Twerk and Shout!

At some point before inventing the wheel, humans began to grunt and click to express ideas. We haven’t shut up since.

Last week, publishers of a respected English reference decided humans needed a word to represent mimicked sexual intercourse while “dancing” presumably in rhythm to synthesized drumbeats.

The Oxford Online Dictionary digitally enshrined "twerk" in the lexicon after Miley Cyrus, former-Disney-daddy’s-girl, performed at the MTV Video Music Awards.

Despite a recent YouTube fad, “twerking” has been around since at least 2000 when the “Ying Yang Brothers” parodied a children’s cartoon song, “Whistle why you Twurk.”

Of course there’s nothing new about slang or sex in western pop culture; both have been cash crops since before the Beatles told girls “twist and shout,” because “you really got me going now.”

But the speed that ideas are digitally immortalized is unprecedented, challenging the importance of scholarly standards.

“Language is changing and (dictionaries) are trying to keep up,” says Patricia Friedrich, historical linguistics associate professor. “There’s a stage when use is so widespread it justifies being included.”

Friedrich, a native of Brazil, speaks four languages.

“Whenever languages come together things get messy and interesting,” she says. “Technology is making it a lot faster.”

Though she says languages need structure and regulation, a word exists to fulfill a purpose.

Useful or not, “twerk” will be digitally shelved alongside pop-culture favorites like: “ain’t", “refudiate” and “irregardless.”

Scholars at the Oxford English Dictionary preserve thousand-year-old texts to translate meaning from their roots.

They have yet to acknowledge the recent hybrid of “twist” and “work.”

 

“Wut up mang’?”

Global sciences junior Cristina Garcia and her friends burst into laughter when asked about “twerk.”

“We were just talking about it,” Garcia says with a wide grin. “One of our classmates was on the computer and said ‘this is a no-twerking-zone’ and we all just laughed.”

The group decided collectively that ‘twerking’ means to “shake one’s butt vigorously to a beat.”

“Twerk is slang,” Alyssa Timms says.

A political science junior and Army ROTC cadet, Timms says there is a difference between pop slang and industry jargon.

“Jargon in the military is more about efficiency,” she says. “It’s not made to look pretty or cool, it’s made to get things done.”

Timms' distinguishing of the two was not unique.

“Slang is a kind of linguistic dressing up,” says Elly Van Gelderen, Regents' professor of English. “From a linguistic point of view there’s nothing wrong with that.”

Van Gelderen researches how words change cognitively over time.

Though slang is more commonly associated with social groups, technical jargon can be equally subjective. Both can start with esoteric, or with exclusive intent, only to become widespread in general society.

“Words don’t just change in a vacuum,” Van Gelderen says. “When a word becomes useless it is dropped.”

She said social pressures cause meanings to expand and contract.

“It’s always good to be aware of the changes,” Van Gelderen says. “Otherwise you may misunderstand the insight.”

To “discriminate,” for example, literally means “to distinguish.”

The cognitive process is essential to human knowledge, though its modern association with illegal prejudice makes it difficult to use in common tongue.

“Society says double negatives are awful,” Van Gelderen says. “When from a linguistic view, it makes perfect sense.”

She explained the contraction “can’t” is an example of a weak negative because it’s easy to mistakenly hear “can.”

The key for a linguistic change is a social movement in one direction, Friedrich says.

“I think the vital question is, is its use stable?” Friedrich says. “We all know words that burned down quickly, so much so we associate them with a particular time (think groovy).”

She also points to new, global concepts for “sustainability” and “green” which have been added in the last few decades.

“Who uses the word really matters,” she says. “Some people feel (African-American) is a good term because it’s without negative connotation, while there is disagreement within that community that the word signals they are less of an American.”

 

“Word, yo’!”

70 Sun Devils were approached at random in the Memorial Union Aug. 29 to participate in a snapshot survey.

They were asked to select which of three meanings they most closely associated with six commonly used words. All of the official definitions of the words were from the Oxford English Dictionary.

