Scrabble and Neologisms

                Over the last five years in particular, the younger generation alongside those in positions of literary and publishing clout have been at odds when faced with words that the latter would argue are strange, trendy and aesthetically dubious.  Some examples include the more common “selfie” as well as “lolz” or even “thang” among many other neologisms which plugged-in millennials herald and utilize which leads to influencing the work of lexicographers.  One particular forum where all generations can join in on the controversy that many of these new terms stir up can occur at the dining room table with your grandparents or youngest cousins during a rousing game of that old linguistic standby: Scrabble. 

Various journalists, critics and writers have reflected on the meaning behind the yearly events when Hasbro Inc., through the North American Scrabble Players Association, choose to allow anywhere from one to ten thousand new words into the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary.  Sarah Churchwell’s work in the Guardian considers how to react when the Scrabble Dictionary in 2011 admitted words including “innit” and “grrl”.  This event led Churchwell to assert that in the scope of lexicographical history, embracing simplified, mispronounced slang terms has been a consistent pattern.  In her article she states that these contemporary allowances within the game of Scrabble recalls the ironic nature of Daniel Webster establishing the first American dictionary which led to the English traditionalist in Great Britain defending the French spellings in words which Webster was proactively modifying.  The outrage many have shown within the changes of language in a board game may be relatively inconsequential in comparison to Webster's contribution.  However, the reflection of the same patterns of addition and alternation that have occurred since Samuel Johnson’s efforts to create his dictionary in the 18^th century still resonate today in the intricate inner workings of a tepid word based toy.

In relation to the scope of Scrabble history and its particular decisions on language usage, the writing of Stefan Fatsis goes further into the origins of the Scrabble Dictionary in 1978 as well as recent efforts by Scrabble to allow fans to vote for a single addition in 2014 for the first time in the game’s history.  Fatsis also makes a distinct point about this event noting that each new wave of accepted words is traditionally presided over by hundreds of committee members for thousands of hours utilizing Merriam-Webster’s dictionary primarily before allowing new playable words into the game since the goal is to choose enduring and enduring language additions.  One of the most crucial points that comes from Fatsis’s recognition about Scrabble’s crowd sourced voting on language, as well as the idea of validating neologisms in English at large, is the question of shaking the “integrity” of those words we acknowledge in our dictionaries. 

Another more recent perspective on linguistics within the game of Scrabble comes from Sam Eifling.  He sees the dual value in Scrabble’s acceptance of new terminology as well as its stricture of rules against punning, hyphenation and other aspects that counteract what some argue is a boundless fluidity of language especially on the internet.  Much like Fatsis, he also realizes how Scrabble is not in the least bit static especially when in 2014 the North American Scrabble Players Association added 9,000 small and large new words which a Canadian Scrabble champion called “the amino acids of Scrabble”.  This debate on allowing words like “twerk” or even the 2014 winner “Geocache” into society’s classic family game night option adds another dimension to our contemporary and historical grappling with generational language, neologisms and how we face the changing currents of linguistic usage.  

Illustration By Kelsey Dake, Courtesy of fivethirtyeight.com