Cover not available

Article published In: The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 15:3 (2020) ► pp.508–531

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

3017

Six years in the life of an ill-fated neologism

 | Wayne State University
 | Gonzaga University
Published online: 22 January 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.19014.reg
Abstract
In this study we examined uses of the number 3017 as a neologism by members of an online forum. 3017 has a number of factors working against its success as a neologism, but its use grew dramatically over the course of six years. Statistical analyses showed that the growth data were very well modeled by both a quadratic and a sigmoid curve. The form was used primarily as an adjective and to a lesser extent as a noun over the first 500 days, before verbal forms came to dominate. To understand the structure of the 3017 concept in the mental lexicons of users, we examine attempts to define the term, and disagreements and negotiations about what the term does and does not include. Finally, we include examples of users’ creativity and productivity with the form, including readily-understood jokes.
Article outline
  • Origin of 3017
  • Can 3017 Survive?
  • Data-gathering method
  • Curve fitting
  • Method
  • Results
  • Usage as part of speech
  • Method
  • Results
  • Changes of meaning
  • Goal/benefit: Stock reduction
  • Goal/benefit: Getting to know a soap
  • Disagreements about meaning
  • Productivity/creativity: Humor and expansion beyond soaps
  • General discussion
  • Note
  • References
References (25)
References
3017 Treatment (2014). Retrieved from [URL] on 01/28/2017.
Algeo, J. (Ed.) (1991). Fifty years among the new words: A dictionary of neologisms, 1941–1991. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altmann, E. G., Pierrehumbert, J. B., & Motter, A. E. (2011). Niche as a determinant of word fate in online groups. PLoS ONE, 6(5), 1–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Badger & Blade online forum (2017). Retrieved from [URL] on 07/21/2017.
Chaffin, R., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2001). Learning new word meaning from context: A case study of eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27(1), 225–235.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (1992). Dialect acquisition. Language, 68(4), 673–705. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Vaan, L., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Regular morphologically complex neologisms leave detectable traces in the mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon, 2(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, R. (1998). Lexical change in present-day English: A corpus-based study of the motivation, institutionalization, and productivity of creative neologisms. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2015). How words and vocabularies change. In J. Taylor (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the word (pp. 416–430). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hohenhaus, P. (2006). Bouncebackability: A Web-as-corpus-based study of a new formation, its interpretation, generalization/spread and subsequent decline. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 31, 17–27.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kerremans, D. (2015). A web of new words: A corpus-based study of the conventionalization process of English neologisms. New York: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kjellmer, G. (2000). Potential words. Word, 51(2), 205–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kouzis-Loukas, D. (2016). Learning Scrapy. Birmingham, UK: Packt Publishing Ltd. [URL]
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (2003). Understanding trendy neologisms. Rivista di Linguistica, 15(2), 369–382.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manning, C. D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S. J., & McClosky, D. (2014). The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing Toolkit. In Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations (pp. 55–60). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metcalf, A. (2002). Predicting new words: The secrets of their success. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neuman, Y., Nave, O., & Dolev, E. (2010). Buzzwords on their way to a tipping-point: A view from the blogosphere. Complexity, 16(4), 58–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. (2017). Retrieved from [URL] on 01/27/2017.
Paradowski, M. B., & Jonak, L. (2012). Diffusion of linguistic innovation as social coordination. Psychology of Language and Communication, 16(2), 131–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Python Core Team. (2017). Python: A dynamic, open source progamming language. Python Software Foundation. [URL]
Reali, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2010). Words as alleles: Connecting language evolution with Bayesian learners to models of genetic drift. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 2771, 429–436. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richardson, L. (2017). The BeautifulSoup library for Python. [URL]
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue