Rage-baiting the slop: Why are the words of the year so weird?

Parasocial Vibration Coding Rage Bait – 6-7!

It may seem like a phrase, but this phrase is actually the most important sentence of the year. At least, this is what various English dictionaries in the Western world convince us of; since each is a word of the year (WOTY) sample from a different lexicographical group.

You would be forgiven for seeing a certain pattern here or being dissatisfied with it in some way. From CNN To Fox NewsThis year's slew of words of the year have prompted what has become a familiar reaction: questions about whether these sometimes short-lived, sometimes stupid – or even meaningless – words deserve a vaunted place in the hallowed halls of our official language records.

But given this backlash, why are language experts picking internet fads that could fall out of use within a year? What mysterious process leads to the words of the year that fluctuate from brain dullness (like “Rizz” 2023) politically charged (as in the “uprising” of 2021)?

And considering how pissed off everyone is, why are they even doing it?

“I'm a big fan of this thing, but I obviously really enjoy doing it,” explained Kelly Wright of the American Dialect Society (ADS), a sociolinguist and lexicographer who leads the society's WOTY nomination process.

“It's a lot of fun. It's the most fun I can have. Most of the other things I do aren't fun.”

Part of that pleasure, she says, comes from the selection process—a process that varies widely among different determining bodies and influences which words make the headlines.

Different approaches

Take the Cambridge Dictionary for example. According to senior editor Jessica Randell, their process begins with the tech team compiling a master list of the most popular words this year—tracking both overall growth for the entire year, as well as spikes localized during weeks of high interest.

A group of editors will then select from this list suitable words around which they can “build a story”—in other words, they can be used to reflect the particular interests, issues or themes that have defined the year. In Cambridge's case, these words must already be in their vocabulary before they are considered.

“When we choose a word for the dictionary, we look to see if we count it [going] If we see a word and it comes out in about a year, and the next year people don't use it, it won't make it into the dictionary at all.”

This year, that led to “parasocial”: a word with roots in the 1950s and the early era of television. They chose it as this year's definition because its definition and prominence have changed significantly in the Internet era.

Collins Dictionary takes a different approach. Samantha Eardley, a member of the Collins Dictionary team, says they base their shortlist on the Collins Corpus, an analytical database of more than 20 billion words, updated monthly with new words and meanings.

They, like most decision-makers, only need two words to denote a winner, since many new English concepts are named by combining two existing words—despite the ire that purists sometimes provoke. But, as with Cambridge, if they think a word is a passing fad, they tend not to choose it as their WOTY – explaining why they chose the “entirely new word” of vibration coding, while choosing to veto the almost certainly ephemeral 6-7.

“We also chose it because it was part of a larger conversation about AI,” she said. “Which, although it's obviously been around for a number of years, seems to have really raised sort of a new level of anxiety in people's minds and certainly spread it.”

Then there's something like Dictionary.com: While they take context into account, Wright says, they rely heavily on website searches. While this may reflect public debate about how and whether certain words should be defined (such as the 2022 winner “woman”), it could result in winners that some argue are not real words at all.

“This shows us something different than some of the others, like, 'These words have held their power long enough to get an official definition in our dictionary,'” she said. “Because of this, they look at the word of the year, but it’s the word of the year from a different perspective—from a lexicographer’s perspective.”

Dictionary.com's WOTY is firmly rooted in the “descriptivist” interpretation of language. While prescriptivists adhere to the idea that dictionaries and lexicologists define the rules of language, which speakers then follow, descriptivists firmly believe that language is determined by how people use it.

Ben Zimmer, a research fellow at ADS, says descriptivism at the institution dates back to when ADS's Allan Metcalfe launched the first WOTY search in 1990, modeling it after Time magazine's Person of the Year. And as dissatisfied readers rediscover year after year that the title once belonged to Adolf Hitler, a tradition the magazine constantly recalls specifically “not an honor.”

Like the person of the year, Zimmer said, the word of the year indicates what most influenced the year—for good or evil.

“We're not necessarily looking for something that we're saying, 'Yeah, we approve of that,'” he said. “This is not a vote for best picture at the Oscars.”

Open competition for ADS WOTY

For its part, ADS draws up its shortlist from the public through this linkopen until midnight on New Year's Eve. Zimmer said both the link and the Jan. 9 forum in New Orleans where the final winner will be chosen are completely open to the public — and to Canadians.

Whichever word wins, Wright said, she prepares for the four responses she receives each year: that the word should be a clear political statement, that the word should be devoid of political commentary, criticism that the word has nothing to do with the respondent, or appreciation for the choice of word that reflects the respondent's background.

The set of winners has already stimulated conversations, she says: observations about how many of them are tied to AI, our fragmented sense of connection, and a general question mark about where we're going.

This is despite the fact that it's virtually impossible to tell whether any of them will stick around: while their first winner, “scrubs”, has more or less disappeared from popular discourse, its enduring WOTY status helps provide insight into what people were thinking, wondering and arguing about that year.

This may be the case for First WOTY in Canada: This year's “maple wash”—referring to the deceptive practice of making foods look more Canadian—which somehow trumps “elbows up” just a little.

But regardless of your opinion about whether any of this year's winners are truly “word of the year,” the reflection and introspection they inspired on the changing nature of language was always the point.

“We spend a lot of time learning the language, like an entomologist would when you pin a beetle to a board,” she said. “It doesn't work like that. It's completely in motion all the time… Like, the diagram of the heart is one thing, but the living, beating heart inside each of us is another. It's worth observing in motion.”