Anne Curzan: What makes a word "real"?

譯者: Elaine Lin 審譯者: 文进 肖

I need to start by telling you a little bit

一開始，我或許應該講講

about my social life,

我的社交生活

which I know may not seem relevant,

我知道這看起來似乎毫不相干

but it is.

但其實大有關係

When people meet me at parties

人們在派對上遇到我

and they find out that I'm an English professor

發現我是一名英語教授

who specializes in language,

並且研究語言時

they generally have one of two reactions.

他們一般會有兩種反應

One set of people look frightened. (Laughter)

一種人表現得驚恐（笑聲）

They often say something like,

他們常常會說：

"Oh, I'd better be careful what I say.

「噢，我說話得謹慎點

I'm sure you'll hear every mistake I make."

你會一字不漏地聽出我的語用錯誤

And then they stop talking. (Laughter)

於是他們乾脆就閉嘴了（笑聲）

And they wait for me to go away

然後待我離開後

and talk to someone else.

他們才與別人交談

The other set of people,

另一種人

their eyes light up,

會眼睛一亮

and they say,

並說：

"You are just the person I want to talk to."

「我正想要和你談談」

And then they tell me about whatever it is

接著告訴我他們所認為的

they think is going wrong with the English language.

英語語言存在的問題

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

A couple of weeks ago, I was at a dinner party

幾周前，我參加了一個晚宴

and the man to my right

我右邊的男士

started telling me about all the ways

向我滔滔不絕地講述了

that the Internet is degrading the English language.

網路如何玷污英語

He brought up Facebook, and he said,

他提到了社群網站臉書：

"To defriend? I mean, is that even a real word?"

「defriend？（刪除好友） 這算是一個真正的單詞嗎？」

I want to pause on that question:

就這點我先來提個問題：

What makes a word real?

怎樣才算是一個真正的單詞？

My dinner companion and I both know

晚宴上的各位都知道

what the verb "defriend" means,

動詞「defriend」是什麼意思

so when does a new word like "defriend"

那從何時起，像 defriend 這樣的新詞

become real?

才可成為真正的詞彙呢

Who has the authority to make those kinds

究竟誰有權力給這類詞

of official decisions about words, anyway?

賦予官方定義？

Those are the questions I want to talk about today.

這就是今天我要談的問題

I think most people, when they say a word isn't real,

我認為當一般人說 某個單詞不成立時

what they mean is, it doesn't appear

那即是，此詞沒有被記載

in a standard dictionary.

在標準詞典裡

That, of course, raises a host of other questions,

這必然衍生出諸多其他問題

including, who writes dictionaries?

如，詞典是誰編寫的？

Before I go any further,

我想在此打住，

let me clarify my role in all of this.

先澄清一下我在其中的角色

I do not write dictionaries.

我不是詞典編寫人

I do, however, collect new words

然而我的確在收集新詞

much the way dictionary editors do,

頗似詞典主編們的活兒

and the great thing about being a historian

作為英語語言史的學者好處在於

of the English language

is that I get to call this "research."

我可以稱之為「研究」

When I teach the history of the English language,

當我教英語語言史時

I require that students teach me

我要求學生在開課前

two new slang words before I will begin class.

教我兩個新俚語

Over the years, I have learned

因此，這些年裡我

some great new slang this way,

學到了一些精彩的俚語

including "hangry," which --

如「hangry」

(Applause) —

（掌聲）

which is when you are cranky or angry

意思是你因為饑餓(hungry)

because you are hungry,

而惱怒(angry)

and "adorkable,"

還有「adorkable」

which is when you are adorable

意思是

in kind of a dorky way,

傻得可愛

clearly, terrific words that fill

很明顯，這些精妙的詞

important gaps in the English language.

補充了英語語言的重要空白

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But how real are they

但這些詞怎麼才是正確

if we use them primarily as slang

如果它們僅作為俚語

and they don't yet appear in a dictionary?

且尚未被記入詞典？

With that, let's turn to dictionaries.

讓我們回到詞典的問題

I'm going to do this as a show of hands:

請你們舉手表示

How many of you still regularly

有多少人還會習慣查詞典 ？

refer to a dictionary, either print or online?

印刷或是網路的都行

Okay, so that looks like most of you.

好的，似乎多數人都有

Now, a second question. Again, a show of hands:

問題二，請再舉手表示

How many of you have ever looked to see

有多少人曾試圖去瞭解

who edited the dictionary you are using?

這些詞典的作者是誰？

Okay, many fewer.

好的，不多

At some level, we know that there are human hands

在某程度上，我們知道詞典背後

behind dictionaries,

必有人為的操作

but we're really not sure who those hands belong to.

但我們難以知道，他們是何方神聖

I'm actually fascinated by this.

其實我對此很好奇

Even the most critical people out there

即使是最挑剔的人

tend not to be very critical about dictionaries,

也不會對詞典太嚴苛

not distinguishing among them

不會區分比較

and not asking a whole lot of questions

不會刨根問底

about who edited them.

關於誰是編者

Just think about the phrase

想想這句話

"Look it up in the dictionary,"

「請翻閱詞典」

which suggests that all dictionaries

這意味著，所有的詞典

are exactly the same.

都是一樣的

Consider the library here on campus,

假設在學校圖書館

where you go into the reading room,

有間閱覽室

and there is a large, unabridged dictionary

那有一本未經刪減的大詞典

up on a pedestal in this place of honor and respect

被供放在莊重的臺座上

lying open so we can go stand before it

頁面敞開著待我們

to get answers.

上前尋答案

Now, don't get me wrong,

別誤會，我沒否認

dictionaries are fantastic resources,

詞典是很好的資源

but they are human

可它們都是人類腦力結晶

and they are not timeless.

他們會因時而變

I'm struck as a teacher

作為老師，我覺得很困惑的是

that we tell students to critically question

我們常對學生強調，要批判思考

every text they read, every website they visit,

瀏覽過的文章或網頁

except dictionaries,

除詞典外

which we tend to treat as un-authored,

我們往往覺得，詞典沒有作者

as if they came from nowhere to give us answers

好似他們從天而降來

告訴我們單詞的定義

about what words really mean.

Here's the thing: If you ask dictionary editors,

那麼，如果你問詞典的作者

what they'll tell you

他們會說的是

is they're just trying to keep up with us

他們致力於與大眾同步

as we change the language.

隨著人類不斷改變語言

They're watching what we say and what we write

他們一直觀察著我們說寫的內容

and trying to figure out what's going to stick

並試圖決定

何去何留

and what's not going to stick.

They have to gamble,

他們得賭一把

because they want to appear cutting edge

因為他們希望顯得更前沿

and catch the words that are going to make it,

因而選了一些代表性詞彙

such as LOL,

比如「LOL」 （laughing out loud，放聲大笑）

but they don't want to appear faddish

但他們不失保守態度

and include the words that aren't going to make it,

所以不收錄曇花一現的詞

and I think a word that they're watching right now

我覺得當前編者們關注的一個詞

is YOLO, you only live once.

是YOLO，「人只能活一次」的縮寫

Now I get to hang out with dictionary editors,

我常與詞典編輯們接觸

and you might be surprised

我們會面的地點之一

by one of the places where we hang out.

或許會令人驚訝

Every January, we go

每年一月份

to the American Dialect Society annual meeting,

我們都出席全美方言協會的年會

where among other things,

我們會票選出

we vote on the word of the year.

年度詞語

There are about 200 or 300 people who come,

與會者約有200到300位

some of the best known linguists in the United States.

當中不乏美國最有名的語言學家

To give you a sense of the flavor of the meeting,

簡單講講會議的氛圍

it occurs right before happy hour.

會議會在酒水減價前開始

Anyone who comes can vote.

凡是前來的人都可投票

The most important rule is

有一重要前提：

that you can vote with only one hand.

你只能單手投票一次

In the past, some of the winners have been

過去的年度詞語有

"tweet" in 2009

2009年的「tweet」 （指Twitter的消息）

and "hashtag" in 2012.

2012年的「hashtag」 （指主題標籤「#」）

"Chad" was the word of the year in the year 2000,

2000年度詞語是「chad」 （指選票打孔後掉下的紙片）

because who knew what a chad was before 2000,

2000年之前，沒人知道 chad 是什麼

and "WMD" in 2002.

2002年度詞是「WMD」 （指伊戰中的大規模殺傷性武器）

Now, we have other categories in which we vote too,

現在投票增添了其他項目

and my favorite category

我最喜歡的是

is most creative word of the year.

年度最具創意詞

Past winners in this category have included

曾獲勝的詞包括

"recombobulation area,"

「recombobulation area」

which is at the Milwaukee Airport after security,

指的是密爾沃基機場過安檢後

where you can recombobulate.

旅客的重新整頓區

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

You can put your belt back on,

你可在那整理行李

put your computer back in your bag.

放回電腦

And then my all-time favorite word at this vote,

這次，我空前喜歡的創意詞是

which is "multi-slacking."

