Oxford Dictionaries recently announced their decision for the 2015 “Word of the Year.” But, to the surprise of many, it’s not quite a word; at least, not as most people understand the meaning of “word.” Instead, they chose a pictograph, specifically the pictograph pictured below. It’s the “Face with Tears of Joy” emoji that seems to be present in every other text, tweet, and vine.
Oxford Dictionaries’ logic? It “was chosen because it was the most used emoji globally in 2015. SwiftKey identified that the “Tears of Joy” emoji made up 20 percent of all the emojis used in the UK in 2015, and 17 percent of those in the U.S.: a sharp rise from 4 percent and 9 percent respectively in 2014.” You can go to the Oxford Dictionaries website to see a graph of emoji usage over time.
Reactions have been mixed. The top comment on Oxford Dictionaries’ website asked: “Does this mark the final nail in the coffin of Oxford Dictionaries? Attention seeking silliness, or do they really mean it? (Perhaps I’m too optimistic in plumping for the former—but either way, it’ll be hard for anyone to take them seriously from now on.)”
“Do we need any greater measure of the demise of the printed word?,” asked John Diaz of the San Francisco chronicle. “The issue I have with emojis is that, like Hallmark Cards, they are a substitute for original expression. Instead of taking the few moments it would require to explain your appreciation, sympathy or disdain for what he or she just communicated, you grab an off-the-shelf response. It’s lazy, it’s glib, it’s vacuous.”
Emojis seem to demonstrate an affront to purists who are committed to the idea that only words constituted by letters can be real language. They affirm that the choice of “Face with Tears of Joy” delegitimizes Oxford Dictionaries because it validates what they perceive to be the substitution of real language for a lazier style.
Others have defended the choice. Jonathan Sturgeon, writing for the website Flavorwire, describes what he believes to be one of the roots of the complaints. “The problem here is one of quality control: with the [Oxford Dictionary], in 2015, there isn’t any,” said Sturgeon. “And the reason there is no quality control is that the [Oxford Dictionary] is not designed for it; it is (by definition!) a descriptivist organization: it is merely supposed to describe or list all of the new words people are using.”
The critics mentioned above, along with many others, seem to believe the dictionary is responsible not for presenting the most common, influential words, but for coming up with a criteria to somehow define the “best” word.
But perhaps the strongest defense of the decision is provided by Oxford Dictionaries itself. In the section “‘A Brief History of Emoji,’” the website states. “Emojis are no longer the preserve of texting teens—instead, they have been embraced as a nuanced form of expression, and one which can cross language barriers.”
“Face with Tears of Joy,” because of its popularity, has achieved universality. People on different continents, speaking different languages, with different levels of literacy, can understand this symbol and use it to communicate their ideas. Isn’t that the purpose of language?
Here are some of the other finalists for word of the year:
Ad blocker: a piece of software designed to prevent advertisements from appearing on a web page
Brexit: a term for the potential or hypothetical departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union (from British + exit)
Dark Web: the part of the World Wide Web that is only accessible by means of special software, allowing users and website operators to remain anonymous or untraceable.
On fleek: extremely good, attractive, or stylish.
Lumbersexual: a young urban man who cultivates an appearance and style of dress (typified by a beard and check shirt) suggestive of a rugged outdoor lifestyle
Refugee: a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
Sharing economy: an economic system in which assets or services are shared between private individuals, either for free or for a fee, typically by means of the Internet.
They: used to refer to a person of unspecified sex.
Abe Lahr
Latest posts by Abe Lahr (see all)
- Spring Cleaning: New Businesses Opening Downtown – Mar 6, 2016
- Jeff Verhey Makes CC Livable – Feb 20, 2016
- Meet the Men Behind Your Sushi – Feb 5, 2016