McJobs and the Dictionary Wars

McDonald's is asking the Oxford University Press to remove their listing for McJob from the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED defines the noun as “an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector.” The word first cropped up in the August 24, 1986 edition of The Washington Post, according to the dictionary. The heading for an op-ed piece read: “The fast-food factories: McJobs are bad for kids.”

But executives at McDonald's say the definition is demeaning to its workers, and they want dictionary editors to amend the definition. In 2003, editors at the Merriam-Webster dictionary declined to remove or change their definition of McJob (“a low-paying job that requires little skill and little opportunity for advancement”) after McDonald's balked at its inclusion in the book's 11th edition. Merriam-Webster defended it position, saying the word was accurate and appropriate.

The OED also lists an entry for “Mc-” as a combined form element. The term is defined as colloquial, used mainly in the U.S., and

“somewhat depreciative. a. Prefixed chiefly to nouns to form nouns with the sense 'something that is of mass appeal, a standardized or bland variety of, or alternative to _______'. Cf. also MCJOB n.”

McMansions (large, cookie-cutter houses inappropriate for their lot size) and McProfits (the profits of big businesses associated with exploitation and environmentally dubious practices) are two examples. The dictionaries describe the usage of the “Mc-” prefix more or less accurately, but McDonald's see their action as not purely descriptive but also evaluative. In that, they are not completely unjustified. Despite its negative semantic prosody, I expect McJob to remain in the OED. After all, the dictionaries didn't coin the word; they are merely reporting on a word in common usage and providing a definition based on what is clearly intended by the speakers/writers who use it.

wh nds vwls?

New technologies have had a major influence on the way we communicate and use language today: punctuation and capital letters are being dropped in favor of emoticons, letter-number homophones, and acronyms. But are email, instant messaging, and mobile text messaging degrading the language? This question surfaces in debates among language professionals and writers.

Last November, both New Zealand and Scotland's Qualifications Authority, the curriculum/testing agency certifying high school graduation, announced that students will be able to use “text speak” (cellphone and chat shorthand) in their exam essays. Their position is that although text-speak is less desirable than the Queen's English, it is acceptable if the meaning of the student's exam response is thoughtful and articulate.

As much as I love technology and mobile culture, I'm afraid this sends the wrong message. We need to teach students effective techno-personal skills. That means using the appropriate language for the context. Using “txt spk” on Internet forums, blogs, IM services, and chat rooms encourages freedom and fluidity of expression. In this context, it becomes a form of art, much like code poetry. On the other hand, using it in a formal essay or on a job application gives a poor impression of the writer. The banner at the top is making the rounds in the blogosphere as part of a “Save the Vowels” movement.