「multi-slacking」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And multi-slacking is the act

multi-slacking 指

of having multiple windows up on your screen

電腦的多個視窗被打開

so it looks like you're working

貌似有人在工作

when you're actually goofing around on the web.

其實是在不務正業

(Laughter) (Applause)

（笑聲）（掌聲）

Will all of these words stick? Absolutely not.

這些詞會被收錄嗎？肯定不會

And we have made some questionable choices,

我們也曾做過一些有爭議的決定

for example in 2006

例如2006年

when the word of the year was "Plutoed,"

年度詞語是「Plutoed」

to mean demoted.

意思是降級

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But some of the past winners

但過去有些獲選詞

now seem completely unremarkable,

如今似乎徹底司空見慣了

such as "app"

例如「app」

and "e" as a prefix,

作為前綴的「e」

and "google" as a verb.

作為動詞的「google」

Now, a few weeks before our vote,

今年投票前幾週

Lake Superior State University

蘇必利爾湖州立大學

issues its list of banished words for the year.

發佈了年度禁用語的名單

What is striking about this

吸睛的是

is that there's actually often quite a lot of overlap

此名單與協會的

between their list and the list that we are considering

年度候選詞名單

for words of the year,

有相當多的共同之處

and this is because we're noticing the same thing.

這是因為我們都 注意到了一點

We're noticing words that are coming into prominence.

我們都關注到流行詞

It's really a question of attitude.

問題是各花入各眼

Are you bothered by language fads and language change,

你覺得語言的日新月異

or do you find it fun, interesting,

有趣還是令人反感

something worthy of study

作為生活語言的一部分

as part of a living language?

流行語有研究價值嗎？

The list by Lake Superior State University

蘇必利爾湖州立大學的清單

continues a fairly long tradition in English

延續了長久以來

of complaints about new words.

不接納英語新詞的保守思想

So here is Dean Henry Alford in 1875,

1875 年該校院長亨利

who was very concerned that "desirability"

極為反感「desirability」這個詞

is really a terrible word.

認為它糟糕透了

In 1760, Benjamin Franklin

1760 年，班傑明·富蘭克林

wrote a letter to David Hume

在致大衛·休謨的信中說

giving up the word "colonize" as bad.

應棄用「colonize」這不當的詞

Over the years, we've also seen worries

一直以來，我們也曾見聞

about new pronunciations.

對新發音的擔憂

Here is Samuel Rogers in 1855

1855 年，薩繆爾·羅格斯

who is concerned about some fashionable pronunciations

認為一些時髦的發音

that he finds offensive,

令人討厭

and he says "as if contemplate were not bad enough,

他說：若「contemplate」還不夠糟糕

balcony makes me sick."

那「balcony」足以令我作嘔。 （注：單詞重音位置變了）

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The word is borrowed in from Italian

這個詞源於義大利

and it was pronounced bal-COE-nee.

它的發音是bal-COE-nee （注：重音於第二音節）

These complaints now strike us as quaint,

這些抱怨如今顯得荒誕離奇

if not downright adorkable -- (Laughter) --

完全「傻得可愛」（笑聲）

but here's the thing:

但問題是

we still get quite worked up about language change.

對於語言變化，人們仍會激動不已

I have an entire file in my office

我辦公室裡有一疊文檔

of newspaper articles

都是對非標準詞語

which express concern about illegitimate words

表示擔心的報刊文章

that should not have been included in the dictionary,

認為它們不應被納入詞典

including "LOL"

包括「LOL」

when it got into the Oxford English Dictionary

它已被納入牛津英語詞典

and "defriend"

還有「defriend」

when it got into the Oxford American Dictionary.

也已被納入牛津美語詞典

I also have articles expressing concern

還有文章對

about "invite" as a noun,

把「invite」用作名詞

"impact" as a verb,

把「impact」用作動詞有異議

because only teeth can be impacted,

因為impacted常指阻生牙

and "incentivize" is described

「incentivize」也被認為是

as "boorish, bureaucratic misspeak."

「粗鄙繁雜的錯誤發音」

Now, it's not that dictionary editors

詞典編輯們

ignore these kinds of attitudes about language.

對這種立場並無忽視

They try to provide us some guidance about words

他們試圖提供關於

that are considered slang or informal

所謂的俚語、非正式語和冒犯詞的指引

or offensive, often through usage labels,

常通過用法標示的形式

but they're in something of a bind,

他們或多或少受限

because they're trying to describe what we do,

因為他們試圖概括一般人的語用方式

and they know that we often go to dictionaries

他們也知道人們常會用詞典

to get information about how we should use a word

來瞭解詞語應如何使用

well or appropriately.

