“ ‘Anonymize’ is not a word.”
That’s what a copy editor told me recently as she worked on an article I submitted to her. And she was right; it’s not in the dictionary. But after we discussed the issue, the word did appear in the article.
This incident provides a clear example of a problem editors encounter every day. Although it didn’t appear in any dictionary we consulted, “anonymize” was the perfect word for the context. It’s a common concept in IT work (the magazine we were working on is for technology professionals), the word expressed the concept precisely and succinctly, and it’s a word that the magazine’s readers would recognize immediately.
The problem is that our language is changing faster than older conventions like dictionaries can keep up with. As technological advances and cultural changes continue to speed up, Merriam-Webster and the OED have a hard time providing the guidance we’ve come to rely on.
For centuries, reference materials such as dictionaries have helped to set the ground rules for using language. In a world where careless, clueless or sloppy writers are constantly bending or breaking these rules, these reference materials are indispensible tools, and caretakers such as the copy editor I mentioned are worth their weight in gold.
But as the evolution of language keeps picking up speed, we must be able to adjust.
Concepts that we deal with every day may not have existed a few years ago, and dictionaries that are published once a year can’t keep up with the new words that inject themselves into common usage every day.
So how do we deal with the breakneck pace of linguistic evolution?
Ultimately, written language is an agreement among people that groups of letters and other symbols represent ideas. We must agree on how our writing will present these ideas.
In the past, a dictionary was like the contract that bound a language’s users to that agreement, but when that contract can’t keep up with the need to communicate new concepts, we have to come to a new agreement.
This agreement starts with the editors who work on a given publication. My copy editor is a true professional, with a keen eye for detail and a great ear for language. Her opinion carries a lot of weight. If we can agree on what works best for communicating with our readers, we know we’re far along in our efforts to solve these problems.
Next, we must be fair to our readers.If we think they’ll agree with us that a given word will be universally understood, even if it’s not in the dictionary, we can use it. But we must remain consistent in our use of that word.
Adapting to the changing language is smart, but continually changing the rules on our readers only confuses and frustrates them. And no one wants to treat our readers like that.
They’re our readers. We LOVE them.
An in-house style manual is a great tool for establishing the flexibility that the evolving language needs while providing the consistency that readers demand. An editorial staff can schedule regular or ad hoc style meetings to deal with the frequent changes in vocabulary and usage. Putting the manual online provides even greater flexibility and usability.
In the end, we should be able to keep up with the increasing speed of linguistic evolution without leaving our audience behind.