To prevent bias, students were assured there were “no wrong answers,” and shouldn’t worry about “official” definitions.

“These are some tough choices bro,” says Simon Patterson, a mechanical engineering junior.

He asked if the word "gay" was on the survey before he was handed the sheet.

It was, accompanied by the choices: “cheerful,” “foolish,” or “homosexual,” each historically widespread usage according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

“Gay just always sticks out,” Patterson says. “Maybe it’s just my generation but they really tried to enforce in grade school not to use that.”

He said he most commonly means “foolish” when he says it.

He was in the minority.

Just short of 75 percent surveyed associate "gay" with sexual orientation, though its original usages were moods characterized by “showiness,” and “cheerfulness” according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

A reference to a king’s nobles signified the first use of "gay" for identity.

The SPM survey implied Millennials may not understand some traditional connotations of the words they use.

Nearly all (94 percent) associated "nice" with “pleasant” whereas it was originally a polite adjective for someone who is “simple” or “stupid.”

Students were ambivalent over the word "manipulate," only nine chose its original use, “to re-shape.”

The rest were almost evenly split between “to control” and “ deceive,” the latter denoting ill will.

“I think people put way too much thought into words most times,” says Jacob Cook, a secondary education junior with a minor in biology. “Words don’t necessarily mean what they mean in the dictionary, they mean the intent behind it.”

His friend, anthropology senior Lexus Demetres didn’t like the available choices for "awkward,"; “reverse,” “clumsy” or “embarrassing.”

Twice as many students selected “embarrassment” although "awkward’s" earliest recorded use was more akin to the act of moving backward.

Demetres says connotation is part of the word’s definition when used.

“I’m trying to think of a better word but I can’t,” she says. “Depending on what context you use, the meaning could change.”

In the case of "ironic," which has remained relatively unchanged over time, two of the three choices provided in the survey were actually commonly misused fillers.

Three-quarters chose “coincidence,” - defined as two unrelated events with similarities occurring at the same time – which is not irony.

An ironic situation is almost perfectly opposite of what one would expect given circumstance.

Less than 20 percent chose “opposite.”

Likewise, a vast majority (89 percent) indicated "respect" is most closely related to “honor.”

Literally translated, (“Respectus: ‘to look back”), respect more traditionally suggested re-consideration of a person’s position and behavior.

“People think about a word and they think about the action that comes from it,” says Brianna Steele, a psychology freshman. “I guess respect is the act of being agreeable to someone, because they deserve it.”

 

“Hush yo’ mouf’!”

Friedrich says various uses of "awkward" and "gay" don’t bother her because their meanings can be connected.

One could be embarrassed by clumsiness or a socially backward attitude, and homosexuals are often stereotyped as showy and overly cheerful she says.

“If I decided today I was going to call a chair a table and a cat a dog, tomorrow no one would understand each other,” she says. “It’s perfectly acceptable so long as it makes sense.”

She said, however, languages are economic and people shouldn’t use words incorrectly when there are perfectly good ones available.

She criticized reality TV millionaire sisters, the Kardashians for using “literally” in place of “figuratively” on a regular basis.

“Every two words they say, one is ‘literally,” Friedrich says. “You can’t say literally unless something is to-the-letter.”

There is a principle in Latin that allows attorneys to simplify even the most complex arguments of philosophy.

Res ipsa loquitur, in Latin “the thing speaks for itself,” commands something should be defined first by virtue of what it is. (This is why trials focus on "evidence," Latin for “what can be seen.”)

So even though, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," it’s important to remember its thorns will prick fingers.

As for Miley and the Ying Yang Bros, most Sun Devils declined to take a stance on the legitimacy of “twerking.”

Creative writing junior Jeff Kronenfeld says he didn’t like it as a dictionary word but it’s not his place to decide.

“Obviously it was done to try to use controversy to gain some attention,” he says. “Everyone was bashing on Miley, but nobody’s said anything about the dude who was sticking ‘it’ up in there.”

Reach the writer at Brian.Mori@asu.edu

 

---

---

Subscribe to Pressing Matters

Email