才恰當合理

In response, the American Heritage Dictionaries

對此，美國傳統詞典

include usage notes.

包含了語用注解

Usage notes tend to occur with words

注解往往更適用於

that are troublesome in one way,

那些複雜麻煩的詞

and one of the ways that they can be troublesome

之所以麻煩的一個原因是

is that they're changing meaning.

詞的原意不斷改變

Now usage notes involve very human decisions,

如今注解難免有很多主觀的判斷

and I think, as dictionary users,

作為詞典使用者，我認為

we're often not as aware of those human decisions

我們往往沒注意到

as we should be.

這些不應被忽視的主觀部分

To show you what I mean,

為了讓大家更明白

we'll look at an example, but before we do,

我們先來看一例子，但在此之前

I want to explain what the dictionary editors

我來解釋一下詞典編輯如何使用

are trying to deal with in this usage note.

使用說明

Think about the word "peruse"

想想這個詞「peruse」

and how you use that word.

以及你如何使用這個詞

I would guess many of you are thinking

我猜想你們大部分人認為

of skim, scan, reading quickly.

意思是瀏覽、掃視、匆匆閱讀

Some of you may even have some walking involved,

有些人甚至覺得和走路相關

because you're perusing grocery store shelves,

因為你會 peruse 小賣部的貨架

or something like that.

或者類似的用法

You might be surprised to learn

讓你吃驚的是

that if you look in most standard dictionaries,

如果你在一些標準的詞典中查詢

the first definition will be to read carefully,

第一個解釋是「仔細閱讀」

or pore over.

或者「仔細查看」

American Heritage has that as the first definition.

美國遺產詞典就把它列為第一個解釋

They then have, as the second definition, skim,

第二個解釋才是「瀏覽」

and next to that, they say "usage problem."

接下來的解釋是「使用問題」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And then they include a usage note,

然後他們寫了一個使用說明

which is worth looking at.

值得看看

So here's the usage note:

使用說明是這麼寫的：

"Peruse has long meant 'to read thoroughly'...

「Peruse長期以來的含義是『仔細閱讀』

But the word is often used more loosely,

但是經常被不嚴謹地使用

to mean simply 'to read.'...

意為『閱讀』

Further extension of the word to mean 'to glance over, skim,'

這個單詞經常被用來表達『匆匆掃過、瀏覽』

has traditionally been considered an error,

但一直被認為是錯誤的

but our ballot results suggest that it is becoming

但是我們內部的投票表決顯示，這個意思

somewhat more acceptable.

似乎被更多的人所接受

When asked about the sentence,

當被問到這個句子的含義

'I only had a moment to peruse the manual quickly,'

『我只有很短的時間快速peruse這本手冊。』

66 percent of the [Usage] Panel

用戶說明小組中66％的人

found it unacceptable in 1988,

在1988年認為是可以這樣說的

58 percent in 1999,

1999年是58％

and 48 percent in 2011."

2011年是48％」

Ah, the Usage Panel,

啊，用戶小組

that trusted body of language authorities

受人信賴的語言權威組織

who is getting more lenient about this.

對這個問題越來越寬容

Now, what I hope you're thinking right now is,

我知道你們現在思考的問題是

"Wait, who's on the Usage Panel?

「等一下，誰是用戶小組？

And what should I do with their pronouncements?"

看到這樣的公告我該怎麼辦？」

If you look in the front matter

如果你翻看

of American Heritage Dictionaries,

美國遺產字典的扉頁

you can actually find the names

就能找到用戶小組

of the people on the Usage Panel.

成員的名字

But who looks at the front matter of dictionaries?

但是誰會翻看字典的扉頁呢？

There are about 200 people on the Usage Panel.

用戶小組成員大約有200人

They include academicians,

包括學者

journalists, creative writers.

記者、作家

There's a Supreme Court justice on it

還有最高法院大法官

and a few linguists.

和幾位語言學家

As of 2005, the list includes me.

2005年，我也加入其中

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Here's what we can do for you.

我們可以為你做這些事

We can give you a sense

我可以讓你瞭解

of the range of opinions about contested usage.

一些相互矛盾用法的不同意見

That is and should be the extent of our authority.

這是我們的職責範圍

We are not a language academy.

我們並不是語言學術機構

About once a year, I get a ballot

大約每年一次，我有機會

that asks me about whether new uses,

投票選出新的用法

new pronunciations, new meanings, are acceptable.

