikipedia strives for its N.P.O.V. – its neutral point of view. We’re the opposite of that. Every single word on here is written by someone with a point of view, with a personal experience of the word in the entry.”[15] I suspect that there has always been a vast collection of commonly used words and phrases that have not been recorded as quickly, and therefore many lost, but were accepted in common speech. The Urban Dictionary seeks to incorporate the two factions, bringing a healthy dose of scepticism and reminds readers that the decisions made on the site were, if not reliable, at the very least made by real people who care for the movement.
[1] www.urbandictionary.com.
[2] McLuhan, Marshall. "The Medium is the Message." McGraw Hill, NY, 1964. pp. 8.
[3] Turing, Alan. "Computing Machinery and Intelligence." 1950. Mind, 59, pp. 433.
[4] Turing, pp. 444.
[5] Fuller, Matthew. "Behind the Blip: Essays on the Culture of Software," pp. 19.
[6] Fuller, Matthew. "It Looks Like You're Writing a Letter." Brooklyn, NY, pp. 151.
[7] Fuller, "It Looks Like You're Writing a Letter,"pp. 139.
[8] Fuller, "It Looks Like You're Writing a Letter," pp. 148.
[9] Heffernan, Virginia. New York Times. [On line, November, 25, 2011]. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/magazine/05FOB-medium-t.html?_r=1.
[10] Van Dijck, Jose. "Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated Content." Media Culture Society, pp. 41.
[11] Van Dijck, pp. 44.
[12] Urban Dictionary, "Search: Amanda." [On line, November, 29, 2011]. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=amanda&page=2.
[13] Urban Dictionary, "Search: Amanda." [On line, November, 29, 2011]. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=amanda&page=9
[14] Galloway, Alexander R. "Protocol vs. Institutionalization." New Media, Old Media: A History and Theory Reader, Chun & Keenan, pp. 196.
[15] Heffernan.