新的發音、新的含義，是否可被接受

Now here's what I do to fill out the ballot.

我填寫選票的方法是這樣的：

I listen to what other people are saying and writing.

我聆聽並觀察別人說話和寫作

I do not listen to my own likes

我不會憑自己的喜好

and dislikes about the English language.

有選擇地觀察英語的使用

I will be honest with you:

坦率地說

I do not like the word "impactful,"

我不喜歡「impactful」這個詞

but that is neither here nor there

但這並不影響

in terms of whether "impactful" is becoming common usage

「impactful」這個詞是否會

and becoming more acceptable in written prose.

在散文寫作中普遍使用，並且被接受

So to be responsible,

出於負責任的態度

what I do is go look at usage,

我會觀察詞語的用法

which often involves going to look

這需要經常瀏覽

at online databases such as Google Books.

網路資料庫，比如谷歌圖書

Well, if you look for "impactful" in Google Books,

如果你在谷歌圖書中搜索「impactful」

here is what you find.

就會找到這些資訊

Well, it sure looks like "impactful"

看起來「impactful」

is proving useful

對一定數量的作家來說

for a certain number of writers,

的確是有用的

and has become more and more useful

而且在過去20年裡

over the last 20 years.

使用的頻率呈上升趨勢

Now, there are going to be changes

即使我們不喜歡語言的這種現象

that all of us don't like in the language.

改變也必將發生

There are going to be changes where you think,

即使你在想：

"Really?

「真的嗎

Does the language have to change that way?"

語言真的要發生這樣的變化？」

What I'm saying is,

我的意思是說

we should be less quick

我們不要急於

to decide that that change is terrible,

說改變是不好的

we should be less quick to impose

我們不要急於把我們自己

our likes and dislikes about words on other people,

對語言的好惡強加給別人

and we should be entirely reluctant

我們不應當認為

to think that the English language is in trouble.

英語遇到麻煩了

It's not. It is rich and vibrant and filled

它並沒遇到麻煩，它內容豐富、生機勃勃

with the creativity of the speakers who speak it.

充滿了使用者帶來的新創意

In retrospect, we think it's fascinating

回顧以往，我們覺得

that the word "nice" used to mean silly,

用「nice」表示「愚蠢」太有意思了

and that the word "decimate"

用「decimate」表示

used to mean to kill one in every 10.

表示殺死十分之一

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

We think that Ben Franklin was being silly

我們覺得本佛蘭克林

擔心「notice」被用作動詞太愚蠢了

to worry about "notice" as a verb.

Well, you know what?

你知道嗎？

We're going to look pretty silly in a hundred years

一百年之後，我們也會是同樣地愚蠢

for worrying about "impact" as a verb

因為擔心「impact」會變成一個動詞

and "invite" as a noun.

「invite」會變成一個名詞

The language is not going to change so fast

語言的改變不會

that we can't keep up.

快得讓我們跟不上

Language just doesn't work that way.

語言不會以這種方式變化

I hope that what you can do

我希望你們

is find language change not worrisome

不要對語言的變化感到不安

but fun and fascinating,

而是要把它當作有趣、迷人的事情

just the way dictionary editors do.

就像詞典的編輯們一樣

I hope you can enjoy being part

我希望你們可以享受

of the creativity that is continually remaking

創意的過程，持續改進

我們的語言，讓它更加強大

our language and keeping it robust.

So how does a word get into a dictionary?

那麼，一個單詞是怎樣進入詞典的呢？

It gets in because we use it

它之所以會進入詞典，是因為我們使用它

and we keep using it,

不斷地使用它

and dictionary editors are paying attention to us.

詞典編輯注意到我們的使用

If you're thinking, "But that lets all of us decide

如果你說：「那這等於是讓我們所有人

what words mean,"

來決定一個詞的含義。」

I would say, "Yes it does,

我會說：「是的

and it always has."

其實一直是這樣」

Dictionaries are a wonderful guide and resource,

詞典是非常好的指導工具和知識來源

but there is no objective dictionary authority out there

但是並沒有一個客觀的詞典權威

that is the final arbiter about what words mean.

來最終判定一個詞的真正含義

If a community of speakers is using a word

如果一個群體在使用一個詞

and knows what it means, it's real.

並且共同認定它的含義，那麼它就是真實的

That word might be slangy,

這個詞或許是俚語

that word might be informal,

或許不正式

that word might be a word that you think

或許你認為它

is illogical or unnecessary,

不合邏輯或者沒有必要

but that word that we're using,

但是只要我們在使用它

that word is real.

它就是真實的

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）